00:01:22 -!- SevenInchBread has joined.
00:08:28 -!- kxspxr has joined.
00:17:12 -!- sp3tt has quit (Connection timed out).
00:27:51 -!- SevenInchBread has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
00:28:25 -!- SevenInchBread has joined.
00:29:13 -!- _D6Gregor1RFeZi has changed nick to GregorR.
00:50:40 -!- ihope has joined.
00:56:36 -!- kxspxr has quit.
02:25:27 -!- ihope_ has joined.
02:29:45 -!- goban has joined.
02:29:47 <ihope_> #ps
02:29:53 <ihope_> ~ps
02:29:53 <bsmnt_bot> None
02:29:57 <ihope_> Really?
02:29:58 <bsmntbombdood> ihope
02:30:03 <ihope_> Suspicious.
02:30:10 <bsmntbombdood> ?
02:30:12 <ihope_> bsmntbombdood: yes?
02:30:13 <bsmntbombdood> you restarted it
02:30:22 <ihope_> When?
02:30:29 <Sgeo> #exec dir(self)
02:30:44 <ihope_> ~ is the command character here, guys :-P
02:30:51 <bsmntbombdood> er
02:31:03 <bsmntbombdood> kill everthing
02:31:11 <Sgeo> #exec self.raw("MSG #esoteric "+str(dir(self)))
02:31:22 <ihope_> PRIVMSG, not MSG.
02:31:29 <bsmntbombdood> ~exec sys.stdout(dir(self))
02:31:30 <bsmnt_bot> ['COMMAND_CHAR', 'THREADING', '__doc__', '__init__', '__module__', 'chan', 'commands_running', 'commands_running_lock', 'connect', 'connected', 'disconnect', 'do_callbacks', 'do_ctcp', 'do_exec', 'do_kill', 'do_ps', 'do_quit', 'do_raw', 'errorchan', 'exec_execer', 'get_message', 'host', 'ident', 'ihope', 'listen', 'load_callbacks', 'message_re', 'nick', 'owner', 'pong', 'p
02:31:30 <bsmnt_bot> ort', 'print_callbacks', 'raw', 'raw_regex_queue', 'readbuffer', 'realname', 'register_raw', 'save_callbacks', 'socket', 'sockfile', 'verbose']
02:31:35 <ihope_> Or that.
02:31:43 <Sgeo> #exec self.raw("PRIVMSG #esoteric "+str(dir(self)))
02:31:54 <oerjan> sheesh
02:32:06 <ihope_> ~exec self.raw("PRIVMSG #esoteric :"+str(dir(self)))
02:32:06 <oerjan> it won't work anyhow, you are missing a colon.
02:32:07 <bsmnt_bot> ['COMMAND_CHAR', 'THREADING', '__doc__', '__init__', '__module__', 'chan', 'commands_running', 'commands_running_lock', 'connect', 'connected', 'disconnect', 'do_callbacks', 'do_ctcp', 'do_exec', 'do_kill', 'do_ps', 'do_quit', 'do_raw', 'errorchan', 'exec_execer', 'get_message', 'host', 'ident', 'ihope', 'listen', 'load_callbacks', 'message_re', 'nick', 'owner', 'pong', 'port', 'print_callbacks', 'raw', 'raw_regex_queue', 'readbuffer', 'realname', 'regi
02:32:32 <Sgeo> #exec self.raw("PRIVMSG #esoteric ""+str(dir(self)))
02:32:35 <Sgeo> #exec self.raw("PRIVMSG #esoteric :"+str(dir(self)))
02:32:39 <bsmntbombdood> um...
02:32:52 <oerjan> anyone else thinks sgeo is a bit dense today?
02:33:02 <ihope_> Sgeo: ~exec, not #exec
02:33:19 <Sgeo> Is it the same code on bsmnt_bot and ihope? erm
02:33:25 * oerjan says this, having misspelled stdout as output for n-1 of the last n attempts
02:33:35 <bsmntbombdood> Sgeo: what?
02:33:40 <bsmntbombdood> ~ps
02:33:41 <bsmnt_bot> None
02:33:47 <Sgeo> <bd_> #exec self.raw("QUIT :")
02:33:47 <Sgeo> * DogKing has quit (Active Quit:  )
02:33:52 <ihope_> Sgeo: mine was running with # as the command character.
02:33:54 <oerjan> ihope is not a bot. I hope this clears things up.
02:34:17 <ihope_> I started it with an ~exec on this one.
02:34:18 * bsmntbombdood growls at ihope_ 
02:34:24 <ihope_> bsmntbombdood: yes?
