00:00:06 ooh 00:00:10 I have a fun one for you guys 00:00:10 http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/12/just-because-we-can.html 00:00:15 what does this program do... 00:00:19 in 10 different languages! 00:02:46 (set 30 to 0 to turn off tracing, 257 to your output wrapping, and "?~" is the program.) 00:02:46 cool 00:03:10 Just another * hacker. :D 00:03:37 O.o 00:03:42 what is %: ? 00:03:50 is it the same as #? 00:05:40 try it 00:05:47 I did 00:06:01 and that's the only thing I can think of 00:06:05 but I'm not familiar with it 00:06:54 -!- crathman has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 00:08:57 it worked? 00:09:12 yeah 00:09:28 ..POLYGLOTS... fun stuff. 00:09:45 is there wiki software for local use? 00:09:49 or blog software? 00:09:57 yes. 00:11:41 hehehe... :P 00:11:42 http://www.funny-jokes.net/funny-pictures/imgs/177.jpg 00:12:50 nice 00:14:27 http://www.trichotomy.ca/images/cats/whatisthispwnedyouspeakofandwhyamiabouttogetsome.jpg 00:14:29 SUBMIT SUBMIT SUBMIT - http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Kallisti (changes made, SUBMIT) 00:15:00 ...is the eso wiki supposed to automatically log me out very frequently. 00:15:47 http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/2003/turing.pdf <<<<< this seems like something one could do for brainfuck as well 00:16:24 preferably without having to run a webserver locally.. :| 00:17:45 ...I still can't get my PC to work as a webserver. 00:18:53 SevenInchBread: Have you set it to remember your password? 00:19:26 *wiki password 00:19:47 I had the same problem before I did that 00:19:57 hmmm... might be it. 00:20:03 I just did that... so it might stop now. 00:22:10 -!- atrapado has joined. 00:22:28 c++ has two turing complete langs and one almost turing complete, and i hear haskell's type system is turing complete too.... wonder if you could make a non turing complete lang with a non turing complete type system such that they together make up a turing complete system 00:22:40 well.... 00:23:21 hmm.... 00:23:23 pizza -------> 00:23:36 O.o 00:25:12 oklopol: yes, very easily. Brainfuck with limited tape size, unbounded cells. 00:25:15 :) 00:25:21 if dupdog were Turing complete... I'm sure it's very likely that mfit or shanty alone isn't 00:28:17 hmm... it's pretty hard to do any kind of factorization in brainfuck but that'd be one way to do it i guess? 00:28:29 though no question mark, since i DO guess. 00:34:36 GAH 00:34:45 Why can't anyone fucking program!?!?!??!?!?!! 00:35:02 * Figs wants to kill the idiot who wrote his school's webmail interface 00:35:24 Figs: it is very difficult to program while fucking. Can't concentrate. 00:35:34 maybe for you :P 00:36:12 This reminds me of an xkcd strip 00:36:22 :D 00:37:00 oerjan: i suppose any combination of 'program' and 'fuck' in the same sentence would. 00:37:22 actually i don't think it was about programming. 00:38:52 but its mention serves as a catalyst. 00:39:40 i've tried that once 00:40:42 -!- sebbu2 has quit ("@+"). 00:40:53 hmmm.... not a good idea to idle here with oklodok... two mircs kinda mess up logs being the same executable :) 00:41:06 http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Home+Page&bl 00:41:11 different kind of language 00:41:20 so i'll die now. 00:41:23 -!- oklodok has left (?). 00:41:31 ewww lojban. 00:41:47 oklopol: even one mirc is a bit sketchy 00:42:55 i know, but they all seem to suck so i'll make my own when i see fit 00:44:05 IRC client? 00:46:47 hmm 00:46:51 the brainfuck generator? 00:46:56 !bf_gen 00:46:59 !help 00:47:09 egobot is dead 00:47:17 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht"). 00:47:24 hmm.... is there another way to do string -> bf output 00:49:11 ^.*(?=.{10,})(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[@#$%^&+=]).*$ 00:52:24 that one? 00:53:36 no 00:53:55 that's a regular expression 00:53:58 not sure what language 00:54:00 :P 00:57:06 -!- atrapado has quit ("l3nz"). 00:59:20 looks like perl 01:00:08 O.o 01:00:08 http://img467.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1579dx8.jpg 01:01:16 hmmm has there been any proof on shortest possible ways to create a string in bf? 01:02:04 in general there cannot be - Kolmogorov complexity, so undecidable 01:02:26 oh :O 01:02:52 well... i guess it's understandable i couldn't do it then :) 01:04:21 no, that's wrong. 01:04:31 wait 01:04:34 that's right. nevermind. 01:04:48 O.o indeed. 01:05:44 lol 01:07:58 epp 01:07:58 http://fukung.net/images/527/DeadeyeDick.jpg 01:08:43 so... 01:09:01 I seriously need to gather a band of conspiracy pirates to make A MOST EXCELLENT SYSTEM OF OPERATING. 01:09:26 I have a friend from Lithuania who might be interested 01:10:44 heh 01:10:52 Showing BF to be turing-complete 01:10:52 http://www.iwriteiam.nl/Ha_bf_Turing.html 01:10:54 yay 01:12:23 eh... yes 01:12:36 bf is turing complete. That page is like a decade old. 01:13:31 :P 01:13:31 we had pretty advanced plans for an OS a while back, then gregor did his usual buzzkill and the fervor kinda died down 01:13:33 well... I was also thinking about doing a lot of distributed stuff.... like cryptography, stenography, and stuff across a decentralized network... functioning as one OS. 01:13:38 I'm just stumbling 01:13:45 O_o 01:13:52 EULAlyzer 01:14:06 "Analyze license agreements for interesting words and phrases" 01:14:17 but the entire discussion did produce one of my nicer creations: Def-BF! It's Brainfuck with pointers! woo 01:14:30 there are two different ways in which BF can be Turing complete. either you can have unbounded tape length, or you can have unbounded cell size. 01:14:38 ...and like... a less boring operating system. BASED ON THE WILL OF GODDESS. 01:14:40 two new instructions, limitless possibilities 01:20:20 any goddess in particular? 01:20:26 I'd go with Athena. rawr. 01:22:13 nope 01:22:15 Eris. 01:22:57 hmm... so... taking a tip from Erlang here... any sort of process will have message passing in cues... 01:23:10 rather than the one-message call system Unix uses. 01:23:49 queues, you mean? 01:23:55 ...yeah 01:23:59 :) 01:24:44 ...aaaand... files are more like hash tables than actual files... HASH TABLES OF LINKED LISTS... IF YOU'D LIKE 01:24:46 INIFNITY FILES. 01:24:48 I DARE SAY 01:25:05 cool 01:26:26 o.o 01:26:27 eep 01:26:33 ....with a versioning system... 01:26:50 so you can look at old versions... or revert oopses. 01:27:03 TO INFINITY 01:29:27 -!- calamari has joined. 01:31:08 AND BEYOND 01:31:56 speaking of cue-based message systems... 01:32:34 QUEUE! 01:32:39 no, cue. 01:33:47 like, cue ball? :P 01:35:45 options, options 01:36:05 cue-based.... isn't that like event based? 01:36:25 hm... guess you are right 01:36:42 too boring. balls it is then. 01:36:46 hehe :D 01:37:04 ooh :P 01:37:05 i'm reading a book called programming the universe 01:37:05 http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/hell/Bestof/mit-letter.html 01:37:19 cue as in... actions O.o 01:37:43 the main problem with hash tables and stuff is that hard disks have slower seeking times than active memory. 01:37:55 so... pointer-based structures are inherently slower to traverse. 01:38:06 http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=cue 01:38:16 ...but, it shouldn't be hard to stuff all the data close to each other... 01:38:55 http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=queue 01:47:03 hmmmm.... i just figured out why it's impossible to make a general algorithm for the shortest possible way to produce a string 01:47:25 and.... i now see i was quite stupid to take so long :D 01:50:11 I BELIEVE I WILL NEED TO MINDS OF MANY GENII TO PULL THIS ONE OFF 01:50:21 MAINLY BECAUSE I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ASSEMBLY OR HARDWARE. 01:50:41 ...so, I'll need to do some reading. 01:52:21 i think i read the first 100 or something pages of http://www.intel.com/design/pentium/manuals/24319101.pdf 01:52:53 "What does a dog do that a man steps into?" 01:52:57 "Pants" 01:53:00 I don't get it. 01:53:08 a dog pants 01:53:17 oh 01:53:19 thanks 01:53:25 panting is the act of making an inhaling sound and drooling 01:54:00 oklopol, ....that's far too much boring crap for me to read. 01:54:05 :P 01:54:11 i found it interesting 01:54:33 but i didn't understand it anymore at some point 01:54:41 if you guys help me create a Bullet -> x86 compiler, I shall gladly write you a Kernel for this brave new operating system! 01:54:59 you make the spec first :) 01:55:36 I'm working on that literally as we speak 01:55:54 THE RESERVED WORD LIST IS GROWING! MUAHAHAHA! 01:56:03 hehehe :) 01:56:07 how many? 01:56:29 and I'm contemplating the inclusion of labels and gotos. They're useful and simple to compile, but most people don't use them properly 01:56:33 ...I was thinking about doing some nifty self-modifying crap.... like Synthesis. 01:56:52 they might end up morphing into a better version of break statements 01:57:00 SevenInchBread: you mean my language? 01:57:07 OSiness. 01:57:24 "SYNTHESYS"? 01:57:26 gotos are cool 01:57:28 well.... I don't know x86 at all... 01:57:53 ...the only reason assembly is sane to code in is macros. 01:57:58 I'm trying to weigh the benefits of having them with the havoc shitty programmers would cause with them 01:58:09 hmm? 01:58:14 asm is a pretty good language 01:58:23 I need to learn asm :P 01:58:23 GOTOs are almost as dangerous as pointers, but for a different reason 01:58:23 Yeah I like it... 01:58:30 again 01:58:32 I forgot it all 01:58:37 nothing is dangerous. 