←2007-07-03 2007-07-04 2007-07-05→ ↑2007 ↑all
00:00:04 <lament> oklopol: you mean you want to be known as "that guy who's reading ANKOS"?
00:00:29 <oklopol> hmm
00:00:31 <oklopol> indeed
00:00:57 <oklopol> that's only if you have a long-term fact and a varying short-term fact
00:01:04 <oklopol> that'd be my short-term fact
00:01:19 <oklopol> my long-term facts i have no idea about
00:01:29 <oklopol> something negative, most likely
00:02:17 <lament> "That vile-smelling individual who's reading ANKOS"?
00:03:09 <oklopol> that's better
00:15:20 -!- GreaseMonkey has joined.
00:19:39 -!- Sgeo has joined.
00:23:47 <pikhq> "That guy that should worship me?"
00:26:31 <oklopol> i do worship you a bit
00:26:40 <pikhq> Oh, really? Sweet.
00:26:41 <pikhq> XD
00:26:45 <oklopol> even though i haven't actually *looked* at pebble.
00:26:50 <pikhq> -_-'
00:27:02 <pikhq> Well, you've got a book that you're reading, so that's excusable.
00:27:07 <oklopol> heh, yeah :)
00:27:15 <oklopol> i dl'd it though!
00:27:36 <pikhq> :)
00:27:46 <pikhq> Version 1.0, not 1.0-preview?
00:27:59 <oklopol> errr.... i dl'd something :)
00:28:11 <pikhq> Version 1.0 has this nice thing called "documentation". ;)
00:28:20 <oklopol> i promise i'll check it out.
00:28:28 <pikhq> Mmkay.
00:28:47 <oklopol> but, beware, once i look at it, i most likely won't worship it as much
00:28:58 <pikhq> Ah.
00:29:06 <oklopol> on the other hand, it might get another status in my head
00:29:55 <oklopol> of course you'd most likely rather be worshipped than having made something that somewhat steers a random persons thoughts.
00:30:02 <oklopol> *have
00:30:09 <oklopol> *person's
00:30:25 <pikhq> I'd rather have both, since the last option is exactly what it does to me. :p
00:30:46 <oklopol> both is possible as well
00:31:11 <oklopol> argh, so many pages srijg
00:34:58 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+").
00:36:32 -!- immibis has joined.
00:36:50 <oklopol> and i have a hard time continuing reading when i know i haven't implemented all this cool stuff in the book
00:36:54 <oklopol> hi immibis
00:37:28 <lament> stop reading.
00:38:24 <oklopol> nah, i enjoy a challenge... on some level
00:39:14 <immibis> hi oklopol
00:58:52 -!- Tritonio_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
00:59:29 -!- Tritonio_ has joined.
01:26:32 -!- oerjan has quit (anthony.freenode.net irc.freenode.net).
01:27:09 -!- oerjan has joined.
02:45:08 -!- Tritonio_ has quit ("Bye...").
03:15:31 -!- cosmic_string has joined.
03:47:03 <bsmntbombdood> does forth have first class functions?
03:47:15 <oerjan> no.
03:47:39 <oerjan> or, well not lambdas.
03:47:50 <bsmntbombdood> function pointers, then?
03:48:48 <oerjan> i guess so, since it does low-level things like addresses
03:51:19 <lament> bsmntbombdood: i suggest you look at forth more closely
03:51:34 <lament> bsmntbombdood: it's so different from everything else, the usual terms like "first-class foo" don't really apply to it
03:51:56 <bsmntbombdood> i should probably look at it again, it's been a loooong time
03:53:42 <pikhq> lament: So, nothing is first-class?
03:54:10 <pikhq> :p
03:55:31 <lament> forth is much less of an abstract formal system than other languages
03:55:43 <lament> it's strongly tied to the underlying hardware model
03:56:28 <lament> so there're several levels of abstraction, that are normally kept completely separate; here they all interleave
03:57:05 <pikhq> "First-class". Is a function a normal datatype?
03:57:24 <pikhq> If yes, it's first-class. Otherwise, it's not.
03:57:38 <bsmntbombdood> what if a language doesn't have datatypes?
03:58:21 <pikhq> Then there are no first-class types.
03:58:45 <pikhq> Although I doubt there are any such languages. . .
03:58:53 <bsmntbombdood> i think in forth the only type is a cell
03:59:10 <pikhq> Even the Turing machine has a type.
04:07:48 <lament> forth has only one type.
04:09:05 <lament> still, terms "first-class" aren't really applicable to it.