02:34:37 <bsmntbombdood> just felt like growling
02:34:40 <ihope_> Oh.
02:36:04 * bsmntbombdood giggles at ihope_ 
02:36:06 <oerjan> hm...
02:36:48 <oerjan> a Zoo language, unifying OOK, MOO and various other beastly endeavours.
02:40:09 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit.
02:40:28 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
02:42:04 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit (Client Quit).
02:42:23 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
02:43:14 -!- ihope has quit (Success).
02:44:02 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit (Client Quit).
02:44:18 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
02:49:30 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit.
02:49:46 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
02:59:43 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit (Excess Flood).
03:00:01 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
03:01:13 -!- ihope_ has changed nick to foobar.
03:01:42 -!- foobar has changed nick to ihope.
03:05:11 * oerjan again advertises nickserv's ghost command
03:05:40 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit (Remote closed the connection).
03:05:48 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
03:05:57 -!- ShadowHntr has joined.
03:12:33 -!- Sgeo has quit (zelazny.freenode.net irc.freenode.net).
03:12:33 -!- puzzlet has quit (zelazny.freenode.net irc.freenode.net).
03:12:57 -!- puzzlet has joined.
03:14:15 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit.
03:14:20 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
03:40:49 -!- crathman has joined.
03:41:50 <bsmntbombdood> fun, we can blow up any combinatory logic program to any size
03:41:55 <bsmntbombdood> replace I with SKI
03:42:03 <bsmntbombdood> K with S(KK)I
03:42:34 <oerjan> S with S(KS)I
03:42:37 -!- Sgeo has joined.
03:44:21 <bsmntbombdood> repeat ad nauseuj
03:44:22 <bsmntbombdood> m
03:44:30 <oerjan> *am
03:45:21 <bsmntbombdood> right
03:45:25 * oerjan draws his roman soldier sword
03:46:04 <oerjan> That is a noun of the FIRST declension, so it's accusative ends in... ?
03:46:12 <oerjan> *its
03:46:14 <bsmntbombdood> huh?
03:46:34 <oerjan> You haven't seen Life of Brian?
03:46:51 <bsmntbombdood> no
03:47:09 <oerjan> (Strictly speaking, neither have I, somehow I always miss the middle)
03:48:21 <bsmntbombdood> S(KI)I
03:48:30 <oerjan> There's this hilarious part where John Cleese's Roman character scolds Brian for writing Romans Go Home grafitti
03:48:56 <oerjan> But not because of what it says, but because he butchers the Latin grammar
03:51:56 -!- digital_me has quit (Remote closed the connection).
03:54:21 -!- bsmnt_bot has quit.
03:54:24 -!- bsmnt_bot has joined.
03:57:20 <bsmntbombdood> SSK
03:57:56 <bsmntbombdood> SSKxy = xyx
04:00:15 <ihope> Wait, what's this ghost advertisement stuff all about?
04:02:12 <oerjan> about getting back your nisk after being thrown off
04:02:16 <oerjan> *nick
04:02:37 <ihope> Also, bsmntbombdood, was it you some of us were trying to teach ordinal numbers to?
04:02:41 <oerjan> do /msg nickserv help ghost
04:02:43 <ihope> oerjan: how's that relevant to stuff?
04:03:04 <ihope> Oh, the... right, yeah.
04:03:08 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
04:03:35 <ihope> bsmntbombdood: got it figured out yet?
04:03:47 <bsmntbombdood> haven't read anything since then
04:04:21 <ihope> bsmntbombdood: well, mind if I try one more time?
04:04:26 <oerjan> is it time for confusing him more by telling about epsilon?
04:04:33 <ihope> oerjan: nah.
04:05:53 <oerjan> basically, ordinals are all about induction.
04:06:26 <ihope> I'd say they're all about well-orderings.
04:06:44 <oerjan> That, too.
04:06:47 <ihope> Yeah.
04:07:02 <oerjan> But well-ordering is what you need for induction to be well-defined.
04:07:19 <ihope> A well-ordering is an ordering of a set such that all subsets of the set have a least element.
04:07:19 -!- crathman has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
04:07:36 <ihope> For example: the positive integers: {1, 2, 3, 4...}
04:07:53 <ihope> Any (non-empty) subset of them has a least element.
04:08:03 <bsmntbombdood> huh?
04:08:13 <bsmntbombdood> isn't that any set?
04:08:15 <oerjan> And that is equivalent to the usual rule of induction.
04:08:22 <ihope> Can you think of a set of positive integers that has no least element?