01:58:41 RodgerTheGreat, Never restrict anything just cause people might use them. ;) 01:58:48 fair enough 01:59:03 but I do like well-structured programming 01:59:22 RTG: Assembly is ALL goto statements ;D 01:59:28 (and some other stuff) 01:59:28 Figs no. 01:59:36 the most useful things you can do with gotos are computed jumps (fuck pointers) and escaping from deep logic. 01:59:36 loops have been there for ages 01:59:39 plus functions 01:59:48 plus, actually, for_eaches 01:59:49 so I might make more specialized versions for those two purposes 02:00:03 well... there are macros. 02:00:06 oklopol... are we talking about the same assembly language? 02:00:11 well... there are functions. 02:00:20 i don't know what macros are 02:00:27 in asm 02:00:49 a function is a number indicating the position of a function in the memory 02:01:04 you just stuff stuff on the stack and change execution to that function 02:01:22 then when returning, put stuff on the stack or in a register 02:01:39 function pointers seem really useful to manipulate at runtime, but insanely easy to fuck up in subtle ways 02:01:39 returning: store current code pointer on the stack when calling the funciton 02:01:54 fucking up is a matter of debugging 02:02:01 :P 02:02:06 what asm are you using? 02:02:12 FAsm? 02:02:13 i've never done any asm 02:02:19 TAsm? 02:02:20 oh 02:02:22 :P 02:02:24 ah, the flat assembler. 02:02:29 I loved that thing 02:02:29 well... when i was little i made a program that beeped randomly 02:03:08 and i've read a few books about asm, though mostly about the technical part 02:03:18 BUT you are wrong to say asm hasn't got functions 02:03:52 it has concurrency (because of quite a direct metaprogramming) as well 02:04:53 in asm it's very easy to do continuations too 02:05:04 functional programming is easy 02:05:33 I wrote a hello world program once 02:05:34 i've been thinking of making darkasm, an interpreted asm-like programming language 02:05:36 in 02:05:39 asm?= 02:05:40 XVII32 02:05:44 hmm 02:05:45 :D 02:05:49 (hex editor) 02:05:52 yeah 02:05:54 i have that 02:05:59 XVI32* 02:05:59 (i think) 02:06:07 16 32 :P 02:06:09 not 17 :P 02:06:10 rofl 02:06:23 i don't know asm spesifics well 02:06:32 i couldn't make a compiling program 02:06:39 why not compile to C? 02:06:41 unless the empty program is legal 02:06:45 it's more portable, anyway 02:06:53 compile what to c? 02:06:58 Bullet 02:07:03 ah 02:07:10 bullet -> c -> asm at least 02:07:16 asm because it's for the os 02:07:20 dummie :) 02:07:29 you can do system programming in C 02:07:29 eew 02:07:39 it's meant to be portable assembly 02:07:49 you guys *do* realize bullet is meant as a *replacement* for C, right? 02:07:56 hmmm... interesting... I've never seen functions in what little I've touched of asm. 02:08:08 yes, but we also realize c has good compilers 02:08:12 I've always just seem macros... 02:08:27 I don't think Asm has functions... 02:08:30 but you can make them :D 02:08:35 it's a substitute for c programming, compilation is different 02:08:42 I think it has proceedure calls :P 02:08:48 [call] 02:08:57 I made bullet because I thought C had antiquated syntax and compiler technology 02:08:57 if I remember right 02:08:59 ...I'm fine with C myself... it might be fun to actually use it once. 02:09:08 call 02:09:21 that will autodo all address savings etc 02:09:24 (i think) 02:09:49 procedure==function if you can access the call stack directly 02:10:16 RodgerTheGreat i understand, but i'm afraid none of us know any asm really 02:10:21 hm 02:10:35 since i feel like i know most of us.... and i don't know any 02:10:56 now... what's an asm macro? 02:11:14 it's just like... a thing that takes args, and substitutes in some code. 02:11:18 I have a fairly good understanding of ASM programming in general, I just don't have much platform-specific instruction set knowledge 02:11:35 :p 02:11:39 okay 02:11:41 never seen 02:11:47 ..during the assembling... like compiler macros in C. 02:11:49 but anyway, that's not necessary 02:11:57 you can make functions. 02:12:25 I guess what I'm saying is 02:12:27 RodgerTheGreat well, you prolly have about the same backround as me then 02:12:32 well... sometimes functions arne't necessary... macros have the benefit of being compiled before execution. 02:12:38 you have to manually impliment calling convention 02:13:02 * SevenInchBread finds something on assembler macros. 02:13:05 SevenInchBread you can use a calculator / paper for that 02:13:22 handy, maybe, but redundant 02:13:31 I guess we could use a bullet->c compiler as a proof of concept for the language, and then we'd be able to play with the language as I tackle the slower task of building an actual compiler. 02:13:46 -!- mvivian has left (?). 02:14:00 http://www.osdev.org/wiki/Opcode_syntax 02:14:06 well, if someone was to set me up an asm compiler, i might learn the language quite quickly 02:14:10 i've dl'd about 5 02:14:14 never got any to work 02:14:14 Fasm 02:14:17 plus... macros are cool. 02:14:21 it's very easy to use 02:14:50 http://flatassembler.net/ 02:15:54 heh 02:15:58 the problem of course though is 02:16:10 you'll need an assembler at some point :P 02:16:15 and maybe a linker 02:16:19 depending what you're doing 02:16:54 http://www.iecc.com/linker/ 02:16:57 a book on linking and loading 02:17:11 http://class.ece.iastate.edu/cpre211/lectures/assembly_functions.htm asm functions.... though i have no idea what this page talks about 02:17:16 since i didn't read it :) 02:17:57 Figs you give me a fasm link and say i will also need an assembler? 02:18:17 no 02:18:19 I'm saying 02:18:25 if you make it compile to asm 02:18:28 ah 02:18:29 yeah 02:18:31 you will still need an assembler 02:18:44 FASM is a pretty nice piece of software 02:18:59 i'll dl fasm now 02:19:06 ;) 02:19:14 if I could learn x86 opcodes 02:19:18 then we'd be in business 02:19:19 hmm... making functions looks more complicated 02:19:26 it is 02:19:30 if I remember right 02:19:44 I don't know all the specifics, but I do know at least 2 ways to call functions 02:19:45 MACROS - THE LAZY MANS VARIABLES. 02:19:46 hmm... i could try and make a bf compiler 02:19:49 cdecl style 02:19:51 and stdcall 02:20:05 what really matters is who cleans up the stack 02:20:10 you can invent your own. 02:20:11 I'd imagine so.... functions are actually using assembly to do its magic... where macros are substituted in during assembling. 02:20:51 cdecl == caller clears, stdcall == callee clears iiird 02:20:52 does the function clean up the stack after itself, or does the caller clean up the stack after calling the function? 02:20:53 *iiiiiirc 02:21:27 cdecl changed the convention for varargs 02:21:36 yeah 02:21:53 all my sentences will, from now on, have an implicit iirc, for the rest of my life. 02:21:54 the number of args (variable vs fixed) is one consideration 02:21:58 iirc == ? 02:22:06 to my best recollection. 02:22:17 and thereby ruined tail call optimisation 02:22:23 yep :\ 02:22:46 Figs: if i recall correctly 02:22:47 MACROS 02:22:51 .. 02:23:06 SevenInchBread calm down 02:23:13 macros are nothing special 02:23:37 lol lol you wish. 02:23:38 any decent ide should have a general purpose macro system. 02:24:04 though, from what i've seen there is no such thing today as a decent ide 02:24:20 oooh... I'll make my own assembly lang... 02:24:35 ....like.... that'll make no sense. 02:24:42 oerjan you can make exceptions though, since you can use stdcalls in c 02:24:48 7" 02:24:58 if you do that, you need to make the hardware too :P 02:25:07 Figs no 02:25:18 no no I mean... an assembler... basically a compiler into assembly opcodes. 02:25:34 @.@ 02:25:35 that'd be like saying you have to breed your own population of people to be able to create a new esperanto 02:25:37 eep 02:25:41 or volapük 02:25:47 or that loljunga 02:25:51 or whatever :) 02:26:02 meh 02:26:03 :P 02:26:30 it'd be more interesting if we had to figure out how to make his hardware work 02:26:43 a friend of mine created this language called zx3, he's thinking of adopting a few chinese kids now to teach it to 02:26:48 as the only language 02:26:48 send pulses into the bus... 02:26:55 * SevenInchBread tries to think at stuff he's good at in making an OS... 02:27:33 ..ummm... basically just parsing and networking... and code obfuscators. 02:28:06 yeah... mostly networking. 02:28:48 you're good at networking? :D 02:28:51 yay 02:29:00 ...not good, just comfortable with it. 02:29:13 It's what I've been doing a lot of... 02:29:37 OH 02:29:51 and I can make a kickass text-based adventure game... for like a GUI or something. 02:30:25 is stdcall part of the C standard? 02:30:40 oerjan __stdcall int func(args){} 02:30:44 I don't think so 02:31:00 but it is important for practical programming 02:31:01 hmm... might be a part of the c++ standard actually :) 02:31:10 I very much doubt it 02:31:23 ...but... the only language I've honestly ever used for anything practical is Python. 02:31:23 and... might be it's c but it's not standard 02:31:23 i think the last one ^^^^^^^^ 02:31:29 I simply know how the rest of them work... but I have no experience using them. 02:32:08 it's, and I quote, "Microsoft Specific" 02:32:21 http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zxk0tw93.aspx 02:32:58 oh 02:33:06 i think you made that up! 02:34:01 __cdecl is the default convention 02:34:57 it would seem there is also __fastcall 02:36:57 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_convention 02:37:00 ...I'd be better off starting at the top end here... 02:37:37 okay, i got fasm now 02:37:44 yay 02:37:49 can't compile towers of hanoi 02:37:56 i'll try a hello world 02:38:13 so... here's what I've got so far... some ideas that probably won't be around till much later. 