formalism

Part of the problem is that data science doesn't have nearly the same formalism in its definition that statistics does.

A couple observations: * You can design around needing a random IV by manipulating keys and message contents; as you note, the IV is a formalism.

Excitations of this field look suspiciously similar to a particle, as in they are produced by the same mathematical formalism.

Areas of active research do tend to appeal to intuition, at least to a degree, until the formalism can be completed.

Juxtapose formalism, which seems to say that math is solely the practice of inventing rules and following them to the end.

The triple formalism (T, mu, eta) already assumes T to be a functor, but I didn't state that explicitly!

How can consciousness be cast in a mathematical formalism without losing something essential?

Haskell's notion of purity and side effects lives not on the physical machine, but in a formalism, and ghc is its imperfect simulator.

I think it is much easier to understand with the two-arrow formalism presented later in the article.

It seems likely to me that the superposition in the formalism actually just represents our ignorance of the system's state, not the state itself.

I'm betting that the Copenhagen interpretation of the Quantum mechanics formalism is false.

As for many scientists who create a formalism, he is also evangelising it as a useful tool for others to work with in looking at chemical computation in the abstract.

How would you make sure that your formalism is only used in areas where “objective truth” can be established?

Is "math" some formalism that is ideally totally divorced from hardware?

- "Practical" pure math appears to be based on formalism rather than intuitionism.

Historically that formalism has often come from other hands than the original researchers and often either in the process of "monster barring" or as the final touch after several iterations of it.