00:28:09 man, spanish is fucked up 00:49:08 mit-scheme needs to not crash when printing an infinite list 00:49:37 don't print infinite lists. 00:49:41 and don't use mit-scheme :) 00:50:00 print them with Common Lisp, which can handle crap like that 00:50:17 it has syntax for arbitrary graphs 00:50:30 i don't _intend_ to print an infinite list 00:55:07 i can't figure out the bug here 00:57:31 Spanish is fucked up? 00:57:48 Don't worry; I doubt 00:57:52 "alsastalaviaststa" is actually a real word. 00:58:51 And so is "antidisestablishmentarianism". 00:59:46 MzScheme outputs infinite lists (any sorts, not just simple circular) fine; but I don't think it _needs_ to not crash: R5RS only mandates that list? must not get confused by them, and mit-scheme (according to docs) gets that part right. 01:05:07 I doubt it's a real word, and so is that? 01:13:00 Well, it's 01:09, so time for bed. 01:13:31 Gasp! 01:13:51 You clearly have never heard of stimulants! 01:15:16 Dopamine reuptake inhibitors! Dopamine releasers! MAO inhibitors! Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors! Norepinephrine releasers! GABA antagonists! Methlyxanthines! 01:16:11 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine might be the one that works the best because it has the longest name. 01:16:51 But it probably isn't. 01:16:58 And it's illegal. 01:19:05 ihope: some varieties of spanish use one pronoun for men, one for things of masculine gender and another for everything feminine (people and things alike) 01:20:00 Interesting. 01:22:31 Acetylcolinesterase 01:22:44 one of my favorite enzymes 01:24:51 whoops, dropped an h 01:25:00 should be "Acetylcholinesterase" 01:26:02 Naturally, Wikipedia would have a section about acetylcholinesterase in popular culture. 01:26:36 that's bizarre 01:26:57 * ihope looks for "popular culture in popular culture" 01:27:15 Darn. 01:27:24 did you know that RAID functions by being an Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor? 02:47:28 Redundant array of independent disks? 02:49:11 -!- ihope__ has joined. 03:07:03 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 03:10:31 I'd imagine that a redundant array of independent disks could inhibit acetylcholinesterase. . . Because you can't easily erase a RAID! (cue groans) 03:18:57 * RodgerTheGreat emits the sound of crickets chirping 03:26:25 What, not even a groan? 03:31:48 I think I had one going for a bit, but it turned out to be a burp 03:31:57 sorry. 03:44:39 ihope__: or you could just go with caffiene 03:44:51 That's true. 03:45:18 You could also undergo gene therapy to give yourself fatal familial insomnia. 03:45:27 I wouldn't recommend it. Dying from lack of sleep is not fun. 03:45:28 cheap and legal and and easy to pronounce name and tolerable side effects 03:45:29 -!- ihope__ has changed nick to ihope. 03:46:00 What, "dope" isn't easy to pronounce? 03:46:07 It can even refer to three different drugs! 04:01:06 how about "weed"? 04:01:13 -!- boily has joined. 04:01:22 then you won't care about needing sleep! 04:02:21 cya, guys 04:02:55 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 04:31:18 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 05:17:39 -!- c|p has quit ("( www.nnscript.de :: NoNameScript 4.02 :: www.XLhost.de )"). 06:35:15 -!- boily has quit ("WeeChat 0.2.5"). 07:41:20 -!- oerjan has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:22:14 -!- mtve has joined. 09:49:26 -!- helios24 has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 10:04:58 -!- helios24 has joined. 11:31:26 -!- oerjan has quit ("Lunchetera"). 12:22:56 -!- jix has joined. 13:26:12 -!- jix has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 13:34:54 -!- ihope__ has joined. 13:35:06 -!- ihope__ has changed nick to ihope. 14:40:36 -!- pikhq has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:41:10 -!- pikhq has joined. 14:51:58 -!- jix has joined. 15:03:04 -!- andreou has joined. 15:03:08 sup 15:06:45 remum? 15:39:54 -!- c|p has joined. 15:44:18 -!- oerjan has joined. 16:18:23 -!- jix_ has joined. 16:27:16 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 16:30:32 challenge: make an esolang in which (0 can be used for quoting code and also for grouping in expressions, because those two concepts are the same thing <<< oklotalk 16:40:05 oklotalk has [], () and {} with different meanings, but their semantics overlap, you can simulate either [] or {} with () in most cases 16:47:14 Oklotalk? 