02:38:56 ah. stdcall and cdecl are available in gcc for i386 02:39:21 there is also fastcall 02:39:29 /Gr 02:40:49 wow something actually compiled 02:41:06 :P 02:41:10 did you make a .com? 02:41:25 30 lines, an msgbox hello world, exe 02:41:37 i did not make it 02:41:44 :P 02:42:23 exactly 30 actually, i just picked a random number 02:42:30 my lucky day 02:42:34 ;0 02:42:43 eep! 02:42:44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_decoration 02:42:55 push 0 02:42:56 push _caption 02:42:56 push _message 02:42:56 push 0 02:42:56 call [MessageBox] 02:43:02 this is the main code, it seems :P 02:43:21 now... where have i seen this before... 02:43:25 yeah 02:43:37 that would call the Windows API MessageBox() function with 4 args 02:43:48 0, _caption, _mesage, and 0 02:43:56 if I remember correctly, 02:43:59 the first is the parent 02:44:01 second is caption 02:44:03 -!- oklobot has joined. 02:44:03 3rd is message 02:44:12 and 4th is the style 02:44:19 !exec "caption" "message" PrntNl 02:44:20 message 02:44:30 O_o 02:44:36 i just realized there are no msgboxes neither in oklobot nor in irc 02:44:46 lol 02:45:05 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_decoration 02:45:06 fourth is style 02:45:07 eep! 02:45:10 yes 02:45:15 it's like MB_OK 02:45:18 or whatever 02:45:29 you can binary OR styles together 02:45:33 to create more complex styles 02:45:41 but I don't remember any of them :P 02:46:55 bah 02:47:00 MSDN is so friggen slow :P 02:47:33 ...a good thing to set up first would be a way to spit out info to the screen... for the crumbing of breads. 02:47:52 if you're doing COM programming 02:47:57 just use int 21h 02:48:06 it's old but it works 02:48:15 I don't remember the variable 02:48:22 but it gives you $ terminated strings 02:49:24 ah 02:49:27 try setting the style to 02:49:30 MB_YESNOCANCEL 02:49:33 ;) 02:49:37 or MB_ICONERROR 02:50:56 !exec "!exec ""34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl"34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl 02:50:57 !exec "!exec ""34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl"34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl 02:51:07 * SevenInchBread has no clue what's going on now. 02:51:32 SevenInchBread "int" means interruption, it's a kind of a function in asm... 02:51:37 !exec "MessageBox" PrintNl 02:51:37 but not really 02:51:48 !exec "MessageBox" PrntNl 02:51:49 MessageBox 02:52:02 :P 02:52:08 do not omit Nl for multiple prints per line. 02:52:13 use Add 02:52:24 !exec "asd ""foo"AddPrntNl 02:52:24 !exec "Hello World" PrntNl 02:52:25 asd foo 02:52:29 Hello World 02:52:43 5 second latency 02:52:52 throttling 02:52:57 ah :P 02:52:57 not latency 02:53:04 ok 02:53:07 !exec 1 1 8[RotRotDblRotAddRot1SubDbl]Drp""Rot[RotRotSwpDbl"-"SwpAddRotAddRotRotSwpDblRotSwpSubSwpRotRotDbl]DrpAddPrntNl 02:53:08 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55 02:53:19 !exec 0 10[Dbl1SubDbl]Drp[MulSwpDbl]DrpPrntNl 02:53:20 eep 02:53:20 3628800 02:53:27 !exec 0 2[Dbl1SubDbl]Drp[MulSwpDbl]DrpPrntNl 02:53:28 2 02:53:30 !exec 0 3[Dbl1SubDbl]Drp[MulSwpDbl]DrpPrntNl 02:53:32 6 02:53:35 oklopol, ...that didn't help me at all. 02:53:40 :) 02:53:42 !exec 2[Dbl]PrntNl 02:53:44 I was just... generally confused about what we were talking about. 02:53:55 !print a 02:53:56 a 02:54:09 !exec 0 2[Dbl]DrpPrntNl 02:54:29 *gives up* 02:54:30 :P 02:54:30 SevenInchBread he just said you can output with interruption 21h 02:54:35 .... 02:54:43 it's a DOS command 02:54:48 to output characters to the string 02:54:51 PFFFFFFFFFFFT 02:54:56 (among other things) 02:54:59 apple 02:55:01 int 21h does a crap load of stuff 02:55:02 think about it 02:55:09 the apple - it's like a pear... but shaped differently. 02:55:17 that's exactly what my book said 02:55:28 except for the pear thing 02:55:45 Figs i think it's the OS int 02:56:11 ok 02:56:13 to quit the program 02:56:16 is 02:56:23 mov ax 4C00h 02:56:33 int 21h 02:56:45 well, naturally. 02:57:17 hmm 02:57:31 can you write me a non windowed hello world? 02:57:35 using int 21h 02:57:56 hold on 02:58:04 let me fire up fasm 02:58:07 hmmm..... 02:58:07 it has been ages... 02:58:19 like... mov ax, smth \n int 21h \n data db "Hello, world!",0 ? 02:58:26 memory management could probably draw on some spiffy mathematical properties... to associate virtual to physical memory. 02:58:27 but then you need a lot of weird stuff 02:58:33 like segments and such 02:59:10 ...anything in programming that can be solely described in some form of arithmetic is usually blindingly fast. 02:59:33 ...I say we use the number 5. 02:59:42 anytime you need a number... use a number related in some way to 5. 02:59:51 ...and we shall have the best OS ever. 02:59:56 LET 7 = 5 02:59:59 and we can use 7 03:01:20 what is the ascii for 'a'? 03:01:44 65 03:01:45 oh 03:01:46 97 03:01:49 or.... 03:02:08 feck 03:02:10 i got jammed 03:02:14 this reminds me of the old puzzle - to write any number from 1 up to something using 4 4's 03:02:22 :D 03:02:30 i think it was 03:02:53 I got a way to put an 'a' on the screen 03:03:02 well, can i see it? 03:03:10 sure, but it is a poor way of doing things :P 03:03:20 use the db thing 03:03:28 and you have strings 03:03:31 http://rafb.net/p/Psz7PD47.html 03:03:43 no... I didn't use the other thing 03:04:16 I am working on a slightly better way 03:04:37 -!- Sukoshi has quit ("."). 03:04:51 hmm... will it take long? 03:04:55 i'll leave sooon 03:05:09 probably not 03:05:11 ...yeah... 03:05:15 I'm having trouble 03:05:20 keeping up with what we're talking about. 03:05:37 but... everything is related to five. 03:06:02 11100000 is a beautiful number... as is 10101000 and all its various adjustments. 03:06:15 oerjan can you use any lambdas in that game? 03:06:37 4 4 4 4 03:08:12 ....4 is an evil number. 03:08:12 well the usual version starts with arithmetic. if you put on to many operations you eventually reach the point where you can make a trivial recursive pattern to get everything. 03:08:15 and is no permitted. 03:08:21 and NEVER use 4 4s.... 03:08:44 *too 03:09:30 ok 03:09:33 almost got it now... 03:09:38 just need to remember how to do pointer arithmetic 03:09:39 whee 03:14:20 ...what exactly are we trying to do? 03:14:36 we're trying to print "Hello World!" 03:15:06 eep 03:15:07 :| 03:15:10 it doesn't like me 03:15:17 illegal instruction 03:15:18 :( 03:15:52 ...any way you could generalize that? 03:15:58 that's what I'm doing 03:16:01 or trying to 03:16:22 or did that not make sense? 03:16:27 ok... what I'm trying to do is: 03:16:36 define a sequence of bytes 03:16:42 "Hello World!\0" 03:16:47 I think if you had a sort of thin language atop assembly to deal with large amounts of data... like a high-level macro-language for plotting out assembly instructions... you could do some nifty stuff. 03:16:47 and print that 03:17:08 that's the idea behind C, I think... 03:17:10 SevenInchBread it's called c 03:17:12 :) 03:17:20 no no I mean... DIRECT access to assembly... 03:17:29 you have direct access to assembly 03:17:30 in C 03:17:31 make a better c compiler 03:17:31 :P 03:17:37 ... 03:17:43 that compiler when you select something and click ctrl 03:17:44 I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. 03:17:46 asm keyword 03:17:47 *compiles 03:17:52 I guess not 03:18:52 4-4+4/4, 4/4+4/4, (4+4+4)/4, 4*(4-4)+4, 4!/4-4/4, (4+4)/4+4, 4+4-4/4, 4*4-4-4, 4+4+4/4, 4*4-(4!/4), (4!+4)/4+4 03:18:53 hmm 03:18:56 12 is tricky 03:18:57 :\ 03:19:03 is ! legal? 03:19:16 basically... you're still writing assembly... but you also have a macro language with some high-level constructs for substituting in instructions... like you could have an entire "string" macro of some sort... to make strings by using macro loops and stuff. 03:19:17 i couldn't think of another way to do 5 03:19:25 ... 03:19:30 I WILL. 03:19:32 KILL YOU. 03:19:43 ???? 03:19:52 * SevenInchBread is blinded by 4s 03:19:53 4+4+4 doesn't work for you? 03:19:58 but.... SevenInchBread i think c is kinda thattish 03:20:01 Figs 4 4's 03:20:09 ah :P 03:20:14 otherwise it's ridiculously trivial 03:20:27 (4/4)*n, where n is teh num 03:20:32 except... with C you don't touch any assembly. 03:20:37 SevenInchBread you can. 03:21:06 basically what this would be is... the instructions for how you want your code to compile to assembly... 03:21:22 int dbl(int a){_asm mov ax,a;_asm mul ax,2;_asm mov a,ax;return a} 03:21:26 int dbl(int a){_asm mov ax,a;_asm mul ax,2;_asm mov a,ax;return a;} 03:21:37 actually, it is asm {}, I think 03:21:40 oh right - you can use things like 44 as well. 03:21:43 but i have never used it 03:22:03 I could be wrong 03:22:06 Figs _asm ; or _asm {instruction \n instruction \n etc} in microsoft at least 03:22:19 yeah, I don't use microsoft 03:22:23 44/4+(4-4) then 03:22:25 I may be thinking of C++'s asm 03:22:30 meh 03:22:34 this get too easy :) 03:22:39 that is 5 fours, oklopol 03:22:40 The macros would be like a string manipulation language of sorts... with the return value being the assembly instructions... 03:22:41 i'll go up to hundred. 