04:09:23 <lament> i suppose forth has first-class integers and first-class memory addresses.
04:10:24 <pikhq> Looking at it, I see that it has first-class stack entries.
04:10:38 <lament> i don't think it has that.
04:11:21 <lament> i mean i don't think that's a type :)
04:11:31 <pikhq> Well. . . Yes.
04:11:40 <pikhq> But it's still the first-class object.
04:12:04 <pikhq> Hmm. I *think* words are first-class, but I'm not sure.
04:12:20 <lament> no
04:12:23 <lament> they're not
04:12:45 <pikhq> Can you set a variable to a word?
04:13:28 <lament> no
04:13:30 * pikhq doesn't really know FORTH; know a *tiny* bit of HP's Reverse Polish Lisp, which is Lisp+Forth
04:13:38 <lament> like i said, look at forth in more detail
04:13:50 <lament> it helps to think of it as a program, not as a language
04:14:23 <lament> a self-modifying program running on bare metal
04:14:28 <pikhq> I'm thinking of it more as a clever hack. :p
04:14:49 <lament> (forth doesn't HAVE to run on bare metal, but if you think of it that way it helps to understand the design philosophy)
04:15:08 <lament> s/if you think/thinking
04:15:54 <pikhq> Damned clever.
04:16:06 <lament> with other lang, we try to be careful to not mix the language and the implementation
04:16:09 <lament> *langs
04:16:17 <lament> with forth, there's only the implementation :)
04:17:42 <pikhq> Seems like there's barely anything beyond the basic set of words and a *very* bare-bones parser. . .
04:19:19 <lament> that's also true of lisp, and yet lisp manages to be much more sane
04:20:45 <pikhq> Lisp has a large amount of builtin functions, a bit less of a parser, and a more flexible datatype.
04:21:05 <lament> forth can have as many builtin function as you wish
04:21:10 <pikhq> Although technically you could build almost all of the builtins from (lambda).
04:21:13 <lament> the key difference is in the nature of the parser
04:21:23 <pikhq> And in the basic datatyp.e
04:21:33 <lament> right
04:21:41 <pikhq> Which are related in Lisp. . .
04:21:50 <lament> in early lisps, which lived near the metal, the basic datatype is a pointer.
04:22:10 <lament> or something else, but to the programmer it always seems like a pointer.
04:22:12 <pikhq> After all, all the Lisp parser does is load in a list. . .
04:22:16 <lament> you can use the forth like that, too.
04:22:19 <pikhq> lament: Still is.
04:22:37 <lament> pikhq: the key difference is that the lisp parser is passive
04:22:49 <lament> it reads lisp code, process it according to the rules, and then does something with the result.
04:22:52 <pikhq> Although it's not really a pointer. . . It's a cons cell, which has both a pointer and data. . .
04:22:55 <pikhq> True.
04:22:58 <lament> the forth parser works interactively
04:23:22 <lament> it's not "set in stone""
04:23:33 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out).
04:23:41 <lament> you can extend and change it from inside forth
04:23:45 <pikhq> I think I prefer the Lisp idea.
04:23:54 <lament> the lisp idea is sanity.
04:23:57 <lament> the forth way is madness.
04:24:01 <lament> but it's still pretty neat.
04:24:02 <pikhq> Yeah.
04:24:21 <pikhq> The Lisp idea is actually *excessive* sanity. :p
04:24:36 <pikhq> (what do you expect from an academic language, anyways?)
04:33:37 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving").
04:38:52 -!- immibis has quit ("Going off to play SimCity 3000").
04:48:50 <bsmntbombdood> pikhq: perfection
04:48:58 <pikhq> True.
04:52:32 <RodgerTheGreat> cya everyone
04:52:41 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
05:16:55 -!- boily has joined.
06:26:41 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote closed the connection).
07:36:28 -!- boily has quit ("WeeChat 0.2.5").
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
09:17:40 -!- Sukoshi has joined.
10:46:54 <GreaseMonkey> gonna sleep, gnight
10:48:25 -!- GreaseMonkey has quit ("(contains offensive language) http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/HowTo:Break_stuff").
11:21:27 -!- Toyd has joined.
11:21:36 <Toyd> this is the plot of that wonderful movie star crossed its an american movie: Darren and Connor are two star-crossed lovers bound together by blood. Set in a suburban neighborhood, Star-crossed is an atmospheric story of two brothers who's relationship develops into something more than society could ever handle. Unable to deny their feelings for each other the two brothers try to hide their relationship from an unkind world but fail. The
11:21:36 <Toyd> <Carlos_Slim> boys decide that a world that cant understand them is a world thats not for them. <-- i cried at the end so sad :'(
11:58:28 -!- helios24 has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
12:18:09 -!- ihope_ has joined.