04:08:32 <ihope> ...Wait, what?
04:08:51 <ihope> Any set of positive integers has no least element.
04:08:59 <oerjan> *a
04:09:11 <ihope> ...Right, yes.
04:09:30 <ihope> Now, an ordinal number essentially expresses one notion of the size of a well-ordered set.
04:10:01 <ihope> {1} has the ordinal number 1, {1,2} has the ordinal number 2, {1,2,3} has the ordinal number 3...
04:10:19 <ihope> Then for {1,2,3,4...}, the ordinal number is omega.
04:11:01 <ihope> Now, for a "bigger" well-ordering of the natural numbers, we could say 1 is greater than the rest: {2,3,4...1}.
04:11:22 <oerjan> There are other kinds of sets that _don't_ have least elements, for example the set of all _negative_ integers.
04:11:25 <ihope> Look at it as {2,3,4,5...1}, and it seems like it has one extra element.
04:11:29 <ihope> Yes, like that.
04:11:58 <ihope> Now, this one extra element is expressed by adding one, so this new set has the ordinal number omega+1.
04:12:27 <bsmntbombdood> {1,2,3,4,5...} is the same as {2,3,4,5,...1}
04:12:33 <ihope> Then if you say 1 is greater than everything except 2, and 2 is greater than everything, you get {3,4,5,6...1,2}. The ordinal number for that would be omega+2.
04:12:55 <ihope> As a set, yes, but it's the order they're in that matters here, not the elements themselves.
04:12:57 <oerjan> Not when you consider the ordering.
04:13:10 <bsmntbombdood> sets are unordered
04:13:26 <ihope> Well, call it an order instead of a set, then.
04:14:41 <oerjan> "Ordered set" is really an abbreviation for a set, plus an order relation on that set.
04:14:53 <bsmntbombdood> k
04:14:54 <ihope> It's the same set, yes, but 1 is greater than everything else in the set--it's an infinity, basic(al)ly.
04:15:38 <ihope> So then if you go do something like {0,2,4,6,8...1,3,5,7,9...}, you have the same set again, but this time you have an infinite number of things, each of which is greater than another infinity of things.
04:15:51 <ihope> This is omega+omega, or omega*2.
04:16:33 <oerjan> If it confuses you to change the ordering of the natural numbers, it is possible (for now) to use sets of fractions instead.
04:16:47 <ihope> Indeed it is.
04:16:55 <bsmntbombdood> fractions?
04:17:15 <ihope> How about something like this: {0, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999... 1}
04:17:17 <oerjan> Say, {0, 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1, 1+1/2, 1+1/3, 1+1/4, ...} also has ordering omega*2
04:17:30 <ihope> oerjan: but that's still out of order.
04:17:33 -!- SevenInchBread has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
04:17:33 <oerjan> that would be omega+1
04:17:36 <oerjan> whoops
04:17:54 <ihope> {0, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4... 1, 1+1/2, 1+2/3...}
04:18:07 <oerjan> right
04:18:17 <bsmntbombdood> k
04:18:21 <bsmntbombdood> not sure where this is going
04:18:37 <ihope> Then you can still add more to the end: {0, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4... 1, 1+1/2, 1+2/3... 2} would represent the ordinal omega*2+1.
04:19:22 <ihope> Go as far as you want, adding as many infinities as you want: {0, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4... 1, 1+1/2... 2... 3... 4.....}
04:19:35 <ihope> Go on forever like *that*, and you have omega*omega, or omega^2.
04:19:58 <ihope> Now, the nice thing is that the different well-orderings are themselves well-ordered.
04:20:56 <ihope> Therefore, you can represent each ordinal as a set of ordinals: instead of {0, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4... 1, 1+1/2, 1+2/3, 1+3/4...}, you can have {0, 1, 2, 3... omega, omega+1, omega+2, omega+3...}
04:21:15 <ihope> omega*2 happens to be the lowest ordinal number greater than all elements of that set.
04:21:55 <ihope> And if you have a "continuous" set like that, it defines an ordinal number.
04:22:32 <ihope> So if you took the unions of the sets corresponding to, say, omega, omega*2, omega*3, omega*4, etc., you'd end up with the set representing omega*omega.
04:23:23 <ihope> The union, I mean, not unions.
04:27:18 <ihope> Often, an ordinal number is said to actually be the set of ordinal numbers that goes with it, so ordinal numbers are defined as being sets of ordinal numbers.
04:28:10 <oerjan> Those are known as von Neumann ordinals, after the inventor.
