referential

Not too many references on the web either, except for a hint that it might mean 'ugly, undefinable color' (so, not referential).

Finally, wrt to referential transparency: this ultimately comes down to statements about what it means to have names and binding in your language.

Now that you know how the machinery works it's pretty simple and gets you composability and referential transparency.

But there are classes of bugs ruled out absolutely by things like immutable structures and referential transparency.

Without referential equality things like mutation fail to have any sense, but programs are in general simpler.

The wiring up, as described in Haskell, supports referential transparency and composition as only pure code can.

Yeah, it would be interesting to learn about pure functions and referential transparency before basic algebra.

But like tptacek said, you probably need to read Levine regularly to unpack his argument there; it was extremely self-referential.

(By self-referential I mean one who understands oneself absolutely; one who possess a perfectly accurate map of oneself.

It's not at all obvious that you can express self-referential statements about provability within arithmetic, but Gödel showed how to do it.

Don't blame purely functional programming and referential transparency, which are unquestionably good ideas, for the downsides of laziness, which is indeed a bad default.

And would it be the same for two completely self-referential being?

On the other hand, most people are used to "referential equality" which is more strict.

It basically works the same way the "self-referential" fib does, doesn't it?

And, of course, there is the big question of "wherefore referential transparency".

So when My friends and I talked incoherently while bing drinking, year after year of college, we wallowed in "infinite, recursively self-referential filth."?