12:41:24 -!- helios24 has joined.
13:58:41 -!- jix has joined.
14:44:02 <cosmic_string> happy 4th
15:11:38 <oklopol> Toyd: pretty touching
15:27:25 -!- oerjan has joined.
16:00:51 -!- ihope_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
16:14:42 -!- sebbu has joined.
16:20:20 -!- jix__ has joined.
16:29:51 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
16:40:42 -!- ihope_ has joined.
16:46:42 <pikhq> Happy "cons4 today : tmp"!
16:51:11 <oklopol> natural selection is highly overestimated
16:51:47 <ihope_> We have a lot of time.
16:52:06 <ihope_> Maybe 10000000000000000000000000000 squared years.
16:52:14 <ihope_> Wait, no.
16:52:18 <ihope_> Uh... something?
16:52:25 <oklopol> squarerooted
16:52:38 * ihope_ ponders
16:53:02 <oklopol> ankos has a pretty plausible explanation for most complexity we see in organisms
16:53:12 <ihope_> Ankos?
16:53:17 <oklopol> a new kind of science
16:53:31 * ihope_ nods
16:53:33 <ihope_> What's it say?
16:53:48 <oklopol> pretty cool how shells and pigmentation is duplicated with cellular automatons :P
16:54:07 <oklopol> so that you can compare a real picture with a strikingly similar ca
16:54:14 <ihope_> What's that have to do with complexity?
16:54:19 <oklopol> well
16:54:53 <oklopol> most people like to think most details in organisms are there because they're optimal
16:55:16 <oklopol> like how branches emerging from plants are always in the optimal angle
16:56:50 <oklopol> he creates cellular automata to show they're actually just the most likely angles to occur
16:56:50 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
16:56:59 <RodgerTheGreat> howdy
16:57:05 <oklopol> which i find neat <3
16:57:12 <oklopol> hi
16:57:34 <bsmntbombdood> ihope_ is square-free
16:57:57 <oklopol> wow, a shell with rule 90 painted on it :D
16:58:28 <oklopol> not painted
16:58:35 <oklopol> ...formed
16:58:38 <oklopol> or smth
16:58:51 <bsmntbombdood> rule 90?
16:59:03 <oklopol> 1d cellular automaton rule 90
16:59:14 <oklopol> it's not perfect, but pretty much
16:59:27 <bsmntbombdood> ?
16:59:36 <oklopol> ??
16:59:40 <ihope_> Is rule 90 Turing-complete?
16:59:45 <oklopol> :P
16:59:48 <oklopol> i doubt that
16:59:54 <ihope_> If so, it makes it a really, really slow computer.
17:00:03 <oklopol> well
17:00:18 <ihope_> One that may not have any method of input.
17:00:25 <oklopol> it's basically just a simple nested shape... so i'd say no
17:00:48 <oklopol> nothing has been said about tc or qm :<
17:00:50 <oklopol> quantum mechanics
17:01:10 <oklopol> i hate it when it's like the perfect time to start talking about them... and no
17:01:33 <oklopol> and
17:01:47 <oerjan> you'll get to it for rule 110
17:01:57 <oerjan> (tc)
17:02:02 <oklopol> oh
17:02:04 <oerjan> don't know about qm.
17:02:07 <pikhq> Or rule 30, which some cells exhibit.
17:02:23 <oerjan> i don't know if rule 30 has been proven
17:03:22 <ihope_> ANKOS hasn't mentioned Turing-completeness or quantum mechanics yet?
17:03:27 <oklopol> nope
17:03:30 <RodgerTheGreat> muahahaha! I have successfully assimilated yet another denizen of #Esoteric!
17:03:37 <oerjan> the construction in the book for rule 110 is a really, really slow computer too
17:03:59 <oklopol> oerjan: has anything been done with it?
17:04:02 <oerjan> but a more efficient one has been made by others later
17:04:09 <ihope_> You have successfully assimilated yet another denizen of #Esoteric?
17:04:18 <RodgerTheGreat> yes indeed.
17:04:27 <ihope_> (Did I retype that?)
17:04:35 <ihope_> (Silly me.)
17:04:38 <RodgerTheGreat> Nonlogic continues to grow.
17:04:41 <pikhq> I think I was the first (you will be assimilated into our likeness and being), thank you.
17:06:11 <RodgerTheGreat> I believe that is correct
17:08:32 <lament> hi
17:08:40 <RodgerTheGreat> hey, lament
17:09:20 <lament> who's toyd?
