←2004-05-31 2004-06-01 2004-06-02→ ↑2004 ↑all
00:03:16 <kosmikus> well, sk combinators are a way of "encoding" closed untyped lambda calculus expressions
00:03:44 <kosmikus> i.e. every closed expression in lambda calculus can be defined in terms of sk combinators
00:03:57 <kosmikus> and you can compute the sk combinator expressions from the lc expression
00:04:22 <kosmikus> in untyped lc, you can encode booleans
00:05:10 <kosmikus> true == \t . \f . t
00:05:18 <kosmikus> false == \t . \f . f
00:05:45 <kosmikus> both are closed expressions, and can thus be translated into an sk combinator representation
00:06:05 <kosmikus> similarly, functions like and, or, xor, ... can be translated
00:19:14 <kosmikus> in fact, possible translations are true == K and false == K I
00:22:48 <lament> kosmikus: and what is the application?
00:25:48 <kosmikus> I'm not sure I understand the question. The application is that you can write functions on booleans.
00:27:00 <lament> um
00:27:04 <lament> if true is K
00:27:07 <lament> and false is K I
00:27:13 <lament> then what is K (K I) ?
00:32:05 <kosmikus> well, it cannot be reduced, because K takes two arguments
00:32:30 <kosmikus> furthermore, it does "not make sense", because you're trying to apply true to false
00:32:36 <lament> yes
00:32:48 <kosmikus> the whole system is untyped, though, and does not prevent you from doing things that do not make sense
00:33:58 <lament> what _i_ was talking about
00:34:23 <lament> is a way to map any combinator expression to T or F
00:34:41 <lament> (a way which would make at least some amount of sense)
00:35:11 <kosmikus> why do you want to do that?
00:35:40 <lament> So i can put XOR together with S, K, I :)
00:37:41 <kosmikus> if you want to view it like that, you can choose any mapping from combinator expressions to T or F that you like
00:38:19 <kosmikus> but I'm afraid that this has nothing to do with the encodings of true and false, then
00:41:38 -!- kosmikus has changed nick to kosmikus|away.
04:02:43 -!- clog has joined.
04:02:43 -!- clog has joined.
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
10:13:12 -!- clog has joined.
10:13:12 -!- clog has joined.
14:52:53 -!- Keymaker has joined.
14:53:07 <Keymaker> yo
16:03:08 <Keymaker> mh, need to go
16:03:11 -!- Keymaker has quit.
17:03:50 -!- calamari_ has joined.
17:04:09 <calamari_> hi
17:50:26 -!- Keymaker has joined.
17:50:41 <Keymaker> hay
17:51:33 <lament> hi
17:51:37 <Keymaker> hi lament
17:51:44 <Keymaker> how's going?
17:51:57 <lament> slowly, painfully
17:52:00 <lament> and in the wrong direction
17:52:06 <Keymaker> :(
18:02:03 -!- kosmikus has changed nick to kosmikus|away.
19:00:54 -!- Keymaker|sauna has joined.
19:00:55 -!- Keymaker has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
19:01:25 -!- Keymaker|sauna has changed nick to Keymaker.
19:12:46 <Keymaker> Do you listen any (music)?
19:16:37 <lament> not right now.
19:18:10 <Keymaker> ok
19:18:20 <Keymaker> what kind of, when listening?
19:19:58 -!- calamari_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
19:20:17 <lament> Bach
19:20:54 <Keymaker> ah i see
19:21:17 <Keymaker> i'm not very familiar with his works but some what i've heard has been quite good
19:22:56 <lament> 'quite good' is a serious understatement wrt Bach :)
19:23:25 <Keymaker> hee
19:23:32 <Keymaker> i meant 'heh' :)
19:26:59 <lament> Aside from being the ultimate music, it also happens to be the ultimate geek music
19:27:28 <Keymaker> i didn't know that, well, usefull tip :)
19:27:56 <lament> The reason for that is that it's so mind-bogglingly hugely complex.
19:28:17 <lament> I mean structurally.
19:28:27 <lament> Not emotionally or something wishy-washy like that.
19:28:47 <Keymaker> i see
19:29:01 <Keymaker> well, that classic music often is -- complex
19:29:58 <lament> Bach is by far more complex than most other classical music.
19:30:02 <lament> Well
19:30:09 <lament> not really by far
19:30:37 <Keymaker> :)
19:30:55 <Keymaker> i like (almost) allkinds of electronic music
19:30:59 <lament> reasonably modern symphonic music is very complex as well
19:31:37 <Keymaker> yeah
19:32:39 <lament> but, arguably, this complexity is less significant in the overall design.
19:32:48 <lament> i.e. it's there but you aren't really supposed to pay attention to it.
19:33:10 <Keymaker> i see
19:33:37 <Keymaker> closer listening reveals it :)
19:34:44 <lament> yes, but there's not much meaning to it.
19:34:53 <Keymaker> ok
19:35:27 <lament> at least that's what it seems like.
19:35:32 <lament> i'm probably wrong, too.
19:36:24 <Keymaker> :) well, music can be hard to [some word i can remember here]
19:36:45 <Keymaker> rrg, i meant [some word i can't remem....]
19:42:36 <lament> ... :)
19:43:21 <lament> anyway, the structural complexity in most music (where it's present at all) is secondary.
19:44:02 <Keymaker> then, what is 'firstary'? :)
19:45:58 <lament> Other kinds of structural complexity :)
19:46:28 <Keymaker> hah
19:46:33 <Keymaker> :)
19:47:45 <lament> in bach, the complexity is polyphonic.
19:49:01 <Keymaker> hmmm
19:49:13 <lament> in most symphonic music the complexity is either development-related ("serial" as opposed to "parallel" in bach)
19:50:07 <lament> or related to the instruments and the arrangement.
19:50:25 <lament> (and quality of the sound produced)
19:50:30 <Keymaker> ah
19:50:57 <lament> in modern music, probably including electronic music, the emphasis is shifted very strongly towards the quality of the sound
19:51:15 <lament> some modern classical pieces have nothing else :)
19:51:54 <Keymaker> i see :)
19:52:23 <lament> anyway. of all these kind of complexity, polyphonic complexity is the most geeky :)
19:52:39 <Keymaker> i guessed that :)
19:52:50 <Keymaker> well, it might be good for me to listen some bach some day
19:53:39 <lament> (because it's just so hard to understand and because it's fairly mathematical in nature)
19:54:03 <Keymaker> ok
19:56:29 <lament> neal stephenson wrote a bit about that in cryptonomicon
19:56:51 <Keymaker> hmm
19:57:06 <Keymaker> haven't heard of them :(
19:57:18 <Keymaker> i mean i don't know about neal or cryptonomicon
19:57:30 <Keymaker> some site?
19:57:44 <lament> you have the excuse of being finnish.
19:57:53 <Keymaker> hm?
19:58:15 <Keymaker> oh :)
20:45:48 -!- Keymaker[-] has joined.
21:03:32 -!- Keymaker has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
21:22:54 <Keymaker[-]> hmmm
21:23:05 <Keymaker[-]> seems that it's goodbye for this nite
21:23:12 -!- Keymaker[-] has quit.
23:01:43 -!- calamari_ has joined.
23:01:49 <calamari_> re's
23:03:17 <calamari_> the way to handle these unary operators is really stumping me
23:04:34 <calamari_> well, they are handled.. it just doesn't match c very well :)
←2004-05-31 2004-06-01 2004-06-02→ ↑2004 ↑all