03:22:44 ...maybe no 03:22:46 *not 03:23:04 Figs stfu :P 03:23:08 :P 03:23:41 44/((4+4)/4) 03:23:42 12 03:23:44 of course when doing this as a "family" puzzle some of the point is to know the most operations, but I think in present company that constitutes overkill 03:23:48 11 i have already... if ! is ok 03:23:57 4*4-(sqrt 4)-(sqrt 4) 03:24:11 sqrt is ^0.5 03:24:19 i don't think that's ok 03:24:29 or, at least if it is, ! is definately ok 03:24:43 so, is it multiples of 4? 03:24:45 or exactly 4? 03:24:56 anyway, i was a lot faster than you, and that's the most important 03:24:57 *thing 03:25:04 I only just started :P 03:25:07 ... 03:25:07 :P 03:25:15 all this talk of 4s is driving me crazy... 03:25:16 i don't remember exactly. It may be that it is up to 4 4's, but definitely not more 03:25:17 :D 03:25:25 okay 03:25:30 17? 03:25:42 4*4+4/4 03:25:44 hopefully this has nothing to do with the OS... I will NOT permit the rampant use of 4s in the OS. 03:25:45 13 is next 03:25:46 :D 03:25:50 don't jump to easy numbers 03:26:16 SevenInchBread i'm sorry to tell you this but it's going to consist entirely of fours :\ 03:26:20 the os 03:26:26 44/4+sqrt(4) 03:26:32 hmm 03:26:37 i still think sqrt is bad 03:26:38 :< 03:26:52 hmm i guess it's ok 03:27:23 I think I remember doing this in 5th grade 03:27:25 I hated it 03:27:28 hehe :D 03:27:34 or maybe 6th 03:27:35 not sure 03:27:41 i think i got up to 8 or smth 03:27:41 we did a lot of puzzle type math in 6th grade 03:27:44 and it got annoying 03:27:46 i used ! then too 03:27:50 ;) 03:27:57 i was much wittier then 03:27:59 :< 03:28:08 energy drinks kill the brain 03:28:25 4!-4-4-4 03:28:42 4+4+4+sqrt(4) 03:28:43 hmm 03:28:45 another way to get 12 03:28:56 yeah 03:29:02 yeah 03:29:05 so we have 3 now 03:29:09 15? 03:29:13 let's see here :P 03:29:21 4*4-(4/4) 03:29:26 44/((4+4)/4)=4*4-(sqrt 4)-(sqrt 4)=4!-4-4-4 03:29:37 yeah that was triv 03:29:41 yeah 03:29:46 16 is easy too 03:29:47 4*4+(4-4) 03:29:49 yeah 03:29:52 (4*4)*(4/4) 03:29:54 10 sec 03:29:55 17 you did already 03:29:58 18... 03:30:32 ...how would you do this puzzle in 5s? 03:30:39 4! -4 -sqrt(4) 03:30:48 clever 03:31:07 me? 03:31:08 thanks 03:31:09 if less than 4 can be used, which indeed is the case i guess :P 03:31:16 hehe 03:31:17 i forgot that already 03:31:21 yeah 03:31:22 so... 19? 03:31:27 let's do 18 again 03:31:30 and do it right 03:31:39 yeah, 4 4's! 03:32:05 4!-sqrt(4)-4 03:32:08 (4!-4)/4*4 == 20 btw 03:32:09 is 3 03:32:10 oops 03:32:15 yeah 03:32:40 (4!-4*4)+4 03:32:42 hehe 03:32:44 another 12 03:32:48 :DD 03:33:20 44-4!-4 == 16 03:33:21 damn 03:33:41 44/4*sqrt(4)-4 03:33:45 5 03:33:46 yeah 03:33:47 :\ 03:33:48 :\ 03:34:04 44/4+4+4 = 19, btw 03:34:41 * SevenInchBread wins. 03:35:22 ...23 is also an acceptable number. 03:35:25 as 2 +3 = 5 03:35:55 (4!*4!)/(4!+4) == 20 03:36:20 (4!-4)-(4/4)==19 03:36:23 (4^4)/(4!)*4 = 42.666... 03:36:32 i did it 03:36:41 nope 03:36:44 :< 03:36:44 we're trying to get 18 03:36:46 :P 03:36:46 oh 03:36:47 darn 03:36:49 I already did 19 03:36:54 where? 03:36:58 44/4+4+4 5 03:37:00 right above [16:32:10] Figs: 44/4+4+4 = 19, btw 03:37:01 [16:32:47] * SevenInchBread wins. 03:37:01 [16:33:28] SevenInchBread: ...23 is al 03:37:11 5 03:37:12 5 03:37:12 5 03:37:12 5 03:37:13 5 03:38:51 4!-4-4+sqrt(4) 03:38:58 = 18 03:39:02 yeah 03:39:13 but you did that already 03:39:19 ho 03:39:19 oh 03:39:20 I didn't O.o 03:39:21 fuck 03:39:22 :D 03:39:25 :D 03:39:27 you did 3 fours 03:39:30 yeah 03:39:34 now with 4 :D 03:39:37 ...i thought we tried to do without sqrt 03:39:45 i found that sqrt thing :\ 03:39:52 ? 03:39:56 but.... hey Figs found this already 03:39:57 :) 03:40:18 i mean 03:40:28 i found it just now, but thought it's no good 03:40:33 oh 03:40:34 :P 03:40:37 I'm using sqrt 03:40:37 because that was the thing we decided to make better 03:40:41 yeah :O 03:40:42 :P 03:40:44 okay 03:40:44 since I can't think of another way 03:40:44 21 03:40:49 yeah, me neither 03:40:53 but no cubed rutes 03:40:55 *roots 03:41:10 (4!-4)+(4/4) 03:41:10 ok.. 21 03:41:12 21 03:41:13 :D 03:41:15 :D 03:41:42 ..... floor(log10(5)**log10(25)**log10(25)*23) 03:41:47 lol 03:41:49 (4!-4)+(4/sqrt(4)) 03:41:50 22 03:42:01 so... 23? 03:42:05 I think we did 23 already 03:42:42 hmm 03:43:02 well 03:43:04 can't find it 03:43:07 let's do 23 03:43:09 HMMMMM 03:43:10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_Transfer_Language 03:43:11 ok 03:43:28 ...Lisp-ish assembly of some sort? 03:44:12 in any case... 4!-(sqrt(4))+4/4 03:44:31 =23 03:44:40 24? 03:44:56 hmm 03:45:06 yeah 03:45:29 4!-4+s(4)+s(4) 03:45:33 s??sqrt 03:45:36 s==sqrt 03:45:40 25 now 03:45:44 ok 03:46:13 4!+s(4)-(4/4) 03:46:16 25 03:46:17 26 now 03:46:19 ok 03:46:27 4!+s(4)+4-4 03:46:29 26 03:46:31 27 now 03:46:39 4!+s(4)+(4/4) 03:46:41 ==27 03:46:42 :P 03:46:43 28 now 03:46:43 :D 03:46:44 fast 03:46:47 i'm getting good at this 03:46:59 4!-4+4+4 03:47:00 4!+s(4)+4/s(4) 03:47:06 :P 03:47:13 I like mine better :P 03:47:16 yeah 03:47:16 =29 03:47:20 *8 03:47:25 s/8/9 03:47:26 4!+4+4/4 03:47:28 is that right? 03:47:35 ? :D 03:47:36 yep 03:47:39 now 30? 03:47:42 ok 03:47:58 4!+4!+4+4/s(4) 03:47:59 4!+s(4)+s(4)+s(4) 03:48:03 4!+4+4+4/s(4) 03:48:09 yeah 03:48:11 same thing 03:48:13 now 31 03:50:43 (4!)/4+(4!)/4 = 12 03:50:44 .... 03:50:55 ANYWAYS 03:50:57 LET'S GO BACK 03:51:01 f(4) = 4! ? 03:51:02 TO THE IMPORTANT MATTERS. 03:51:04 :P 03:51:14 I LIKE TALKING IN CAPS LOCK TOO :D 03:51:21 WOW LET'S GO OUT. 03:51:28 :( 03:51:31 I AM NOT INTO GUYS 03:51:33 SORRY. 03:51:37 ...DAMN 03:51:44 WELL I GUESS 03:51:47 I BETTER GO KILL MYSELF. 03:51:50 aww :( 03:51:54 help us solve 31 03:51:55 wwa 03:52:01 alright. 03:52:14 3 + 1 = 4 03:52:24 :D 03:52:41 44/4 + 4! = 35 03:52:51 24+4+4+4 = 36 03:53:04 -!- wooby has quit. 03:53:06 f(4)/4 * f(4)/4 = 36 03:53:10 :D 03:53:21 4!+4!-(4*4) = 32 03:53:25 f(4)+4+4+4 = 36, f(4)+4+4+s(4) = 24 03:53:29 omg 03:53:53 oh 03:54:09 f(4)+(f(4)/4)+4 = 24 03:54:12 *34 03:55:18 4+4+4+4+15 = 31 03:55:22 :P 03:56:13 33 is next? 03:56:20 we need to finish 31 03:56:28 it's not finished? 03:56:30 no 03:56:36 oh :\ 03:56:37 :( 03:56:45 ah 32 03:56:52 i've done that a million times :P 03:56:55 :D 03:57:01 but though OH HE DID IT DAMN! 03:57:05 *thought 03:57:08 when you showed it 03:57:12 okay, 31 03:58:17 sqrt(4)*4^2 - (4/4) 03:58:26 if you allow ^2 03:58:56 yeah... but i'd not 03:59:06 yeah 03:59:11 let's see if there's another way 03:59:14 yeah 03:59:16 because 03:59:21 hm... 03:59:26 all my attempts crash at 4*4 taking 2 numbers 03:59:36 oerjan comes in and pwns us all :) 03:59:51 BWAHAHAHAHA! 04:00:02 :DD 04:00:12 * oerjan has been reading lots of mad science webcomics 04:01:06 44-(4*4) = 28 04:01:44 44-(4!-4) = 24 :p 04:01:54 hmm 04:01:55 31 04:01:58 fuck :P 04:02:22 I'm tempted to say we allow ^2 04:02:29 just so we can move on 04:02:44 well, it's obvious we'll have to constantly increase the amount of operators 04:02:50 yeah 04:02:50 nah. definitely nothing is allowed whose mathematical notation contains a digit other than 4 04:02:52 so... 04:03:00 well yeah 04:03:04 oerjan is right 04:03:18 oerjan now give us 31 or stop ruining our fun :) 04:03:46 4!^(4-(4/4)) = 13,824 04:03:51 hehe _D 04:03:53 yay 04:04:06 oh! 04:04:08 :D 04:04:11 I got an idea 04:04:29 but it's probably useless :P 04:05:01 hehe 04:05:03 got another idea 04:05:08 if you find a way to do something w/ 3 04:05:17 use derivative :P 04:05:25 d/dx (4) = 0 04:05:41 @_@ :P 04:05:51 hmm 04:07:02 -!- ShadowHntr has joined. 04:08:21 I looked up a way to do it 04:08:24 (sorry) 04:08:26 :< 04:08:32 it required a different operator 04:08:35 that we had 04:08:35 which? 04:08:37 .4 04:08:42 :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 04:08:54 if we allow .4 04:08:56 it is possible 04:09:04 but you will have to figure out how 04:09:06 ;P 04:09:20 (and that version allowed ^2 for somethings, but I don't think used it for that) 04:09:34 hmm, prolly 4^sqrt(4) 04:09:52 no, that uses a 4 04:09:59 sqr(4) 04:10:05 only uses 1 four 04:10:08 but anyway 04:10:09 ack 04:10:14 I forgot the solution already 04:10:15 :P 04:10:17 rofl 04:10:21 well, don't look 04:10:23 *tries to figure it out* 04:10:34 we'll try until you REMEMBER or we others figure it out 04:10:41 because you figuring it out now 04:10:46 would be merely remembering. 04:10:47 :) 04:11:13 yeah I got it again 04:11:20 showz 04:11:25 4!+sqrt(4)+(sqrt(4)/.4) = 31 04:11:28 :<<<<<< 04:11:40 aah 04:11:43 2/0.4 04:11:46 yeah 04:11:48 =5 04:12:05 yeah... 5 is one of the numbers i've been wanting 04:12:11 -!- sekhmet has quit ("omgp90"). 04:12:14 hmm 04:12:18 we have up to what now? 04:12:20 s(4)/0.4 * 4/4 04:12:22 =5 04:12:27 31, 32, 33... 04:12:31 no 33 yet 04:12:36 do we have 33? 04:12:40 no... hmm 04:12:41 whee! 04:12:46 I have a solution 04:12:51 :DD 04:12:56 oh 04:12:56 4!+4+(sqrt(4)/.4) 04:12:57 haha 04:12:59 yeah 04:13:06 rofl 04:13:13 quite obvious, now 37? 04:13:15 or 04:13:23 did we do 34? 04:13:31 4!+4!-(4*4) = 32 04:13:36 no 34 04:13:40 44/4 + 4! = 35 04:13:43 24+4+4+4 = 36 04:13:50 so, 34 next 04:14:00 (i just pasted 32 35 and 36 here) 04:14:06 ok 04:14:11 34 then 04:14:17 oh duh 04:14:24 4!+4+4+s(4) 04:14:27 = 34 04:14:30 right? 04:14:33 hmm 04:14:36 yeah 04:14:37 oh 04:14:42 yeah 04:14:45 -!- SevenInchBread has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 04:14:46 37 next 04:15:26 4*4/0.4 -s(4) = 38 04:16:00 f(4+s(4))/(4*4) = 45 :) 04:16:04 :D 04:16:11 let's see if we can get to 100 04:17:13 hmm, let's make this more readable 04:17:16 24: 4! 