17:09:40 <oerjan> Happy Independence Day to the Americans!
17:10:02 <lament> oh yeah, they're finally independent from that horrible Britain
17:10:03 <pikhq> oerjan: Thank you, Norway.
17:10:13 <lament> what a waste of blood that was :D
17:10:31 <oerjan> (you can thank us by congratulating our queen with her birthday :)
17:10:31 * lament checks the recent changes and discovers there're none
17:10:58 <lament> didn't norway have an independence day of some kind?
17:11:10 <lament> or was that sweden, newly independent from norway?
17:11:16 <pikhq> oerjan: When is it? (I find it more difficult to keep note of such important days in European history, due to the high number of sovereign states over there)
17:11:29 <oerjan> sweden independent from norway, now that is a thought...
17:11:54 <lament> "Suddenly, Sweden declared its independence in 1523, but Norway remained under the Oldenburg dynasty for 434 years until 1814."
17:12:02 <oerjan> i don't remember when that is on the spot, lessee...
17:12:07 <lament> okay, so Norway independent from Denmark.
17:12:34 <lament> aha, and sweden too.
17:12:36 <lament> "However, Sweden militarily forced Norway into a personal union with Sweden, establishing the Bernadotte dynasty as rulers of Norway"
17:14:10 <lament> okay, so May 17, constitution day, seems a direct analogue of the independence day.
17:14:20 <lament> "The Constitution of Norway was signed at Eidsvoll on May 17 in the year 1814. The constitution declared Norway to be an independent nation."
17:14:21 <fizzie> And the horribly evil Swedenators enslaved us (Finland) too, in the 13th century.
17:14:25 <oerjan> except it wasn't quite independence
17:15:12 <oerjan> and btw the intention of the constitution makers were to keep the Danish king :)
17:15:24 <oerjan> *was
17:15:54 <oerjan> the independence day from Sweden isn't even an official holiday
17:16:28 <oerjan> ah, under flag days
17:16:45 <oerjan> 7th of June - dissolution of the union 1905
17:16:57 <fizzie> We have an independence day (from being part of Russia) 6th of December. And we had a king, too - for two months. Imported from Germany.
17:17:19 <fizzie> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Finland_%281918%29 -- that was fast.
17:17:41 <oerjan> yeah i read about that on wikipedia the other day
17:18:01 <oerjan> apparently it was not considered wise to keep him after the Germans lost WWI
17:18:52 <oklopol> argh history :<
17:19:23 <lament> yeah, history is complicated
17:20:11 <oklopol> i don't know about that, but i do find it very useless :)
17:20:37 -!- Sgeo has joined.
17:20:54 <oklopol> guess i don't care enough about country borders now to want to know their history
17:22:13 <fizzie> oklopol; Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Watch out - sooner or later you'll end up accidentally becoming a kingdom of your own for two months.
17:22:27 <oklopol> that'd be neat :P
17:22:34 <oklopol> family guy !
17:23:15 <lament> i wouldn't call things useless without investigating all possible uses first
17:23:21 <lament> but it's certainly complicated.
17:23:22 <oklopol> i know history, it's just for me it's a bunch of useless make-belive stuff.
17:23:41 -!- Tritonio has joined.
17:23:51 <Tritonio> hello!
17:23:55 <oklopol> hi
17:24:02 <lament> oklopol: it shouldn't be, it's not any different from what's happening now, it just happened earlier.
17:24:06 <oklopol> lament: i'm pretty sure there are no uses for me
17:24:53 <oklopol> i don't belive a mass of people as big as a country can have a well-defined identity
17:25:06 <lament> oklopol: history doesn't assume that
17:25:22 <oklopol> but the wtuff history teaches is redundant to me
17:25:23 <lament> oklopol: in fact, most events do contradict that assumption
17:25:26 <oklopol> *stuff
17:25:33 <oklopol> yes, they do
17:26:45 <oklopol> that isn't really a good comeback
17:26:51 <oklopol> but that's all i have :)
17:27:19 <oklopol> anyway, i don't see how anything history teaches could have any effect in me
17:28:45 <lament> history shows how bad things can get, for one
17:29:01 <lament> would you believe holocaust was possible if it didn't happen?