16:47:38 Sounds like something that needs wikiing. 16:53:45 my language i'm speccing up on a daily basis now 16:54:25 still a bit under construction, but i did make a partial parser a few days ago 16:54:56 well, a parser that works for legal code 16:55:03 hmm 16:55:19 everything is legal, i mean code that's _very_ legal 17:06:39 * ihope tosses together a programming language that's riddled with symbols 17:07:33 Okay, not quite riddled, yet. 17:07:48 Only * and > so far. 17:08:14 it could still be riddled with them. 17:08:29 Er, those are the only ones that represent values. 17:08:54 oklopol: aren't even brackets required to match? 17:10:14 nope 17:10:47 it's a bit complicated to explain, though very logical once you grasp it 17:11:16 i wanted to make unmatching brackets possible because that was the only thing making pieces of code illegal 17:11:19 now everything is lega 17:11:22 *leagal 17:11:24 *elgalö 17:11:27 *lkegak 17:11:30 *i give up 17:11:34 Legal? 17:11:44 legacy 17:11:54 Lego 17:12:24 Elgar 17:12:31 Legolas 17:12:32 Lawful! 17:12:44 legal << there 17:12:45 So how does this non-matched bracket thing work? 17:15:32 hmm... i gotta think a bit to get it into words 17:15:54 which, i admit, is a sign of me not having proved it can actually work like i intended 17:15:57 wait a mo 17:16:13 * ihope ties up :, = and ; 17:16:38 F! "morning!" 17:16:38 morning! 17:17:08 My goal for my little language is to be able to express proofs that two expressions are equivalent. 17:17:49 I think that means first-order logic is necessary. 17:17:53 not particularly possible in the general case 17:18:14 No? 17:18:34 Is there a proof that no formal system of proof can express all proofs of equivalence? 17:18:50 Rather, no set of axioms? 17:18:52 isn't that goedel? 17:18:59 I dunno. Probably :-P 17:19:12 goedel is about proving theorems 17:19:12 I'll ask in #math. 17:19:24 which is the same as proving that a statement is equivalent to True 17:19:59 so, sorry :) 17:24:28 from the wiki: "Most programming languages do allow for arbitrary effects at arbitrary points. In the imperative paradigm, for example, all this really means is that there is no restriction on the order that instructions are specified to be executed in." 17:24:32 what the hell does that mean? 17:31:49 Luckily, all the equivalence-of-expressions I want is the fact that it's impossible to produce a type error by applying a function to an argument. 17:33:42 oh, that's different 17:33:45 well 17:34:03 goedel's theorem is for systems complex enough to express arithmetic 17:34:13 if your type system is complex enough to express arithmetic, you're fucked 17:34:22 but it probably isn't 17:34:46 Type system complex enough to express arithmetic... 17:35:07 Does the fact that types can contain any value help? 17:37:43 hmm 17:37:46 i got it ready 17:38:00 i'll up it, see if you find any sense in it 17:39:11 http://www.vjn.fi/pb/p213111455.txt 17:39:20 also tell me if that has a bug or smth 17:40:54 "by the type by the opening bracket." 17:40:56 lol 17:43:14 http://www.vjn.fi/pb/p312111331.txt 17:43:19 better i guess 17:51:58 -!- andreou has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 18:15:28 -!- sebbu has joined. 18:38:25 oklopol: ok i think it make sense except that you have reversed low/high precedence. 18:38:51 (from their usual meaning) 18:53:34 hmm... indeed i have 18:53:38 didn't think that through 18:55:46 okay, i didn't not think that through, i really tried putting them in the more sensible order :) 18:55:47 http://www.vjn.fi/pb/p564212545.txt 18:55:52 like thut 19:06:28 I suddenly want to write a parser for it. 19:06:42 Could be an interesting challenge. :-) 19:06:50 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 19:07:04 'afternoon, everyone 19:08:37 ihope: i can tell you the tokenizing rules 19:08:48 and you can do it all. 19:09:06 I could! 19:09:07 also, okenization is an important part of parsing oklotalk 19:09:17 that has simple rules as well 19:09:44 okenization is my term for "whuz applied to what" 19:10:23 like, 5 + 4 is (+ 5 4), while 5 3 4 is ´(5 3 4) 19:10:41 the parenthesis ones being lisp of course 19:11:05 Acute accent? 