04:17:22 5: 4/0.4 04:17:27 2: s(4) 04:17:43 5: s(4)/0.4 04:17:52 yeah... 04:17:53 oops 04:18:00 10: 4/0.4 04:18:02 yes 04:18:06 :P 04:18:23 5*10 = 50 04:18:46 37.. hm 04:21:35 5*4+24 = 44 04:22:05 48: 4! + 4! + (4-4) 04:22:12 yeah 04:22:15 ;) 04:22:48 4^2 +4^2 + 5 = 37 04:22:54 if we allow ^2 04:23:04 hmmmmmmmmmm 04:23:11 oooh 04:23:15 what if we allowed bar? 04:23:18 :D 04:23:19 hmm 04:23:21 what's that? 04:23:27 .444444......... 04:23:43 usually you put a - over the 4 04:23:49 we could do .4` 04:23:52 ahhhh 04:24:01 i thought like foo's brother bar 04:24:05 rofl 04:25:57 I got 38 04:26:31 (24 / .4` ) - (4*4) = 38 04:26:37 hm... 04:26:54 nah 04:27:22 (lambda a:2**a+a)(s(4)/(.4)) 04:27:26 == 37 04:27:31 but... 04:27:37 :P 04:27:59 I think I did a way requireing only square as the weird thing we disallowed 04:28:22 yeah, that's make it trivial 04:28:25 *that'd 04:28:34 4^2 +4^2 + s(4) / .4 04:28:37 32 would be 2 4's then 04:28:42 and 5 is 2 4's 04:28:55 yeah, exactly that actually :D 04:29:35 well.... we'll allow that and let oerjan slap us with his large trout if he doesn't like it! :D 04:29:45 so we can do ^2? 04:29:53 I think we'll need it higher up 04:29:55 though i'm pretty sure that's a mirc feature 04:30:15 * oerjan slaps oklopol with a large trout 04:30:26 do you have a better way oerjan 04:30:27 ? 04:30:28 well... i kinda like the idea of having lambdas... THOUGH might get quite easy :DD 04:30:45 i think i asked for that. 04:31:15 Z(4,4,4,4) = 37 04:31:20 yay 04:31:22 I win 04:31:47 hmm... does unlambda have a wimpmode like `p4 -> 4, ``s``a424 -> 2? 04:31:48 actually 04:31:55 that'd be quite too easy 04:32:01 "quite too" 04:32:03 Z? 04:32:24 O_o 04:32:26 I got 95 04:32:41 hehe 04:32:41 44/(.4')-4 04:32:43 =95 04:32:44 well, store it 04:32:54 now 38, we'll stick with that 37. 04:32:56 44/(.4')-4 = 95 04:32:57 :P 04:32:57 well 04:32:59 ok 04:33:01 (24 / .4` ) - (4*4) = 38 04:33:03 39 now 04:33:04 yay 04:33:09 hehe :D 04:33:10 wait 04:33:12 what? 04:33:15 :O 04:33:34 yeah 04:33:35 ok 04:33:37 works 04:33:44 ...it was yours 04:33:44 54: (24/.4') 04:33:50 oh :D 04:33:51 yeah... I just got mixed up 04:33:59 39 04:34:09 so, assuming we can use squares 04:34:14 I'll use @ to mean square 04:34:34 or... d(num) ? 04:34:45 ok 04:34:46 d 04:34:53 (i have my reasons :)) 04:35:33 f(4)/b(4)-4*4 == 38 too 04:35:40 16/.4 - 4/4 04:35:46 =39 04:35:47 oh 04:35:50 b? 04:35:52 it's the exact same :) 04:35:53 bar 04:35:57 ok 04:35:59 what is d? 04:36:07 I know it is ^2, but what word? 04:36:10 i had no d there... 04:36:13 hmm 04:36:15 i have no idea :D 04:36:21 rofl 04:36:22 ok 04:36:29 so, we have 40 next! 04:36:30 felt right... but i don't know 04:36:33 haha easy! 04:36:36 yep 04:36:42 (i think) 04:36:43 16 / .4 * 4/4 04:36:57 =40 04:37:06 16/.4 = 40 04:37:07 :P 04:37:12 40: 16/.4 04:37:16 -!- sekhmet has joined. 04:37:17 nope 04:37:20 or? 04:37:24 ? 04:37:28 36 i think 04:37:29 ahhh 04:37:30 wait 04:37:38 I used 5 fours 04:37:42 dur 04:37:42 yeah 04:37:54 16/.4 = 40 04:37:56 16/b(4)+s(4)+s(4) 04:37:58 yeah 04:37:59 oh 04:37:59 wait 04:38:01 no I didn't 04:38:06 16 : d(4) 04:38:08 d(2)/b(4)+s(4)+s(4) 04:38:17 d(4)/b(4)+s(4)+s(4) 04:38:18 i mean 04:38:38 == 4 04:38:41 == 49 04:38:43 ==40 04:38:45 FUCK 04:38:46 one letter functions are single ops, right? 04:38:46 anyway 04:38:51 yes 04:39:13 d(4)/b(4) = 36 04:39:17 for reference 04:39:25 41? 04:39:27 d(2)/b(4)+s(4)/0.4 04:39:29 == 41 04:39:31 yep 04:39:31 ok 04:39:32 42 04:39:52 f(4)+f(4)-4-s(4) 04:39:56 == 42 04:40:09 O_o 04:40:18 f(4)+f(4)-s(4)/0.4 04:40:19 yeah 04:40:19 == 43 04:40:24 ok 04:40:29 44... I did 44 didn't I? 04:40:42 maybe 04:40:43 f(4)+f(4)-s(4)-s(4) 04:40:46 == 44 anyway 04:40:55 yeah 04:40:58 45 04:41:23 44+(4/4) = 45 04:41:31 yeah 04:41:33 46 now 04:41:45 44+4-s(4) 04:41:51 hm... 04:41:55 47 04:41:56 :| 04:42:23 i'm afraid of oerjan since this is his game, i feel like we are raping him while he's not watching 04:42:30 O.o 04:42:32 rofl 04:42:34 :D 04:42:38 the version I looked up had d() in it 04:42:40 and b() 04:42:43 it's not like i invented it or anything :) 04:42:51 yeah, I've played it before 04:42:56 though I think I only went to 20 04:43:01 that was a pain in the ass :P 04:43:06 first time 04:43:13 ok, so 47? 04:43:37 44+s(4)+s(4) 48 (again prolly) 04:43:42 yeah 04:44:00 i was thinking about the combination function for binomial exponents 04:44:08 might have some use 04:44:18 ? 04:44:21 ? 04:44:24 :D 04:44:42 (n over m) = n!/(m! * (n-m)!) 04:44:48 pascal's triangle 04:44:54 44/b(4) = @_@ 04:45:00 oops 04:45:03 two things at once 04:45:04 rofl 04:45:25 oerjan what kind of use? 04:45:30 ...esoteric use? :D 04:45:49 for this puzzle i mean 04:45:54 ah :D 04:46:13 what are we up to? 04:46:14 47? 04:46:20 47 is now yeah 04:46:28 oh, that's easy 04:46:43 or not 04:46:44 :P 04:46:51 I got a way with 5 by mistake 04:47:14 44+s(4)/.4 = 49 anyways 04:47:41 f(4)+f(4)-(4/4) == 47 04:47:45 right? 04:47:58 so... 50 next? 04:48:09 44+4+s(4) == 50 04:48:12 51 next? 04:48:17 ah so easy! yeah ... 04:48:38 44+4+4 = 52 04:48:48 (obviously) 04:49:20 oh!! 04:49:22 I got it 04:49:23 hold on 04:49:36 f(4)+f(4)+s(4)/0.4 == 53 04:50:19 f(4)/.4 - 4/b(4) - 51 04:50:32 60: f(4) / .4 04:50:38 9 : 4/b 04:50:48 cool, yeah 04:50:57 54 04:51:20 f(4)/b(.4) *4/4 = 54 04:51:25 f(4)/.4-4-s(4) 04:51:28 hmm 04:51:34 yeah 04:51:36 now 55 04:51:38 well 04:51:40 trivial 04:51:49 hmm? 04:51:57 f(4)/.4-s(4)/0.4 04:52:06 yeah 04:52:08 we have so many numbers it's becoming easy :) 04:52:10 :P 04:52:11 56 04:52:22 f(4)/.4-s(4)-s(4) 04:52:25 now 57 04:53:20 f(4)+f(4)+4/b 04:53:23 is 57 04:53:26 now 58 04:53:43 d(4)*4-4-s(4) 04:53:45 f(4)/.4-4/s(4) 04:53:48 :D 04:53:56 yeah 04:53:59 now 59 04:54:08 f(4)/.4-4/4 04:54:10 okay 04:54:12 now 60 04:54:16 f(4)/.4 - 4/4 04:54:24 f(4)/.4-4+4 04:54:26 ah, I'm too slow :P 04:54:28 :) 04:54:31 now 61 04:54:39 f(4)/.4+4/4 04:54:41 okay 04:54:43 now 62 04:54:52 d(4)*4-4+s(4) 04:54:53 okay 04:54:55 now 63 04:55:03 hmm 04:55:12 d(4)*4 - (4/4) 04:55:28 = 63 04:55:31 yeah 04:55:32 4*4*(s(4)+s(4)) 04:55:34 == 64 04:55:36 d(4)*4 * 4/4 = 64 04:55:46 ok 04:55:57 d(4)*4 + 4/4 = 65 04:56:20 f(4)+f(4)+f(4)-4 = 68 04:56:25 ah 04:56:32 fuck i forgot d again xD 04:56:35 d = square 04:56:42 "4*4*4" damn that's too long..... 04:56:44 :P 04:56:45 i mean 04:56:49 forgot it existed 04:56:52 okay 04:56:52 :P 04:56:54 now 66 04:56:56 ahh 04:56:57 yeah :D 04:57:06 d(4)*4 + 4/s(4) = 65 04:57:09 d(4)*4 + 4/s(4) = 66 i mean 04:57:13 ok 04:58:14 d(4)*4+f(4)/4 = 70 04:58:28 how to make 60 again? 04:58:32 f(4) / .4 ? 04:58:38 yeah 04:58:43 yeah 05:00:54 f(4)/b + d(4) - s(4) = 68 05:01:12 54 + 16 - 2 05:04:41 hmph 05:05:44 hmm 05:06:00 well, remember, we can use f() d() and b() and s() as functions of other things too 05:07:23 hehe s(b(4)) == 0.666... 05:07:29 though 05:07:33 haven't found any use :) 05:07:37 I have 05:07:38 :D 05:07:41 I think I got one 05:07:44 hold on 05:07:59 nope 05:09:06 d(4/b(.4))-(4/b(4)) = 72 05:09:47 4*4*4*4 = 256 05:09:55 :P 05:10:13 oh!!! 05:10:24 found it? 05:10:28 no 05:10:34 but I did find something cool 05:10:38 hold on 05:11:00 44 / s(b(4)) = 66 05:11:11 only uses 3 fours though 05:11:18 yep :\ 05:11:36 darn, i had all the functions in python... now i crashed it :) 05:11:47 4**4**4**4 (** == ^) 05:12:07 lol 05:12:08 oerjan what's your haskell interpreter like btw? 05:12:08 :D 05:12:34 since the reason i'm not using haskell is i can easily use the python interpreter, the haskell interpreter sucks 05:13:40 hmm 05:13:53 i'm making a list of the shortest possible way to construct a number 05:13:55 pb.vjn.fi/p363163442.txt 05:14:00 mmm 05:14:01 http://pb.vjn.fi/p363163442.txt 05:14:04 but 05:14:07 7 is bad now 05:14:12 i think you can do it with 2 05:14:18 o.o 05:14:30 since i'm forgetting some nice ways to do numbers 05:14:37 a look-up table'd be nice 05:14:41 d(4) -( 4 / b(4)) 05:15:01 16 - 9 = 7 05:15:07 b(.4) , I mean 05:15:12 bar over .4 05:15:21 well, I guess b(4) makes sense too :P 05:15:27 since 44444444.... is useless 05:15:34 oh!! 05:15:35 YES 05:15:37 I got it 05:15:38 :) 05:15:39 66 05:15:43 44 / s(b(44)) = 66 05:15:53 .44 repeating 05:15:56 66 is ewld. 05:15:58 .44 44 44 44 44 05:16:04 :D 05:16:10 w00t! 05:16:17 :D 05:16:40 the rest of the people here are going to hate us :P 05:16:44 when they see the size of their logs 05:16:47 :P 05:17:00 ok 05:17:02 67 05:17:12 i think they'll find this most entertaining 05:17:17 :D 05:18:11 -!- oerjan has quit ("Lost terminal"). 05:18:29 good night everyone 05:18:34 night 05:18:34 night rodger 05:18:42 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 05:18:57 1: 4/4 05:18:57 2: s(4) 05:18:57 3: 4-4/4 05:18:57 4: 4 05:18:57 5: s(4)/.4 05:18:57 6: 4+s(4) 05:18:59 7: 4+4-4/4 05:19:01 8: 4+4 05:19:03 9: 4/b(4) 05:19:06 10: 4/.4 05:19:15 :D 05:19:15 i think these are pretty good... but i'd like to have allz 05:19:22 yeah 05:19:40 wanna copy/paste all from the logs? :X 05:19:40 D 05:19:41 :D 05:19:44 not really 05:19:49 hehe 05:19:52 i'll 05:19:53 that's the kind of thing that awk and sed should be used for 05:19:58 if only 05:20:01 :P 05:20:13 if only we'd been nicer :P 05:20:18 and put = on all lines with answers 05:20:35 well, let's see 05:20:39 did you add that to the file? 05:21:56 no... i won't 05:22:01 i thought i might 05:22:04 but... nooooo 05:22:16 hmm 05:22:18 no 05:22:38 I'll add one 05:22:49 oki 05:23:20 make rules for 24, 36, 54, 60, and 81 05:23:26 since we have those 05:23:27 I think 05:23:29 and 20 05:23:36 and whatever is obvious from those 05:23:37 :D 05:23:59 my server is slow is why 05:25:52 http://student.hpa.edu/~cmcfarland/bits.txt 05:25:53 there 05:27:44 hmm... i can't find a way 05:27:45 damn 05:27:52 for what? 05:27:57 67 05:28:02 it's 60 + 7 05:28:05 I think 05:28:12 mja 05:28:38 oh 05:28:43 that'd give you 5 05:28:44 woops 05:29:14 let's allow lambdas, (lambda a,b,c,d : )(4,4,4,4) 05:29:20 how do I unsuspend a job? 05:29:23 in unix? :X 05:29:24 and ONLY 4 numbers! 