17:32:17 <oklopol> i'm expected to say no, i think :P
17:32:22 <oklopol> i don't know
17:32:24 <Tok-A-Mak> i think history is rewritten all the time to influence people.. ..911 was a holocaust. ..a ritualistic sacrificial bruned offer to the gods
17:33:10 <oklopol> okay, if there really is a germany, and there really was a holochaust, i admit that's actually worth knowing
17:33:15 <oklopol> but 911 was nothing
17:33:28 <oklopol> i laughed out loud when it was broadcast all over the world :D
17:33:38 <Tok-A-Mak> haha
17:33:41 <lament> oklopol: it is helpful to accept the existence of both germany and the holocaust.
17:33:45 <oklopol> OMFG
17:33:52 <oklopol> lament: true
17:34:08 <oklopol> i do, actually
17:34:15 <oklopol> but you can never be too sure
17:34:35 <oklopol> (i've been to germany, so i somewhat have to)
17:34:51 <oerjan> right, you could go too far, like believing Bielefeld exists
17:35:22 <pikhq> oklopol: It's a bit more meaningful when you're in the country that that happened in. . .
17:35:57 <oklopol> pikhq: if i lived in the city and it happened twice, i'd move out
17:36:07 <oklopol> but i don't like talking about this
17:36:07 <pikhq> Agreed.
17:36:20 <lament> oerjan: did you just vandalize that page? :)
17:36:21 <oklopol> i fell i'm a wacko when talking about this stuff :)
17:36:36 <oerjan> wasn't even looking at it today
17:37:25 <oklopol> *feel
17:37:45 <oklopol> because i always seem to differ a bit from the general opinion
17:37:51 <oklopol> now read
17:39:17 <lament> oklopol: everybody always differs a bit from the "general opinion".
17:40:24 <oklopol> yes, but i often get banned for my opinions, even though they rarely insult anyone
17:40:31 <oklopol> well, not often
17:40:33 <oklopol> sometimes :)
17:41:17 <lament> you probably get banned for behaving like an asshole, and not for your opinions.
17:41:37 <oklopol> maybe i just don't notice it
17:41:41 <oklopol> am i doing it now?
17:42:23 <lament> not really.
17:42:29 <lament> but then, you aren't getting banned either.
17:42:39 <oklopol> indeed
17:42:41 <lament> I suppose the whole "A HUNDRED PEOPLE DIED A MILLION MILES AWAY" thing was kind bad.
17:42:47 <oklopol> oh indeed :D
17:42:57 <lament> that would probably get you banned in many places.
17:43:05 <oklopol> perhaps finding that hilarious is, actually, pretty insulting
17:43:23 <oklopol> because it might seem i don't care about their lives
17:43:35 <oklopol> which wasn't my point, of course
17:43:47 <oerjan> hm, a million miles is about 40 times the circumference of the Earth...
17:43:47 <lament> that's what i'm saying
17:43:59 <lament> it's not your actual opinion that gets you in trouble, but the way you present it
17:44:57 <lament> in retrospect, the WTC certainly was a very important event, although I agree its importance was overblown at the time. It makes for a good symbol.
17:45:06 * oerjan recalls an old norwegian song called "Ingen nordmenn med"
17:45:13 <oklopol> well, the fact it was overblown is what made it important
17:45:32 <oerjan> it's about how lots of terrible things happen, but it's ok because no norwegians were involved
17:45:45 <oklopol> heh
17:46:21 <lament> oklopol: yes, but that's true of very many things
17:46:42 <lament> oklopol: much of history :)
17:47:01 <pikhq> I'd say that it's been overblown enough to make those who did it quite succesful at sewing fear and uncertainty. . .
17:47:43 <oklopol> i learned in youtube, that wtc was a conspiracy!
17:47:58 <pikhq> Did they also say that the moon landing was one?
17:48:03 <oklopol> yes yes!
17:48:08 <pikhq> And the sky?
17:48:08 <oklopol> and family guy as well
17:48:13 <oklopol> the sky?
17:48:37 <oklopol> family guy and simpsons both say the moon landing was a fake, but futurama says it happened
17:49:16 <oklopol> i'm pretty sure those are pretty official sources
17:49:17 <oerjan> well duh, futurama is set thousands of years in the future, of course they've managed to land on the moon
17:49:31 <oklopol> no, they show neil's footprints!
17:49:44 <oerjan> ouch! horrible lies
17:49:50 <oklopol> :D
17:50:00 <oerjan> maybe it was a parallel universe or something
17:50:15 <oklopol> hmm, they do go into the past in at least one episode
17:50:30 <oklopol> but i'm pretty sure they don't change that
17:50:51 <oklopol> so it must've happened, or futurama is fake :|
17:51:16 <Tok-A-Mak> everytime when someone travels to the past, a new worldline is created through a parallel universe
17:51:59 <oklopol> so our past cannot be changed unless we do it ourselves?