19:11:15 ? 19:11:21 ´ 19:11:25 yes, quote 19:11:34 the thing _you_ were talking about some time ago 19:11:35 It looks like neither ` nor '. 19:11:44 it's neither. 19:11:45 ` 19:11:55 Is it ASCII? 19:11:58 but doesn't matter, lisp has just one ' 19:12:00 ` is ascii 19:12:04 yes 19:12:08 what oklopol had was not ascii 19:12:11 oh 19:12:12 :) 19:12:24 it's like ` but going the other way 19:12:37 really isn't? damn :\ 19:12:50 it's an important part of oklotalk tokenization :) 19:13:00 `, ' and that are used in oklotalk? 19:13:05 i'm not a fan of langs that require the use of characters i can't even type 19:13:14 ´, ` and ' 19:13:32 Hmm... 19:13:40 lament: the key you do ` with, doesn't it give you ´? 19:13:50 it does on all my keyboards 19:14:04 and it's not used in finnish so i don't think that's the reason 19:14:05 All your keyboards have ´ under ~? 19:14:19 they have a special button for ´ 19:14:22 oklopol: ` with no shift, ~ with shift 19:14:28 oh 19:14:29 :\ 19:14:37 -!- pikhq has quit (Remote closed the connection). 19:14:45 damn 19:14:53 -!- pikhq has joined. 19:15:04 well, don't care, the choise of characters is not important 19:15:23 Do you know if there are any ASCII characters you're not using? 19:15:32 (Is there a rough oklotalk spec anywhere?) 19:15:39 ihope: that was just the bracket rules, there are other ways to change scoping :) 19:15:45 haskell-like $ for one 19:16:17 I know that without much specification, I can't give much feedback. 19:16:17 ihope: on my comp, but it's partly outdated and too long for me to quickly fix it now 19:16:24 heh 19:16:26 trues 19:17:01 Well, a parser can be written even if you have no idea what the result is supposed to do. 19:17:22 i could make a parsing spec, indeed 19:17:30 I could write up a parser in Haskell. 19:18:18 i'll make one now, i'll make a python parser for it, but you prolly get it finished before me 19:18:34 shouldn't be that hard 19:18:49 Of course, it's probably best to make the whole interpreter/compiler in one language. 19:19:03 yeah 19:19:25 hmm... 19:19:32 wonder if i could make anything in haskell 19:19:41 no. You're not smart enough. 19:19:43 I wonder if I could make anything in Python... 19:19:45 made a thue interpreter... my first and only haskell program :DD 19:20:01 Python is similar enough to Haskell that I could do it, I believe. 19:20:16 lament: my thoughts exactly, it's just i've surprised myself a few times 19:20:23 It might look totally un-Python, though. :-) 19:20:52 python is nice, i just don't like the fact it has no scoping really 19:21:09 No scoping? 19:21:12 well okay it has, but it like sucks ass 19:21:54 if you have a function inside another function, the inner function does not have access to the outer one 19:22:17 oklopol: now, you said Finnish? 19:22:21 err 19:22:26 what i said was in finnish? 19:22:41 hmm 19:22:44 You mentioned Finnish keyboards, or something. 19:22:47 oh 19:22:49 indeed i did 19:22:55 ah 19:22:56 oklopol: it's not a problem in practice. 19:23:10 we have umlaut where you have ` 19:23:16 lament: for me it is 19:23:42 because i'm stupid, probably 19:24:02 inner functions are unpythonic 19:24:10 Do you speak Finnish, then? 19:24:55 (Should I just ask if English isn't your first language and point out your error? :-P) 19:25:31 point point 19:26:03 it's not my first language 19:26:21 is english anybody's first language? 19:26:37 lament: yours? 19:26:37 It's mine. :-) 19:26:42 oh 19:27:02 hmm... actually i might be wrong about you being american 19:27:04 ihope: poor guy 19:27:06 (lament) 19:27:10 ihope: do you speak any other languages? 19:27:15 ihope: not for lambda calculus 19:27:22 I'm learning Spanish and have looked at Japanese. 19:27:31 which means not for any turing complete language 19:27:31 bsmntbombdood: what about lambda calculus? 19:27:32 ihope: will you tell me my error? 19:27:43 the nice thing about NOT having english as your first language 19:27:47 is that you're gonna learn english anyway 19:27:53 so you will know two languages 19:28:00 ihope: proofs of equivilence 19:28:23 oklopol: you said that Python had no scoping, then you said "okay, it has". That should be "okay, it does", since "has" isn't an auxiliary verb here. 19:28:43 wow 19:28:54 1/100 would have niticed 19:28:55 (Isn't it wonderful how many things in English require auxiliary verbs?) 