05:29:34 i haven't used unix 05:29:35 I don't understand lambdas :( 05:29:35 :) 05:29:46 lambda is just a nameless function 05:30:37 (\ a, b, c, d -> a + b) 4 4 4 4 would be 8 05:30:50 the lambda is called with 4,4,4 and 4 05:30:58 and a b c d are the args 05:31:23 that was a haskell lambda (almost at least) 05:31:25 would be fun 05:31:29 no 05:31:30 but I think that's kind of cheating :P 05:31:32 would be too trivial :) 05:31:34 yeah 05:31:46 since it actually means infinite 4's 05:31:51 :P 05:32:07 making n (4/4)+(4/4)+(4/4)... 05:32:07 well, that's another sort of problem 05:32:10 for our next game 05:32:15 i did it. 05:32:17 all of it. 05:32:25 ? 05:32:29 did wot? 05:32:31 with infinite 4's 05:32:33 all numbers 05:32:34 lol 05:32:35 :D 05:32:36 natural 05:32:38 nono 05:32:44 shortest possible 05:32:46 with 4's 05:32:48 oh :) 05:32:55 lambda's ok 05:33:01 if you can find a way to work it 05:33:04 we can start having unlambda competitions 05:33:07 but it adds to the count 05:33:18 I could write a simple interpreter for this :D 05:33:32 (i already have one) 05:33:36 lol :D 05:33:37 (it's called python) 05:33:39 no 05:33:42 I mean, specifically 05:33:44 for the 4's game 05:33:49 hehe oki :D 05:33:52 (with an ini file for the number worked with) 05:34:05 once you do something like 05:34:08 2: _____ 05:34:18 it counts the number of x's needed to do it 05:34:38 and would create a set of observers 05:34:45 to update dependancies 05:34:57 so if you find a faster way to do 3, for example 05:35:01 and 17 relies on 3 05:35:06 17 gets faster :D 05:35:36 could get very complicated :P 05:35:50 I'll try that later 05:35:53 now, let's find 67 05:36:47 is there a faster way to do 36 than d(4+s(4))? 05:37:22 4/b(s(4)) 18 btw 05:37:26 and no 05:37:35 you can't do 32 with ONE 4 05:37:36 ... 05:38:17 you can do 4^n with one 4 05:38:22 actually... 05:38:31 you might be able to do anything with just one 4 05:38:42 O.o :D 05:38:49 2^5 05:39:05 you can do it with 2 easily 05:39:39 you have factorization, squareroot and square 05:39:42 s(4)*d(4) 05:39:57 you might be able to make any number with those 05:40:15 assuming factorization is generalized for non natural numbers 05:40:25 like f(b(4)) 05:40:26 you mean factorial, I presume? 05:40:34 i might mean that 05:40:42 factorization is like, 36 = 6*6 = 3*2*3*2... 05:40:51 let's have a factorization function though 05:40:54 :P 05:40:55 so we have lists 05:40:56 eep 05:41:17 how did i do 54? 05:41:18 i know what factorization is, i just confuse terms :) 05:41:24 errrrr 05:41:27 hard to remember 05:41:33 16/b(4)? 05:41:45 f(4)/b(.4) *4/4 05:41:57 no, the short way ;) 05:42:22 16/b(4) = 36 05:42:39 oh :P 05:42:45 f(4)/b(4) 05:42:59 that's 54, *4/4 is a nop 05:43:14 60: f(4)/.4 05:44:24 ok 05:44:27 I'm updating my rules list 05:44:39 to include bigger ones 05:45:07 can you access it still? 05:45:25 yeah 05:45:26 cool 05:45:29 :D 05:45:57 so, 67 05:45:57 i could make a pagebin on vjn.fi 05:46:02 *shrug* 05:46:07 so you could make pages quickly 05:46:10 and update 05:46:17 well, I can update relatively quickly 05:46:19 so... pastebin with mutability 05:46:28 prolly 05:46:29 it is just a matter of connecting to my school's network 05:46:45 yeah, i mean for general usage 05:46:48 eh 05:46:50 ;) 05:46:54 ^_^ 05:47:08 this is useful for me for now 05:47:10 but go ahead 05:47:12 and... my usage, i can't connect to your school's network :) 05:47:14 that will probably grow faster 05:47:28 well, you probably could 05:47:33 the security isn't very good 05:47:33 :P 05:47:37 but I wouldn't recommend it 05:47:56 67 05:47:59 then I need to go to bed 05:48:04 i wouldn't... but fucking 67 05:48:08 it's 8 am soon 05:48:13 :( 05:48:16 eep, sorry 05:48:19 I kept you up all night 05:48:20 i'll start reading in a mo 05:48:21 nah 05:48:24 i slept all day 05:48:35 14 -> 00.00 or something 05:49:31 meh... i think i'll go read, i'll make a program to brute me 67 later today ;) 05:49:35 :P 05:55:28 Figs if you know asm && seveninchbread if you making the os, http://www.kernelthread.com/hanoi/ check out hanoi os 05:55:40 (plus of course the others if you haven't yet) 05:55:44 my asm is crappy :) 05:55:56 did you finish the hello world? 05:55:59 oh 05:56:03 I forgot about that, lol 05:56:07 I got so caught up in this :P 05:56:07 haha :) 05:56:23 I can't figure out why 05:56:26 yeah... can't claim i've done anything else either :) 05:56:26 mov dl, ptr msg 05:56:28 doesn't work 05:56:31 hmm 05:56:38 [msg] ? 05:56:41 ptr is what? 05:56:48 value of msg 05:56:53 oka 05:56:55 y 05:57:08 mov moves values? 05:57:11 yes 05:57:14 i mean 05:57:19 mov moves strings? 05:57:20 dl = [msg] 05:57:25 ah 05:57:25 no 05:57:26 okay 05:57:31 msg is db "a" 05:57:35 msg db "a" 05:57:38 "a",0 i think 05:57:42 mov dl, [msg] 05:57:47 int 21h 05:57:48 you want it zero padded 05:57:51 or? 05:57:52 (I have set AH to 02h) 05:57:53 no 05:57:56 okay 05:57:56 it shouldn't matter 05:58:02 since 05:58:06 mov dl, 'a' 05:58:08 works 05:58:18 so it just prints one char? 05:58:24 i know it can print more 05:58:34 but anyway, easy to do it with that 05:58:39 http://rafb.net/p/Psz7PD47.html 05:58:41 just looooooopz 05:58:48 that's the idea 05:58:51 loop until \0 05:58:55 jne top 05:59:00 if == quit 05:59:09 BUT i'm pretty sure there is a way to print a whole string built-in... 05:59:14 yeah 05:59:14 *built in 05:59:18 if you want to terminate wtih $ 05:59:20 which I didn't want to do 05:59:29 hmm 05:59:46 weird terminator 06:00:09 yep 06:00:55 OOHHH 06:00:57 hmm... it'd be fun to do something like hanoimania with another problem 06:00:59 I am a fucking idiot! 06:01:02 ROFL 06:01:07 probably bf in my case :) 06:01:13 oh :D 06:01:15 i didn't know that 06:01:19 what? 06:01:30 I'm defining it in the code for goodness sakes 06:01:34 so it's executing 'a' 06:01:39 XD 06:01:43 huh? 06:01:52 ok, 06:01:53 defining what? 06:01:55 look where I have it 06:01:58 org 100h 06:02:02 msg db 'a' 06:02:10 'a' is the first instruction being called >.< 06:02:14 no seperation of code and data :P 06:02:17 me == idiot 06:02:25 org? 06:02:37 that just skips some space for like, magic stuff :) 06:02:52 (ie, I need it, or it doesn't work, but I don't remember what it does ...) 06:03:25 now why is 'a' the first instruction being called? 06:03:40 i did not understnad 06:03:45 *understand 06:04:16 ok... if I looked at the output 06:04:19 it'd be something like 06:04:29 a 0xFE 0x21 ... 06:04:32 :P 06:04:39 or whatever 06:04:51 it put the byte, 'a', literally 06:04:53 at the start 06:04:55 :P 06:04:56 ah 06:05:00 oh :) 06:05:02 so it see's OH, first instruction is "a" 06:05:02 wtf 06:05:04 AHHH! 06:05:06 error 06:05:07 :D 06:05:32 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 06:05:38 actually... i still don't see why 'a' is the first instruction 06:05:45 or... why would it be an instruction 06:05:56 put it in fasm 06:05:59 and compile 06:06:02 and look at the output 06:06:04 with a hex editor ;) 06:06:12 you will see 'a' there 06:06:14 ;) 06:06:15 i assume you meant you were outputting values at address 97 in memory 06:06:17 hmm 06:06:27 but... why? :O 06:06:33 it will make more sense 06:07:49 it outputs 'a' as it's supposed to :O 06:10:14 B402B261CD21B8004CCD21 is the .com 06:10:15 anyway 06:10:25 ... O.o 06:10:27 no 06:10:29 wrong program 06:10:32 you didn't change it 06:10:33 oh :O 06:10:34 add 06:10:38 msg db 'a' 06:10:39 to the top 06:10:48 (after org 100h) 06:11:12 ah, then :) 06:11:17 you pasted the old one 06:11:56 msg db 'a' means put 'a' here and substitute this address for every 'msg' in the code? 06:12:03 no 06:12:04 it means 06:12:10 make the byte 'a' in the output 06:12:14 and when I refer to msg 06:12:19 refer to the address of that byte 06:12:27 output=? 06:12:31 code output? 06:12:48 isn't that exactly what i said? 06:12:48 output = object code 06:12:52 yeah 06:12:57 no, it's not 06:13:00 okay 06:13:04 what's the difference? 06:13:14 oh 06:13:15 it is 06:13:17 nevermind 06:13:20 I misread it :P 06:13:23 sorry :) 06:13:25 my bad 06:13:29 thought so, i wasn't being that clear 06:13:36 I thought you wrote "substitute this" 06:13:55 (ie, replace msg with 'a' litterally, which it does not do) 06:14:20 yeah, i almost wrote that, but corrected just before saying it 06:14:26 maybe you sensed that 06:14:35 lol 06:15:20 but, i'm gonna go now :) check out the hanoi os if you have a spare machine or smth, i read the source, seems trivial -----> 06:15:36 ok 06:47:55 -!- ShadowHntr has quit ("End of line."). 06:56:03 Hey oklopol 06:56:04 I did it 06:56:33 http://rafb.net/p/SWRswb26.html 06:56:42 now I am going to bed! :P 06:56:44 cya 06:58:16 -!- na[zZz]gjunk has changed nick to nazgjunk. 07:16:05 -!- Figs has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 10:16:15 -!- ais523 has joined. 11:07:57 -!- ais523 has quit. 11:09:58 -!- nazgjunk has quit ("going to backup some to prepare for almost full switch to linux"). 11:24:18 -!- lament has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)). 11:24:18 -!- lament_ has joined. 11:24:32 -!- nazgjunk has joined. 