17:52:50 <Tok-A-Mak> yes
17:52:52 <Tok-A-Mak> i think so
17:53:10 <oklopol> (i'm pretty sure time travel has been proven impossible though :)
17:53:22 <lament> oklopol: i don't think so
17:53:30 <lament> they're still undecided
17:53:35 <Tok-A-Mak> you cant take yourself out of existence, when you go to the past to kill you grandfather before you were born
17:54:18 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: why not?
17:54:41 <oklopol> Tok-A-Mak: if you return, how many yous will there be if you ) kill yourself in the past b) don't
17:54:45 <Tok-A-Mak> because a new worldline is created as soo as you appear there.. ..it differs from the existing one because of the fact that you are there
17:54:47 <oklopol> s/)/a)
17:55:08 <Tok-A-Mak> returning is to the present is more difficult
17:55:59 <Tok-A-Mak> the worldline can be a tiny bit offsetted and some datails might be different from the point of time when you left
17:56:02 <oerjan> time travel cannot exist because anyone who invents it inevitably changes history so that they didn't :)
17:56:20 <bsmntbombdood> time travels!?!
17:56:27 <oklopol> oerjan: no, because that wouldn't effect this university
17:56:30 <oklopol> but create a new one
17:56:32 <lament> oerjan: cute
17:56:41 <bsmntbombdood> university
17:56:52 <oklopol> ....
17:56:53 <oklopol> :DDD
17:56:58 <oklopol> okay, i need coffee
17:56:59 <oklopol> ->
17:57:08 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: so you're assuming that simply traveling in time splits the entire universe in two? I don't think that passes Occam's Razor
17:58:11 <pikhq> Time travel can't exist because we don't see time travelers taking a tourist trip here.
17:58:16 <Tok-A-Mak> yes.. like all decisions do
17:58:17 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: what about regular space-like teleportation? Does that create a new universe?
17:58:35 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: or do you assume that time travel can exist and teleportation can't?
17:58:45 <pikhq> We'd notice because, of course, any futuristic ideas of what the past looks like would *suck*.
17:58:55 <pikhq> lament: Obviously one implies the other.
18:00:11 <Tok-A-Mak> yea.. i think so.. every event does.. john titor explained how this works, a few years ago
18:00:44 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: okay, define "event" and we all will be happy
18:02:19 <Tok-A-Mak> something that happens on a defined point in time and space.. like an atom decaying
18:02:55 <lament> an atom decaying creates a new universe? I object to this theory on esthetic grounds.
18:03:35 <Tok-A-Mak> the parallel universe creates its own space and time, so it doesnt affect the one it was coming from
18:03:53 <oklopol> i'd say that's exactly what quantum mechanics estates
18:04:03 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: actually, you need the universes to interact in order to explain things like the double slit experiment.
18:04:06 <oklopol> splittidy split
18:04:15 <lament> Tok-A-Mak: sometimes split universes do merge together.
18:04:28 <Tok-A-Mak> i have no idea about that
18:04:32 <lament> oklopol: no, it's not what QM states, but it is a way to explain its effects.
18:04:44 <lament> oklopol: it's not the only or a particularly popular way.
18:06:39 <oklopol> i guess... indeed now that i come to think of it i've read two book about it, neither had that opinion
18:06:55 <oklopol> *books
18:06:58 <lament> oklopol: this theory is caled "Many worlds"
18:07:11 <lament> it makes more sense than Copenhagen but it's still ugly
18:09:16 <oklopol> i don't know Copenhagen
18:09:23 <oklopol> (unless you mean the city)
18:09:33 <lament> you read two books about QM and you don't know the copenhagen interpretation?
18:09:53 <lament> did either book mention schroedinger's cat?
18:10:39 <oklopol> yeah
18:10:41 <oklopol> both i think
18:11:12 <oklopol> i've read two random books about it
18:11:20 <oklopol> both written for noobs
18:11:21 <lament> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
18:14:00 <lament> even better
18:14:01 <lament> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
18:14:05 <lament> just read that
18:15:04 * Tok-A-Mak thinks schrdinger was a sick pervert ;p
18:16:03 -!- RedDak has joined.
18:16:50 <oklopol> i know schrödinger's cat
18:17:00 <oklopol> oh
18:17:27 <oklopol> that might not mean i need not rad it
18:17:29 <oklopol> *ead
18:17:35 <oklopol> *read
18:17:56 * oklopol wonders what the definition of * is...
18:21:03 -!- lament has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
18:24:22 -!- lament has joined.
