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