19:28:56 *noticed 19:28:59 hmm 19:29:09 perhaps 100% of americans 19:29:19 :-) 19:29:25 it's easy to see for natives, probably 19:29:26 ihope: i don't think your explanation is correct 19:29:35 With auxiliary verbs? 19:30:12 ihope: or rather, you say "has" isn't an auxilary verb, but you don't explain why there should be an auxilary verb there. 19:30:26 ihope: the reason that happened was i was actually going to write how it has and what, but couldn't phrase it well enough 19:31:09 lament: same reason we need to say "Did you eat lunch yet?" rather than "Ate you lunch yet"? 19:31:36 ihope: no, it's not the same reason. 19:31:48 ihope: In that sentence you need the auxilary verb because that's how you form questions. 19:32:05 I can't say "that's the way it is" for this, too? 19:32:10 oklopol's statement wasn't a question. 19:32:24 it's because the verb itself is stressed, not? 19:32:41 you can't understand it, you have to feel it 19:32:53 oh, i'm pretty sure you can understand it. 19:32:58 english auxiliaries are fucked up 19:33:02 ihope: can you use too in a negative sentence like that? 19:33:06 'too' 19:33:12 oklopol: no, he can't. 19:33:15 cool 19:33:19 ihope: i POWNED ya 19:33:30 WTF are can, could, should, would, etc anyway? 19:33:45 oklopol: ITYM "PWNED" 19:33:51 SimonRC: ...verbs? 19:33:58 "I know this is true. Are you saying that this isn't true too?" 19:34:11 ihope: s/too/either 19:34:13 "as well"? 19:34:17 ihope: "too" is ungrammatical 19:34:36 i'd say "either" would be even more wrong. 19:34:49 lament: they sometimes don't work like verbs 19:34:56 and they don't compose properly 19:35:02 SimonRC: then think of them as mood markers 19:35:02 lament: if the first sentence were "I know this isn't true", then it'd be either, but isn't it "too" when you say that it is true? 19:35:17 ihope: or perhaps "as well"? 19:35:25 That also works. 19:35:40 i'd say "too" doesn't, but i guess you make the language. 19:35:44 ihope: are you parsing it as "are you saying that [this isn't true] too?" 19:36:02 ihope: i'm parsing it as "are you saying that this [isn't true too]" which is ungrammatical 19:36:04 Are you saying that [this isn't true too]? 19:36:17 Hmm... 19:36:47 seems 'too' can only be applied to positive statements 19:37:01 john has an apple and i have one too 19:37:02 "Too", as far as I know, is used whenever some *other* statement is positive. 19:37:08 john doesn't have any apples and i don't have any either 19:37:22 John has an apple but I don't have one too. 19:37:32 ungrammatical 19:37:42 i'm very sure that's ungrammatical 19:38:25 I guess I'm thinking of "to have one too" as a form of "to have one" that's used when someone else has one, and then I'm just negating it. 19:38:27 grammatical: john has an apple but i don't have one. 19:38:29 i'd say that latter one is right 19:38:41 * ihope shrugs 19:39:35 you can only use 'too' when both statements agree with each other 19:39:41 too indicates the agreement between them 19:39:45 you can't understand it 19:39:49 john has it, i have it too 19:40:03 same with either, but for negative statements 19:40:25 "john has an apple but i don't have one too" is wrong because it feels wrong 19:40:29 if one is positive and the other is negative, then there's no agreement, so you can't use "too" nor "either" 19:42:44 Now, I think we were on about Python and Haskell and such. 19:43:00 Python, Haskell, parsers, specs... 19:43:46 Division of labor... 19:44:07 But not Keynesianism. 19:44:13 yeah, yeah, you suck at english and that's all there is to it :) 19:44:47 Yes, isn't it wonderful? 19:44:48 it's raining outside, i wanna go there 19:44:54 lol America: # God hates the world // and all her people #, by the same people that brought you God Hates Fags http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=278059 19:47:59 by the way, it was a 30 minute job learning a deck of cards in order 19:48:12 and the pianist failed pretty bad 19:48:36 Sounds like absurdist humor. 19:48:44 Or is that surrealist humor? 19:48:48 :-P 19:48:59 what me? 19:49:10 Yup. 19:49:20 i used to sing that piece in choir <3 19:49:25 the original one 19:49:27 <3? 19:49:28 :DD 19:49:36 i'm high on caffeine again 19:49:42 I see. 19:50:04 Don't worry. If you do that often enough, you'll develop resistance to it. 19:50:13 Unfortunately, resistance comes with addition. 