04:30:25 <oerjan> You can add ordinals:
04:31:12 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
04:31:21 <oerjan> If you have an ordered set in two parts, first one ordered as the ordinal a and then one part ordered as the ordinal b, then the ordinal of the whole set is called a+b.
04:32:22 <oerjan> You can see that in the omega+1, omega+2 etc. above.
04:32:57 <oerjan> Strangely enough this addition is not commutative.
04:33:10 <oerjan> 1+omega = omega != omega+1
04:33:43 <oerjan> (It is associative however)
04:34:07 <oerjan> (I.e. a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c)
04:34:30 <ihope> I like natural addition.
04:34:43 -!- Sgeo has joined.
04:35:11 -!- ShadowHntr has quit ("End of line.").
04:35:48 <oerjan> To multiply:
04:38:22 <oerjan> Make a set containing a subdivision into segments, all with the same order a, and such that the set of segments themselves have order b.  Then that whole set has order a*b.
04:38:47 <oerjan> So omega*2 consists of two subsets, each with order omega.
04:38:58 <oerjan> This is not commutative either.
04:39:51 <oerjan> But it is associative, and there is distributivity: a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c
04:45:46 <oerjan> That distributivity hold only rightwards.
04:45:51 <oerjan> *holds
04:47:09 <oerjan> For powers, we need to use induction.
04:47:43 -!- goban has quit ("Leaving").
04:48:01 <oerjan> a^1 = a, and a^(b+c) = a^b*a^c.
04:48:24 <oerjan> Except that doesn't help us reach infinity, so:
04:49:22 <oerjan> a^b = union of a^(b_l) when b = union of b_l.
04:49:29 <ihope> omega.
04:49:34 <ihope> There, I've reached infinity!
04:49:37 <ihope> :-P
04:49:48 -!- alex-4 has joined.
04:49:54 <oerjan> Good, now you can explain omega^omega :)
04:52:25 <oklopol> oerjan: i don't hate any languages :)
04:52:39 <oklopol> but i don't know swedish that well
04:52:42 <oerjan> that's good, neither do i
04:52:48 -!- sp3tt has joined.
04:52:58 <oerjan> then you can explain oko here :)
04:53:13 <oklopol> okoing is a way of life :)
04:53:20 <ihope> omega^omega: the union of omega^n where n < omega.
04:56:20 <oerjan> Now then, epsilon = union of omega^(omega^(omega^...))) nested n times when n < omega
04:57:51 <ihope> omega, omega^omega, omega^omega^omega, omega^omega^omega^omega...
04:58:01 <oerjan> omega^epsilon = epsilon, incidentally.
04:58:27 <ihope> epsilon = omega^^omega, no?
04:58:29 <oerjan> If I remember right.
04:58:59 <oerjan> I suppose so.
04:59:14 <oerjan> I am not sure of that ^^ notation.
04:59:29 <ihope> Tetration?
04:59:40 <ihope> And omega^^^omega would be epsilon_1.
04:59:47 <ihope> I think.
05:00:02 <ihope> Well, maybe not.
05:00:13 <ihope> (omega^^omega)^^omega?
05:00:26 <oerjan> I think we just went past what I remember :)
05:01:38 <oerjan> Except one huge step more:
05:02:44 <oerjan> omega_1 = the union of all ordinals of reorderings of the natural numbers.
05:03:17 <oerjan> (I hope omega_1 is the right name. The first ordinal of cardinality aleph_1.)
05:05:48 <ihope> Yes, omega_1 is the first ordinal of cardinality aleph_1.
05:05:59 <ihope> omega_n has cardinality aleph_n, in general.
05:06:06 <oklopol> wtf are you talking about :O
05:06:15 <oerjan> Ordinal numbers
05:06:28 <lament> there's only two numbers
05:06:32 <lament> zero and one.
05:06:42 <ihope> lament: what about... uh... hmm.
05:07:13 <ihope> lament: is that algebraically closed?
05:07:21 <ihope> I mean, surely not.
05:07:38 <ihope> x^2 + x + 1 = 0
05:07:41 <ihope> Solve that.
05:07:51 <lament> {0,1} form a field if that's what you're asking.
05:07:59 <ihope> Algebraically closed.
05:08:07 <ihope> Polynomials all have solutions.
05:08:28 <ihope> x*x = x and x+x = 0, so that equation up there is equivalent to 1 = 0.
05:08:51 <ihope> Also, it's Friday over here. Less than ten minutes ago, it was Thursday.
05:08:59 <ihope> I think I should be getting to bed.
05:09:05 <lament> so what if it's not algebraically closed?
05:09:18 <oerjan> Then it cannot be all numbers.
