"One big reason that mathematics is much more like language than programming, is that doing mathematics involves resolving ambiguities. In programming you have a compiler/interpreter that just dictates how an ambiguity resolves. But in mathematics, as in real language, you have to resolve them yourself based on context."
Along this line, I recently noticed how similar legal contracts to programming. One partner contract I had to read over looked very much like a huge if/elseif statement, and the definitions section looked a lot like setting up variables.
After reading this article it seems the similarities between legaleze and math proofs are pretty strong as well. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to process legal documents or laws with mathematical formulas to try finding loopholes.
Loopholes is when you find something unforeseen by the law. I vaguely remember the opposite problem - having different laws stating different things about the same situation.
This might be a problem by laws. As for math, there is inconsistency robustness topic of research.
Along this line, I recently noticed how similar legal contracts to programming. One partner contract I had to read over looked very much like a huge if/elseif statement, and the definitions section looked a lot like setting up variables.
After reading this article it seems the similarities between legaleze and math proofs are pretty strong as well. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to process legal documents or laws with mathematical formulas to try finding loopholes.