19:51:14 And by addition, I mean addiction. 19:51:20 mandatory to attain choir since i was on a music class 19:51:25 hmm 19:51:49 ihope: i won't get resistant since the high is psychological 19:52:17 Oh? 19:52:38 what? 19:53:13 AFAICT it's real 19:53:38 what the hell is a "psychological high"? 19:53:47 "psychological addiction" i can understand 19:53:48 If only that were true for the L-Dopa administered to catatonic patients... 19:53:57 "psychological high", not really 19:54:20 since caffeine obviously has physiological effects 19:54:39 unless you're drinking decaf coffee and your high is from the placebo effect 19:54:54 Death is considered a physiological effect, right? 19:54:59 i can get pretty high without any substance. 19:55:17 * ihope ponders the phrase "your highness" 19:55:49 it's true caffeine has physiological effects, but it's highifying effect is minimal 19:56:17 i just get so excited from the fact it's my favorite poison i'm drinking i sometimes get a bit carried away 19:57:03 Now, are you doing anything in the way of an oklotalk spec? 19:57:19 oklopol: huh/ you memorised the order of a pack of cards? 19:58:04 yeah 19:58:18 ihope: trying, but people keep on talking :P 19:58:58 lament: can you please kickban oklopol so that that spec will get written? 19:59:00 :-P 19:59:13 nooo 19:59:14 :D 19:59:25 * ihope grabs the whip 19:59:28 Get to work! 20:00:06 oklopol: how? 20:01:01 SimonRC: http://www.torrentz.com/87dbcdab1a1734730dad25b1fdaf4caf9edd4a06 20:01:13 trivial 20:06:07 hmm 20:06:10 is § ascii? 20:06:26 that's also a pretty crucial char :) 20:06:41 no. 20:07:49 -!- kwertii has joined. 20:08:00 heh 20:08:24 ¤, i guess, isn't either? 20:09:22 i've never seen a keyboard without these keys and don't know the ascii table by heart... i guess i should travel more and remember more 20:09:38 s/keys/characters 20:10:11 ¤ isn't ASCII, no. 20:10:49 Alphanumerics and `~!@#$%^&*()_+-={}|[]\:";'<>?,./ 20:11:42 Does your keyboard have all of ASCII? 20:11:47 okily, then i have to change my whole operator set or just have it not be ascii 20:11:55 ihope: all those yes 20:12:01 and a lot more 20:12:03 ªŋ®þjþ←jœš®→↓ħj€ħjµª€ħ 20:12:24 That's... many. 20:12:37 those were random, not all 20:12:53 Indeed, there certainly were duplicates. 20:13:09 yeah, there's about twice that 20:13:15 much 20:13:55 oklopol: I don't care enough to download all that 20:14:22 one pdf? 20:14:44 well, it's a lot more if you don't do torrents of course 20:14:52 anyway, that's a book i read. 20:14:57 (half of it) 20:15:00 (sofar) 20:18:07 heh, 50000 steps to solve "world's hardest sudoku" with brute force 20:18:28 841258 steps to solve a random sudoku i solved by hand in 10 minutes 20:18:54 :-) 20:19:06 I take it you're using some sort of program to do that. 20:19:13 yeah 20:19:35 no, no, it's a trick from that book... 20:19:51 (Also, people really don't know what they're missing with, say, 9x9 sudokus.) 20:20:07 (...Okay, they probably know that they're missing large headaches.) 20:20:12 i know what i'm missing _without_ sudokus 20:20:18 basically nothing :) 20:20:55 Hmm... by "with" I apparently meant "in". 20:20:59 Or something like that. 20:21:44 16x16 sudokus can be bruted as well 20:22:03 however, even the easiest 25x25 will take forever... never managed to finish one 20:22:11 run the program for days. 20:22:13 *ran 20:22:34 Try implementing... um, some certain algorithm. 20:23:48 http://www.vjn.fi/pb/p553546433.txt 20:23:51 that was hard 20:24:09 i have an algorithm that generalized sudokus... also solves the checkers problem 20:24:16 Say, have you tried brute-forcing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sudoku_puzzle_hard_for_brute_force.jpg? 20:24:23 that i made one night because i was bored 20:24:48 Dancing Links is the algorithm I mean. 20:25:44 looks like wikipedia is mostly down 20:26:11 Works for me. 20:26:31 dancing links? 20:26:37 Yup. 20:26:38 hmm... didn't brute yet 20:28:34 hmm, i'm not gonna try and understand that... i'm pretty sure it's the same i invented myself 20:28:40 what else could it be 20:29:07 What's probably the same as you invented yourself? 20:29:40 dancing links 20:29:52 i mean, pretty much the same, prolly a bit better 20:30:18