05:09:26 <ihope> Then... uh... say, why don't we define CK_n for all ordinal numbers n?
05:09:47 <lament> okay, let's close it then
05:09:47 <oerjan> What is CK?
05:10:33 <ihope> The smallest ordinal number that can't be enumerated by a computer of order n, where a computer of order n is a Turing machine, except able to solve the halting problems for computers of orders less than n.
05:10:40 <ihope> Close it, eh...
05:10:54 <ihope> Let's say B*B + B + 1 = 0.
05:11:01 <ihope> That means B*B + B = 1.
05:11:29 <ihope> So B(B + 1) = 1, if that matters at all.
05:11:48 <ihope> Hey, why don't we call it 2?
05:11:55 <ihope> 2*2 + 2 = 1.
05:12:00 -!- crathman has joined.
05:12:18 <ihope> Then we could say 1 + 2 = 3.
05:12:26 <ihope> Eventually, you end up with all the nimbers.
05:12:32 <ihope> ;-)
05:12:38 <ihope> Fun. Bye!
05:15:52 <lament> well no
05:16:20 <oerjan> ?
05:17:22 <lament> that doesn't sound right
05:18:03 <oerjan> What doesn't sound right, and by the way nimbers was probably not a misspelling.
05:18:31 <lament> oh, well, okay then
05:30:54 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out).
05:58:20 <bsmntbombdood> can K be made with S and I?
05:58:49 <oerjan> no, S and I cannot remove variables
05:59:25 <oerjan> They are in the subset called lambda_I calculus
05:59:48 <bsmntbombdood> where in \x.E, E has to contain x
05:59:59 <oerjan> right
06:00:30 <bsmntbombdood> is lambda_i calculus turing complete?
06:00:42 <oerjan> I vaguely recall yes
06:01:05 <bsmntbombdood> church numeral 0 doesn't work
06:01:25 <oerjan> something about simulating K for a large enough subset to make it work for numerals
06:01:27 <Sukoshi> Is this Unlambda fun?
06:01:42 <oerjan> combinatory logic
06:01:43 <Sukoshi> Is this (Unlambda fun) ?
06:02:01 <Sukoshi> Ah. Is he creating the Church numerals?
06:02:10 -!- crathman has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
06:02:18 -!- crathman_ has joined.
06:02:20 -!- crathman_ has changed nick to crathman.
06:02:23 <oerjan> no we were discussing whether K is necessary for Turing completeness
06:03:15 <oerjan> i guess S and I might not be enough, to get lambda_I you need also B and C
06:03:43 <Sukoshi> Ah.
06:03:46 <bsmntbombdood> B and C don't get rid of variables though
06:04:06 -!- ShadowHntr has joined.
06:04:44 <bsmntbombdood> s/variables/arguments/
06:05:09 <oerjan> i don't know the construction for a "simulated" K for numerals, however
06:05:49 <oerjan> it was either Church or Curry's work, I guess
06:07:19 <bsmntbombdood> wikipedia: The constants of CLI are: I, B, C and S, which form a basis from which all CLI terms can be composed (modulo equality)
06:07:48 <oerjan> thought so
06:08:03 <oerjan> under "lambda calculus", I found the quote:
06:08:16 <oerjan> Note that in Church's original lambda calculus, the formal parameter of a lambda expression was required to occur at least once in the function body, which made the above definition of 0 impossible
06:10:00 <bsmntbombdood> but they don't tell you what it is
06:11:02 <oerjan> where did you find that CLI quote?
06:12:08 <bsmntbombdood> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatory_logic#CLK_versus_CLI_calculus
06:17:56 <oerjan> heh, searching for lambdaI gives an article with the title "Proving PSN after ruining a perfectly good calculus"
06:18:04 <oerjan> *googling
06:18:04 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
06:19:31 <bsmntbombdood> PSN?
06:20:37 <oerjan> preservation of strong normalization
06:20:44 <oerjan> i think it was
06:20:57 <oerjan> it was the rest of the title i found funny :)
06:23:49 <bsmntbombdood> remember iota from the other day?
06:23:56 <oerjan> yes
06:24:24 <bsmntbombdood> If we use a different combinator, \x.xKSK, the definitions of S and K are shorter
06:24:45 <bsmntbombdood> x=\x.xKSK
06:24:51 <oerjan> i may have read that somewhere
06:24:56 <bsmntbombdood> K = (xx)x
06:25:29 -!- ShadowHntr has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
06:27:54 <bsmntbombdood> S = x(xx)
06:28:00 <bsmntbombdood> much shorter than iota
06:29:04 <oerjan> as short as you could possibly get them
06:29:33 <oerjan> or could you get one of them to be xx? hm.