19:00:04 <bsmntbombdood> ***
19:09:58 -!- RedDak has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
19:34:19 -!- oerjan has quit ("Supper").
19:41:27 -!- Toyd has quit ("Leaving").
19:47:14 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote closed the connection).
20:49:19 -!- jix__ has quit ("CommandQ").
21:02:11 <lament> I invented a language
21:02:17 <lament> well, more of a variant of Self
21:06:53 <lament> unless i'm mistaken, the factorial function is like this:
21:06:53 <lament> N.set.factorial[@.=1.if[1][@.-1.*@]]
21:07:11 <lament> now 5.factorial! will return 120
21:07:14 <bsmntbombdood> gotta love dense languages
21:08:58 <lament> also
21:09:16 <bsmntbombdood> but really, dc wins
21:10:09 <lament> assuming Bar is a child of Foo, running a method Method of Bar on Foo (as opposed to Foo.Method) is done like this:
21:10:13 <pikhq> I prefer my personal dc implementation. . .
21:10:20 <bsmntbombdood> pikhq: ?
21:10:26 <lament> Bar.Method.set.@ Foo !
21:10:44 <lament> isn't it pretty? :)
21:11:07 <lament> spaces unnecessary, make that Bar.Method.set.@Foo!
21:11:09 <pikhq> Push-down automaton.
21:11:15 <bsmntbombdood> implementing dc would probably be fun
21:11:32 <lament> I don't like stacks.
21:11:57 <bsmntbombdood> i lurv stacks
21:11:58 <pikhq> It's fairly trivial, even if you write the stack implementation yourself.
21:13:03 <pikhq> http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/dc.c.tar.bz2 Only a subset, but still fairly trivial.
21:14:56 <bsmntbombdood> a very very subset
21:15:23 <lament> This is how you define the cons-cell datatype:
21:15:23 <lament> set.cons[ab|new!.set.car a .set.cdr b]
21:15:27 <bsmntbombdood> i don't think it's even turing complete
21:15:44 <ihope_> lament: that language looks extremely different from Haskell...
21:16:04 <lament> Now you can express the list (1 2 3) as
21:16:05 <lament> cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 EmptyList))
21:16:17 <lament> ihope_: it's extremely similar to smalltalk/self
21:16:20 <lament> so yes.
21:16:53 <Sukoshi> Io is a very nice variant of Self, Smalltalk, Lisp, and NewtonScript's Actors.
21:16:56 <ihope_> I oughta look at Smalltalk or something.
21:16:57 <bsmntbombdood> and constant width numbers...
21:17:20 <ihope_> Or I could make an esolang based on generic zippers! >:-)
21:17:24 <lament> Io is a bit too verbose
21:17:39 <lament> I want something like Io but for interactive development over IRC.
21:17:40 <ihope_> (Generic zippers are why I need to keep looking at delimited continuations.)
21:17:41 <Sukoshi> Well, it's meant to be readable, like SmallTalk.
21:17:48 <bsmntbombdood> i wonder how to hack closures onto dc
21:17:57 <Sukoshi> I have to say, I prefer Io over Plof, GregorR.
21:18:35 <Sukoshi> Especially since it takes some 5-10 minutes to learn, depending on your reading speed.
21:22:31 <lament> adjusted syntax a little, now factorial is
21:22:32 <lament> N.set.factorial[@=1.if[1][@-1*@]]
21:25:19 <oklopol> do explain !
21:26:03 <lament> .foo is like 'foo in scheme - a first-class name
21:26:15 <lament> foo bar means "run foo with argument bar"
21:26:41 <lament> when foo is an object (not a procedure) and bar is a name, "running" foo with bar returns the attribute 'bar' of the object.
21:27:05 <oklopol> [] lambda @ args
21:27:49 <lament> [body] is a block taking no arguments
21:27:58 <lament> @ is "this"
21:28:03 <oklopol> ah
21:29:42 <lament> Adding the While loop to the language:
21:29:43 <lament> B.set.whileTrue [l|@!?[l!;@.whileTrue l]]
21:29:59 <lament> now we can do:
21:30:37 <lament> [pigs.canFly].whileTrue["hello world".print!]
21:31:35 <lament> (loops endlessly or dies depending on the value of pigs.canFly)
21:35:29 <oklopol> from my experience that's false
21:37:41 <lament> printing numbers from 99 down to 1: [n|n==0.if[][n.print;#(n-1)]]99!
21:38:03 <lament> er, no exclamation mark
21:38:59 <oklopol> (out-$1..99 in oklotalk :P)
21:39:20 <oklopol> hmm
21:39:27 <oklopol> [] takes no args?