12:13:51 -!- jix has joined. 12:22:30 -!- nazgjunk has quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)). 12:22:50 -!- nazgjunk has joined. 12:27:38 -!- nazgjunk has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 12:30:41 -!- nazgjunk has joined. 12:55:32 -!- nazgjunk has quit ("Leaving"). 13:04:01 -!- nazgjunk has joined. 13:38:24 -!- nazgjunk has quit ("Bi-la Kaifa"). 13:44:08 -!- nazgjunk has joined. 13:51:35 http://student.hpa.edu/~cmcfarland/bits.txt 13:52:07 oops 14:54:41 -!- sirKIIdC has joined. 14:54:47 hi ::) 14:54:56 ! 14:55:04 brainfuck 14:55:09 help! 14:55:25 how I can give the bot brainfuck-script 14:59:16 teh Bot. 15:01:17 ~bf ++++++++[>++++++++<-]>+. 15:01:18 A 15:01:29 if your mean any bot / bsmnt_bot 15:04:19 thx 15:04:21 ::) 15:04:34 ~bf ++++++. 15:04:34 15:04:39 ~bf +++++++++++++++++++. 15:04:39 15:04:43 ~bf +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. 15:04:43 ) 15:04:48 ~bf ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. 15:04:48 0 15:04:56 ~bf +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. 15:04:56 1 15:06:21 you seems to be a real brainfuck wiz 15:06:24 :) 15:10:21 -!- crathman has joined. 15:13:08 -!- nazgjunk has quit ("Bi-la Kaifa"). 15:13:17 ::P 15:52:38 -!- Figs has joined. 15:52:45 hello 15:53:24 :D 15:53:28 40 byte hello world program 15:54:37 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 15:54:52 hello 15:54:55 !exec "Hello, world!"PrntNl 15:54:56 Hello, world! 15:54:58 21 byte hello world 15:55:03 cool 15:55:13 what language? 15:55:43 i call it oklobot, since i never really named it 15:55:58 x86 assembly 15:55:59 !exec "Lala"PrntNL 15:56:16 !exec "Lala"PrntNL 15:56:17 !exec "Lala"PrntNl 15:56:19 LalaPRIVMSG #esoteric :LalaPRIVMSG #esoteric :Lala 15:56:21 !exec "Lala"PrntNl 15:56:23 Lala 15:56:27 oklopol -- did you see? I pasted code last night 15:56:31 it fails if nl's are abused 15:56:37 i did, but i've been reading all day 15:56:43 (okay, 2 hours) 15:56:57 :blink: 15:57:08 whirl is strange language 15:57:11 now once again, oerjan's quine 15:57:12 !exec "!exec ""34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl"34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl 15:57:13 !exec "!exec ""34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl"34ChrDblRotAddDblAddRotRotAddDblAddSwpAddPrntNl 15:57:16 :) 15:57:22 i never get tired of it 15:57:49 i remember adding something to that while keeping it quine still... but couldn't find a trivial way to do that 15:57:52 now i mean 15:58:19 something like: "look, an oklobot quine! :P" 15:58:42 quines give me headaches :( 15:58:53 imagine writing a program to write quines in assembly... 15:58:58 man, I missed out on some fun this morning 15:59:17 you mean the 4 game? :P 15:59:19 I'll bet quines are easy in Lisp 15:59:24 oh yah :P 15:59:32 Figs i think not especially 15:59:35 oh 15:59:38 actually 15:59:40 probably :) 15:59:50 http://student.hpa.edu/~cmcfarland/bits.txt 15:59:52 RodgerTheGreat 15:59:54 :D 16:00:01 some short-ish ways to do various numbers 16:00:06 we got stuck on 67 16:00:12 if I remember 16:00:14 interesting 16:00:18 yeah 16:00:18 67 16:00:29 i'll go read ---------> 16:01:04 are you doing this entirely with 4s to attempt to generate numbers with bit-switching, or just for fun? 16:01:15 fun 16:01:23 you must use four 4s 16:01:27 I could've guessed. :) 16:01:27 to make each number 16:01:43 these are just short ways so we can put them together for other ones 16:02:17 so clearly, things like 32 are as simple as d(4)+d(4) 16:02:32 the short version... yeah 16:02:42 but for the game, 16:02:44 you would need 16:02:46 something like 16:02:54 (d(4)+d(4))*4/4 16:03:00 must be 4 16:03:02 yeah 16:03:13 alright, I understand 16:03:18 :D 16:03:43 ::P 16:07:00 i am writing another interpreter for my language, wich is like whirl - it has two commands - 0 and 1 16:12:56 holy crap 16:12:58 I got 67 16:13:56 ( d(d(4)) +d(4)-4 ) / 4 = 67 16:14:49 * RodgerTheGreat high-fives Figs 16:15:06 thanks :D 16:15:21 does anyone think we could have success by writing a program to bruteforce these combinations? 16:15:45 maybe, but I wouldn't recommend it :P 16:16:01 why do you say that? 16:16:06 very hard 16:16:13 you'd have to set up the entire program in a tree 16:16:26 with god knows how many levels of depth 16:16:31 recursion. mmm. 16:16:53 anyway 16:17:06 I thought of another way to make the game last night 16:17:31 shortest combinations to get to n 16:17:32 I'd just say, 8 possible operations, a limit of nested functions, and a requirement to use 4 4s. 16:17:57 don't forget I can do things like 16:18:30 (d(d(d(d(d(d(d(d(4)))))))-s(4))*d(4)-d(4) 16:18:35 yes 16:19:06 that's part of the "limit of nested functions" thing so the program doesn't i-loop 16:19:10 well, if you would like to write the program 16:19:13 go for it :D 16:19:30 and actually 16:19:34 there are 9 operations 16:19:50 I might, but I have to finish some homework today 16:20:00 +, -, *, /, s,d,f,b,^ 16:20:10 and by "today" I mean "this afternoon" 16:20:11 and you can use 44, .4, etc 16:20:14 good point 16:20:16 hm 16:20:36 ...68! 16:21:40 f(4)+f(4)+f(4)-4 = 68 16:23:58 -!- jix__ has joined. 16:24:02 hi 16:24:43 hello, jix 16:25:00 (+/- some underscores) 16:26:33 (d(d(4))+f(4)-4)/4 = 69 16:26:58 that's a good one to have 16:27:21 hm. We are in dire need of 42 16:27:21 4*d(4)+4+s(4) = 70 16:27:35 44-s(4)? :P 16:28:27 aw 16:28:39 but that only uses 3 16:28:48 (d(d(4))+f(4)+4)/4 = 71 16:28:52 we did 42 last night 16:28:54 let me look it up 16:29:17 it isn't on that thing you pastebinned 16:29:28 it's shortcuts 16:30:14 oklopol: f(4)+f(4)-4-s(4) = 42 16:30:47 yes 16:31:37 f(4)*(s(4)+4/4) = 72 16:31:44 will there ultimately be an esolang based on this concept, seeing as it appears you can use the 4x4 approach for virtually any number, at least <100 16:31:54 ;) 16:31:57 and for some much larger 16:32:07 dddddddddd(4) 16:32:08 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 16:32:16 :P 16:32:21 (for example) 16:32:53 but remember, the larger you get the more difficult it'll be to obtain precisely the number you need through addition and subtraction of lower power values 16:32:55 your task, rodger, should you choose to accept it.... and ye must! ... is to determine whether or not there is a number that cannot be made with our rules 16:33:03 hm 16:33:32 ok 16:33:34 here is the basis upon which I shall construct one: 16:33:48 very large numbers must be made via factorials or powering. 16:34:14 with each increasing term of these functions, their output grows faster 16:34:35 thus, there is greater separation between the numbers that can be created with this method 16:34:43 follow me? 16:34:47 k 16:35:27 the question just seems to be whether or not there are enough tricks to bridge that gap 16:35:35 and there probably aren't ... :P 16:35:55 where is the first number we cannot derive from 4 fours? 16:36:00 how about we try a simpler proof that can be used to prove the larger one? 16:36:22 what is the largest series of consecutive numbers that can be generated with 3 fours? 16:36:22 *shrug* 16:36:32 I have no idea :P 16:36:44 and I mean largest in terms of "most" AND "highest value" 16:36:56 :P 16:37:04 because knowing *THIS*, we'll be able to determine what the largest "gap" is we can cross 16:37:07 I'm gonna find the rest up to 100 16:37:19 I'm pretty sure that should be entirely possible 16:38:31 see if you can find some type of repeating pattern for generating consecutive numbers 16:38:47 (d(d(4))+s(4)/b(4))/4 = 73 16:40:04 OOH 16:40:36 we could do the "gap" proof recursively, by first proving the largest series of consecutives for one, then 2, and finally 3 4s 16:40:48 ;/ 16:40:50 ok 16:41:23 f(4)+f(4)+f(4)+s(4) = 74 16:42:03 (d(d(4))+44)/4 = 75 16:42:06 I see the general form of these as always (foo1(4) operator foo2(4) operator foo3(4) operator foo4(4)) 16:42:24 I think it is a bit more complex 16:42:26 since it can be 16:42:34 hm. yes. nested functions 16:42:35 op(op(op.... 4) 16:42:50 foo1(foo2(4) operator foo3(4)) 16:43:06 functions are effectively unary operators 16:43:12 and operators are binary operators 16:43:15 :P 16:43:19 yeah 16:43:43 f(4)+f(4)+f(4)+4 = 76 16:45:03 d(4/b(4)) -s(4) - s(4) = 77 16:45:28 I think the trick might be a huge number with a difference that's a large multiple of 3 or 7 away from a power or ! of 4. 16:45:49 don't forget I can also do d(d(4)) = 256 16:45:50 67 was indeed trivial once you figured you 268 is close to 256 16:45:52 and 44 16:45:58 ;) 16:45:58 that was a clever one indeed 16:46:01 thank you 16:46:38 multiples of 3 and 7 require at least two fours to express, and a third would be dedicated to the large number 16:46:46 clever, though trivial, since i found the answer before i'd read what was inside (...)/4 = 67 :) 16:46:50 268 = 256+12 16:46:54 and 12 = 16-4 16:47:11 but, i'm still reading! 16:47:18 ---------------------> 16:47:21 ;) 16:48:53 oh! let's do 4 i 4 i 4 i 4 i + same ops -> complex natural numbers n + mi :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 16:49:06 @.@ 16:49:21 or... maybe not 16:49:30 GO oklopol GO --------------------> 16:49:41 bbl- food 16:49:46 let's finish 100 first ;D 16:51:52 4*f(4)-(d(4)+s(4)) 16:51:55 =78 16:52:05 4*f(4)-(d(4)+s(4)) = 78 16:53:58 d(4/b(4))-s(d(4)/4) = 79 16:54:19 what is it? 16:54:23 d(4/b(4))-4/4 = 80 16:54:49 that would be 81 - sqrt( 16 / 4 ) = 79 ;) 16:55:35 d(4/b(4))+4/4 = 82 16:56:06 d(4/b(4)) + s(d(4)/4) = 83 16:56:17 ooh! 16:56:25 d(4/b(4)) * 4/4 = 81 :) 16:56:30 of course ;) 16:57:33 4*(d(4)+s(4)/.4) = 84 16:58:01 d(4/b(4)) + s(4) +s(4) = 85 16:58:22 d(4/b(4)) + s(4)/.4 = 86 17:01:17 what do cholery are you doing? 