06:30:08 -!- ShadowHntr has joined.
06:30:45 <oerjan> S = Kx is impossible
06:32:38 <oerjan> K=Sx would mean y = Kyz = Sxyz = xz(yz), but yz cannot determine y for all y and z so that is impossible
06:34:20 <oerjan> S = xK and K = xS seem harder to analyze
06:40:37 <bsmntbombdood> I think that's pretty darn good
06:41:15 <bsmntbombdood> `x`xx, 5 chars
06:56:49 -!- goban has joined.
07:23:26 -!- goban has quit ("Konversation terminated!").
07:25:39 -!- goban has joined.
07:27:52 -!- helios_ has joined.
07:28:08 -!- helios24 has quit ("Leaving").
07:28:39 -!- helios_ has changed nick to helios24.
07:37:50 -!- voodooattack has joined.
07:40:52 -!- goban has quit (Remote closed the connection).
07:44:33 -!- goban has joined.
07:48:15 -!- goban has quit (Client Quit).
07:49:01 -!- crathman_ has joined.
07:49:24 -!- crathman has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
07:49:47 -!- crathman_ has changed nick to crathman.
07:49:59 -!- goban has joined.
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:06:16 -!- Arrogant has joined.
08:16:20 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving").
08:39:24 -!- crathman has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
08:52:48 -!- ShadowHntr has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
08:53:34 -!- goban has quit ("Konversation terminated!").
08:55:15 -!- goban has joined.
09:11:36 -!- Arrogant has quit ("Leaving").
11:47:10 -!- ihope has joined.
11:49:03 -!- ihope has quit (Client Quit).
13:09:01 -!- nazgjunk has joined.
13:20:08 -!- voodooattack has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
13:27:30 -!- voodooattack has joined.
13:32:07 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
13:32:17 -!- voodooattack| has joined.
13:32:57 -!- voodooattack| has changed nick to voodooattack.
13:41:23 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
13:41:37 -!- voodooattack has joined.
13:55:48 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
13:56:02 -!- voodooattack has joined.
14:13:06 -!- nazgjunk has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
14:13:17 -!- UpTheDownstair has joined.
14:13:29 -!- UpTheDownstair has changed nick to nazgjunk.
14:43:15 -!- ooooo has joined.
14:52:00 -!- crathman has joined.
15:46:31 -!- nazgjunk has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
15:46:46 -!- UpTheDownstair has joined.
15:47:41 -!- UpTheDownstair has changed nick to nazgjunk.
15:55:35 -!- nazgjunk has quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)).
15:55:44 -!- UpTheDownstair has joined.
15:58:49 -!- UpTheDownstair has changed nick to nazgjunk.
16:16:12 -!- FabioNET has joined.
16:44:13 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
16:44:27 -!- voodooattack has joined.
16:58:08 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
16:58:22 -!- voodooattack has joined.
17:01:56 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
17:02:10 -!- voodooattack has joined.
17:27:43 -!- sebbu has joined.
17:27:56 -!- goban has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
17:28:14 -!- goban has joined.
17:36:22 -!- kxspxr has joined.
17:36:32 -!- kxspxr has quit (Client Quit).
17:38:52 <voodooattack> print "hi"
17:41:11 -!- UpTheDownstair has joined.
17:41:22 -!- nazgjunk has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
17:42:30 -!- UpTheDownstair has changed nick to nazgjunk.
17:51:17 -!- voodooattack has quit (Nick collision from services.).
17:51:31 -!- voodooattack has joined.
18:06:09 -!- FabioNET has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)).
18:23:36 -!- FabioNET has joined.
18:29:24 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
18:37:15 -!- sebbu has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)).
18:38:46 -!- FabioNET has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)).
18:54:36 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu.
19:33:33 -!- FabioNET has joined.
19:52:28 -!- ShadowHntr has joined.
20:21:16 -!- _FabioNET_ has joined.
20:21:20 -!- FabioNET has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
20:39:14 -!- voodooattack has quit.
21:20:47 -!- oerjan has joined.
21:23:13 -!- SevenInchBread has joined.
21:23:27 <oerjan> hi crumby one
21:45:00 <bsmntbombdood> x=\x.xSKS
21:45:04 <bsmntbombdood> S = xx
21:45:15 <bsmntbombdood> not sure if K is possible yet
21:45:22 <oerjan> hm...