17:02:56 ?? 17:03:08 (d(d(4))+4*f(4))/4 = 88 17:03:10 still need 87 17:03:27 is it a kind of game? 17:03:30 yeah 17:03:50 find a combination of 4 fours that make each number up to 100 17:03:57 http://student.hpa.edu/~cmcfarland/bits.txt 17:04:02 some short ones 17:04:04 for reference 17:11:45 d(4/b(4)) + 4 + s(4) = 87 17:12:54 d( 4/b(4) ) + 4 + 4 = 89 17:13:12 4/.4 * 4/b(4) = 90 17:14:23 91-5 17:14:27 O.o 17:14:29 woops 17:17:31 d(4/b(4)) + 4/.4 = 91 17:17:44 44*s(4)+4 = 92 17:17:50 -!- lament_ has changed nick to lament. 17:19:04 d(4/b(4)) + d(4) - 4 = 93 17:19:12 FUCK :OOOOOO 17:19:17 i'm missing teh fun 17:19:18 what? 17:19:20 lol 17:19:21 :P 17:19:24 I'm almost done 17:21:12 -!- sirKIIdC has quit (Remote closed the connection). 17:21:14 yes, i find it interesting this has taken about 4 hours 17:21:26 well... might be a lot wrong, but gotta check 17:21:33 when 100 is done i mean 17:21:43 oh... 100 isn't really anything special 17:21:47 yeah 17:21:49 so... it's not interesting 17:21:51 4/.4 * 4/.4 17:21:52 I'm back 17:21:55 wb 17:22:02 which num now? 17:22:08 94 17:22:21 can i have bits? 17:22:28 http://student.hpa.edu/~cmcfarland/bits.txt 17:24:29 (f(4)+d(4))/b(4)+4 17:24:31 94 17:24:38 95 = 44/b(4) - 4 17:25:21 4*d(4)+d(4)*s(4) == 96 17:25:27 97 = 44/b(4) - s(4) 17:25:27 98 = d(4/.4) - s(d(4)/4) 17:25:27 99 = d(4/.4) - 4/4 17:25:27 100 = 4/.4 * 4/.4 17:25:31 :D 17:25:33 :D 17:25:36 fast. 17:25:40 hee 17:25:47 I found those while I was looking for 94 17:25:58 haha, i found it in 5 secs :) 17:26:04 though... prolly lucky 17:26:13 ok 17:26:16 so we got all 100! 17:26:20 ya! 17:26:21 yay 17:26:25 that means 17:26:28 we have a starting set 17:26:32 from which we can optimize 17:26:34 :D 17:26:34 hehe yeah :) 17:26:41 ie, we can do 1 - 100 in 4 17:26:42 but 17:26:46 there are better ways to do them 17:26:48 (shorter) 17:26:50 for the other game 17:26:53 we oughtta collect them all, plus make another list with the shortest possibilities 17:27:02 yeah 17:27:06 well, we should make a table 17:27:10 1, 2, 3, 4 ways :P 17:27:22 400 values O_O 17:27:22 YOU should make the table, i should read :) 17:27:23 eep 17:27:24 :P 17:27:26 lol 17:28:55 lol = d(4/b(4))+d(4)+4 17:29:23 :P 17:29:38 this looks like a job for... 17:29:40 OpenOffice! 17:29:45 * Figs plays theme music 17:31:39 hm, what was hte Sprout page? 17:31:55 sprout? 17:34:37 how can I make one out of 3 fours? 18:13:11 I fucking hate open office 18:13:15 it's slow and buggy!!! 18:13:17 damn it 18:13:47 so don't use it? 18:13:58 I don't want to pay money for another slow buggy program ;P 18:14:09 *ahem* 18:14:43 how do I turn off auto-capitalize in Calc? 18:14:48 -!- sebbu has joined. 18:16:00 found it 18:23:03 wait 18:23:05 we never got 94 18:23:41 d(4/.4)-4-s(4) = 94 18:29:30 I have extracted a substantial amount 18:29:32 and I am tired now 18:29:33 :P 18:29:37 and bored! 18:42:37 ((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))))) 18:43:09 eep 18:43:11 lisp! 18:46:58 (\s->s++show s)"(\s->s++show s)" 18:46:59 Haskell 18:47:05 :-> 18:47:22 o.o 18:47:40 the haskell one works on almost the same principle as the LISP one 18:48:48 you know 18:49:01 I still think Lisp and even further, Haskell are totally hard to read :P 18:49:13 maybe I'm just not familiar with them 18:49:23 but still... O.o 18:49:46 although, I'd be hard pressed to find a language that is always easy to read ;) 18:53:33 [19:21:17] (f(4)+d(4))/b(4)+4 18:53:33 [19:21:18] 94 18:53:37 we did 18:53:46 oh P 18:53:48 Figs: python!!! 18:53:48 *:P 18:54:06 lament, you didn't see what 7" bread made then ? :P 18:54:10 he obfuscated python 18:54:25 oh, of course it's possible to obfuscate everything 18:54:38 obfuscation is implicit in turing-completeness 18:54:45 no... :P 18:54:50 you can't obfuscate wait 18:54:53 if you want something approaching natural language syntax, try inform 7 18:55:17 you could have a theoretical programming language that disallows obfuscation though 18:55:31 oklopol: define 'obfuscation' 18:55:42 once you define it, you can disallow it 18:55:55 one that errs if you try to do something that could be done more simply 18:55:56 and no 18:56:00 i can't define it :) 18:56:20 lol 18:57:31 hmm... that haskell quine is very easy to read if you know what (\...) is 18:59:24 :O 18:59:25 http://edkrebs.com/herb/petoons11/desrt.jpg 18:59:28 ROFL 19:32:42 heh 19:37:42 hello 19:39:27 I have a small and pitiful interpreter for FOOS now 19:39:34 :P 19:39:40 * SimonRC goes 19:39:45 I am just so tired of my parser 19:46:06 FOOS? 19:46:34 A little language i've been thinking about 19:46:45 http://bsmntbombdood.mooo.com/FOOS.txt 19:46:56 everything described there is implemented 19:49:23 I still need to implement scoping 19:50:24 I'm just so fucking burned out right now 19:51:29 it's really frustrating when you're on revision 14 of what should be an easy project 19:54:19 @'foo [@'foo-executed %str print] @object %inherit add-method done create foo 19:54:26 does what's exceptected 19:55:48 "@ - pushes the builtin object onto the stack 19:55:48 " 19:55:55 i don't understand even the first line :< 19:57:10 what's the builtin object? 19:57:50 the object where the builtins are stored 19:57:55 the only object with a name 19:58:12 ah okay 20:01:00 @'foo ["Hello, world" print] @object %inherit add-method done create foo 20:01:04 a convoluted hello world 20:01:12 so... your code makes the stack go -> bi -> bi "foo" -> bi "foo" [code] -> ?? 20:01:19 @object is what? 20:01:23 what is the include for boost lambda? O.o 20:01:36 ah 20:01:41 oh, i think i got it 20:01:55 @ object is the base object, that everything inherits from 20:02:10 @ is always a push? 20:02:22 you know what is weird? 20:02:23 @ pushes the builtins object 20:02:28 okay 20:02:29 I know exactly how boost::lambda works 20:02:31 sends it the something method 20:02:34 and I could rewrite it if I needed to 20:02:36 :P 20:03:42 hmm... you have an interpreter? 20:03:45 bsmntbombdood 20:03:55 yea 20:04:10 where? 20:04:15 can it be dl'd? 20:04:25 you may have pasted a link but i don't remember 20:04:39 i need to fix some stuff first 20:05:59 i just need the basics to work... since i still don't understand how it works :) 20:06:33 wlw. 20:06:34 *wow 20:06:41 I just wrote a tokenizer in... 44 lines of code 20:06:52 hmm 20:07:00 for what? 20:07:05 def tokenize(s): return s.split(' ') 20:07:12 one-line tokenizer 20:07:12 i can write you a bf tokenizer in conciderably less 20:07:17 oh 20:07:21 tokenizer :) 20:07:47 in C++ 20:07:51 well, a nesting parser can be done in less than that 20:07:55 but 20:07:58 what lang? 20:08:05 english. 20:08:12 oh 20:08:14 :| 20:08:16 Hello There. 20:08:18 -> 20:08:19 Hello 20:08:21 There. 20:08:22 :D 20:08:24 oh :P 20:08:24 yeah 20:08:26 nothing magical 20:08:32 i don't see that requiring 44 lines :) 20:08:52 in C++? 20:08:57 from a file? :P 20:09:32 I used lambda to output it 20:09:41 since I was too lazy to write a new function 20:11:45 rapid share sucks 20:13:30 hrm 20:13:44 python looks like it's having trouble with mutual imports 20:15:08 -!- bsmntbombdood has changed nick to xor. 20:24:05 -!- atrapado has joined. 20:27:56 http://www.vjn.fi/pb/p654524162.txt 20:29:28 afk 20:29:35 got to take my sister to the park :( 20:29:54 cya 20:30:01 I should be back in an hour or so 20:31:28 party on the backseat 21:25:45 -!- crathman has quit ("Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.3/2007030919]"). 21:34:51 -!- ShadowHntr has joined. 22:10:21 I broke my interpreter 22:11:26 :( 22:14:10 that's one beautiful nick 22:14:32 xor? :P 22:14:36 though i'd just understood what bsmntbombdood means 22:14:45 yeah 22:31:30 -!- Figs has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 22:56:38 -!- Figs has joined. 23:23:26 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+"). 23:29:19 hey 23:29:28 does anyone know a good open source firewall for windows? 23:29:59 Ha ha ha ha ha 23:30:04 :P 23:30:05 Ahhh, that's a good one. 23:30:11 I take it not? 23:30:26 Well, certainly I wouldn't, I don't use Windows :P 23:30:38 I wish I didn't have to use windows any more 23:30:40 but I do :P 23:31:04 if I was more knowledgable of sys. programming 23:31:06 I'd do it myself 23:33:33 -!- SevenInchBread has joined. 23:37:16 I hate norton 23:37:45 hmmm... 23:37:48 I just thought of something. 23:38:46 if I'm computer is connected to the net through a WLAN adapter... would that effect my ability to properly get a webserver going? 23:39:01 might 23:39:15 ...the IP address everything seems to be getting from me is different from the one my adapter says. 23:39:35 is there a way to quit norton? 23:39:55 -nod- you should be able to... 23:40:21 i guess 1:37 is a good time to start perusing the course book if the exam is at 8? 23:40:32 am I still here? 23:40:45 ...yes 23:41:00 -!- atrapado has quit ("l3nc"). 23:41:01 there we go 23:41:04 finally killed it 23:41:07 hmmm... when I logged into my router to foreward port 80 to my adapters IP I got " NAPT server IP address is not a valid host LAN address." 23:41:08 god, that was hard 23:41:53 brb 23:41:54 -!- Figs has left (?). 23:46:07 -!- crashmatrix has quit ("Leaving"). 23:50:48 -!- SevenInchBread_ has joined. 23:57:15 -!- SevenInchBread has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)).