21:46:28 <bsmntbombdood> I = x(xx) 
21:48:40 <oerjan> how do you get that last one?
21:49:07 <bsmntbombdood> xS = SSKS
21:49:53 <bsmntbombdood> erm
21:51:17 <bsmntbombdood> SSKS = SS(KS) 
21:51:39 <bsmntbombdood> I goofed
21:51:49 <oerjan> easy to do
21:53:52 <oerjan> I get x(x(xx))=S as well
21:57:32 <oerjan> x(xxx)=SS(SKS)=SSI
22:03:22 <oerjan> x(x(xxx))=S
22:03:55 <oerjan> xx(xx)=SS, x(xx)x=SxS, xxxx=Sxx
22:04:09 <bsmntbombdood> SSxy = Sx(xy)
22:04:29 <oerjan> you mean Sy(xy)
22:04:30 <bsmntbombdood> Sx(xy)z = xz(xyz)
22:05:15 <bsmntbombdood> what?
22:05:24 <oerjan> SSxy=Sy(xy)
22:05:24 <bsmntbombdood> i was just using x as a variable
22:05:41 <oerjan> i realized that
22:05:57 <bsmntbombdood> crap
22:05:59 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
22:07:17 <oerjan> i seem to be always getting back to S: x(xx(xx))=S too)
22:08:05 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
22:08:17 <bsmntbombdood> think this is a dead end
22:08:51 <oerjan> maybe, maybe not. at least getting S cuts many search branches short quick
22:09:15 <bsmntbombdood> because SKS = I
22:09:54 <oerjan> darn you are right
22:10:26 <oerjan> well not quite
22:10:33 <bsmntbombdood> but it's still \x.(((xS)K)S) and not \x.x(SKS)
22:11:37 <oerjan> none of the four-x versions actually contain K
22:12:18 <oerjan> or wait
22:12:38 <oerjan> well x itself is still in there so there might be a chance
22:16:40 <SevenInchBread> ...DNS is some weird, chaotic stuff...
22:16:57 <SevenInchBread> but then again... that kind of applies to networking in general.
22:17:42 <oerjan> x(x(xx)x)=SK=KI eventually
22:24:40 <oerjan> x(xxxx)=SKS=I
22:25:24 <bsmntbombdood> cool
22:34:58 <oerjan> x(x(x(xx)x))=KS, I have a feeling of getting closer...
22:35:18 <bsmntbombdood> i've gone on to other combinators
22:35:18 <oerjan> (That was the first with 6 x's
22:35:21 <oerjan> )
22:35:36 <oerjan> fine then we aren't duplicating work
22:35:46 <bsmntbombdood> i'm going for shortness of S and K
22:36:05 <oerjan> indeed this x has been a disappointment in that respect
22:36:06 <SevenInchBread> hmm... I'm really interested in the idea of an "anonymous decentralized server"... for lack of a better term
22:36:57 <oerjan> but then, if it really was shorter then since the combinator is the same size as the known one it would certainly have been used instead
22:37:18 <bsmntbombdood> i've got one with a short S and I
22:37:21 <bsmntbombdood> no K yet 
22:37:26 <SevenInchBread> hmm.. it'd be like a P2P network acting as a single virtual server... all the data would be partitioned amongst all the peers in the network... and so there would be no real "server".
22:37:59 <SevenInchBread> ...would be great for illegal stuff. :)
22:38:48 <GregorR> Uh, DHT you mean?
22:39:14 <GregorR> If you took any ol' DHT system, then connected to it without actually joining the DHT, you have exactly what you're looking for.
22:40:18 <SevenInchBread> It would be great for free web hosting too...
22:40:46 <SevenInchBread> since everyone being hosted is chipping in some process cycles and hard disk space of their own... there's no need to charge anyone for the service.
22:41:28 <bsmntbombdood> freenet
22:42:15 <SimonRC> indeeed
22:42:30 <SimonRC> without the kiddy-porn though, I hope
22:42:40 <GregorR> IIRC, there are no non-participating clients in FreeNet.
22:42:41 <SimonRC> or maybe bittorrent
22:42:51 <bsmntbombdood> freenet sucks because it's written in java
22:42:54 <SimonRC> GregorR: you could write a selfish client if you wanted to
22:43:13 <SevenInchBread> nah... you could have kiddie porn.
22:43:16 <SimonRC> bsmntbombdood: how so/
22:43:23 <bsmntbombdood> SimonRC: resource hog
22:43:37 <SimonRC> maybe
22:44:05 <SimonRC> Some non-virtual instance methods might be nice in Java.
22:44:10 <bsmntbombdood> I ran freenet for a while untill I got tired of it using half my memory and all of my cpu
22:44:18 <SimonRC> Or sealed classes.
22:44:30 <SimonRC> they would speed up method calls a fair bit I ssupect
22:44:42 <SimonRC> bsmntbombdood: and all your network connection
22:44:43 <SevenInchBread> bsmntbombdood, you can't give it a maximum?
22:44:59 <SimonRC> This is apparently about networking water coolers, from the looks of slide 2:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/tom.friedetzky/local/par/pc14-4up.pdf
22:45:22 <bsmntbombdood> gargh
22:45:26 <SimonRC> what?
22:45:29 <bsmntbombdood> X=\x.xSKSK
22:45:34 <bsmntbombdood> S = XX
22:45:41 <SimonRC> what is this for?
22:46:09 <bsmntbombdood> I = X(XX)
22:46:53 <bsmntbombdood> SimonRC, trying to find a single combinator to have the shortest S and K
22:47:11 <bsmntbombdood> best we have so far is X=\x.xKSK
22:52:57 <SevenInchBread> hmmm... so freenet doesn't die down on its process cycles when it doesn't need them and/or when there's other stuff that needs them on your computer?
23:13:03 -!- nazgjunk has quit ("i need to sleep ffs").
23:21:01 <SimonRC> hmm  http://ling.ucsd.edu/~barker/Iota/
23:21:27 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
23:21:29 <oerjan> yes, that's where we started
23:21:51 <bsmntbombdood> but \x.xKSK is shorter than iota
23:22:40 -!- crathman has quit ("Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.1/2006120418]").
23:27:34 <bsmntbombdood> oh wow
23:27:43 <bsmntbombdood> http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/jeroen/article/combinat/combinat.ps
23:27:45 <oerjan> ?
23:28:15 <oerjan> Darn postscript
23:28:45 <bsmntbombdood> X = \f.fS(\xyz.x)
23:28:47 <bsmntbombdood> K = XX
23:28:51 <bsmntbombdood> S = X(XX)
23:29:13 <oerjan> ok that's the final word then
23:29:25 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
23:31:31 <oerjan> the worst is i am sure i have seen that URL before
23:32:55 <bsmntbombdood> it was on the iota page
23:35:09 <bsmntbombdood> it is considerably more complicated though
23:36:00 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+").
23:41:45 <bsmntbombdood> \f.fS(S(S(KS)S(KK)(KK))(S(KK)I))
23:42:36 <bsmntbombdood> crazy long
23:42:50 <oerjan> i think you have missed some optimizations
23:43:09 <bsmntbombdood> probably
23:43:17 <oerjan> \xyz.x = \x.K(Kx) = S(KK)K
23:43:33 <bsmntbombdood> uh...yeah
23:43:35 <bsmntbombdood> :P
23:43:49 <bsmntbombdood> i'm stupid
23:45:29 <oerjan> \f.fS(S(KK)K)=SI(S(KS)(K(S(KK)K)))
23:45:38 <bsmntbombdood> wait
23:45:48 <oerjan> too late :)
23:46:02 <oerjan> whoops
23:46:24 <bsmntbombdood> \xyz.x = S(KK)(S(KK)I)
23:46:24 <oerjan> *S(SI(KS))(K(S(KK)K))
23:46:30 <bsmntbombdood> not S(KK)K
23:46:42 <oerjan> S(KK)I=K
23:46:58 <bsmntbombdood> oh duh
23:47:39 <oerjan> follows from eta-reduction: \x.fx = f
23:48:12 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
23:49:17 * SimonRC goes...
23:49:22 <bsmntbombdood> silly me
23:50:24 <bsmntbombdood> I wonder if there's a shorter I than SKK
23:50:55 <SimonRC> no: S, K, SS, SK, KS, and KK are all not I
23:51:45 <bsmntbombdood> ...so?
23:51:59 <bsmntbombdood> in iota, I is shorter than both S and K
23:52:18 <oerjan> oh you mean with that X
23:53:24 <oerjan> actually there is
23:53:37 <oerjan> because SKX is shorter than SKK :)
23:55:21 <bsmntbombdood> oh right
23:55:29 <bsmntbombdood> but there still could be a better one
23:56:11 -!- _FabioNET_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
23:59:10 <oerjan> XX=K, X(XX)=K, XXX=KX, X(X(XX))=XK=KS_=S, X(XXX)=X(KX)=KXS(\xyz.x)=X(\xyz.x)=(\xyz.x)S(\xyz.x)
23:59:37 <oerjan> eh, wait...