21:39:34 <lament> in this case, it takes one, called n
21:39:38 <oklopol> ah
21:39:50 <oklopol> #?
21:39:53 <oklopol> recursion
21:39:54 <oklopol> ?
21:39:59 <lament> # refers to the current block.
21:40:05 <pikhq> bsmntbombdood: I never said mine was Turing complete.
21:40:05 <oklopol> hmm
21:40:14 <oklopol> [n.print;#(n-1)] refers to this?
21:40:14 <lament> oh, wait
21:40:21 <lament> right, that would be wrong
21:40:23 <pikhq> I claimed that it was a push-down automaton. ;)
21:40:28 <oklopol> in oklotalk, i had that problem
21:40:35 <bsmntbombdood> 99[dp1-d0r>f]dsfx
21:40:35 <oklopol> but i solved it :)
21:40:37 <bsmntbombdood> dc wins
21:40:56 <oklopol> out-$1..99 < 99[dp1-d0r>f]dsfx !
21:40:57 <bsmntbombdood> that prins the numbers from 99 down to 1
21:40:57 <lament> wins in terms of what?
21:41:03 <bsmntbombdood> shortness
21:41:15 <lament> i don't intend to engage in any shortness contests
21:41:21 <oklopol> though oklotalk's was pretty dull there
21:41:27 <pikhq> Sukoshi: I kind of like the general *flavor* of Plof, though.
21:41:38 <pikhq> It's like C, but much saner. . .
21:41:42 <oklopol> lament: ## ?
21:41:43 <oklopol> :)
21:42:12 <oklopol> a[b[c[###->a ##->b #->c]]]
21:42:26 <lament> maybe
21:42:35 <oklopol> or, actually, this, maybe?
21:42:52 <lament> what?
21:43:05 <oklopol> if you consider an argument taking function an object and a normal block not
21:43:07 <oklopol> then @
21:43:13 <oklopol> this == @, i mean
21:43:19 <oklopol> i wan't exactly clear there :D
21:43:24 <lament> no, you weren't.
21:43:42 <oklopol> "or, actually, this, maybe?" is one of the most obscure things i've ever seen.
21:43:56 <lament> i don't think it's obscure. It's just nonsense.
21:44:08 <lament> If you think it means anything, you're confused about what means means.
21:44:30 <oklopol> "or, actually" == "on the other hand"
21:44:42 <oklopol> "this, maybe?" suggests you try using "this"
21:45:30 <lament> @ refers to the 'caller object', like 'this' in Python.
21:45:42 <pikhq> Or in most languages.
21:45:44 <lament> sorry, self in python, this in smalltalk.
21:46:04 <lament> (would be pretty if it were called 'python' in self)
21:50:25 <oklopol> lament: did you choose how to fix it yet?
21:50:50 <oklopol> this is very important to me, it seems
21:50:59 <lament> probably the way you suggested.
21:58:12 <oklopol> haha, a program written in a reversible language that allows metaprogramming that quines itself and then runs itself back to the beginning
21:58:16 <oklopol> hmm
21:58:32 <oklopol> that of course might be an infinite recursion
21:59:02 <oklopol> my sentences are very nonsensial
22:01:30 <pikhq> A language where every program is a quine.
22:02:18 <oklopol> yeah, and hidden turing completeness
22:02:21 <oklopol> like in nopol
22:02:29 <oklopol> hmm, i gotta finish nopol some day
22:07:03 <Sukoshi> pikhq: Io is like C but a lot saner too.
22:07:12 <Sukoshi> And a lot more introspective and interactive.
22:15:55 <lament> Io is like C??!?!?!??
22:15:58 <lament> er what?
22:18:29 <oklopol> www.vjn.fi/s/fractum.exe good i get hooked easily :D
22:24:32 <Sukoshi> lament: More like C than Lisp or Haskell.
22:25:29 <lament> Sukoshi: i thought Io was almost exactly Smalltalk?
22:26:32 <Sukoshi> lament: Which is more C-like than Lisp and Haskell, no?
22:26:45 <lament> Sukoshi: i don't see how it's C-like in any way
22:27:01 <Sukoshi> lament: You have if, and foor, and while.
22:27:10 <Sukoshi> And you have parentheses delimiting blocks.
22:27:26 <Sukoshi> And arguments are given to messages just like arguments are given to a C function.
22:27:37 <lament> Sukoshi: that's syntax.
22:27:52 <lament> the closeness of languages is not normally judged by the syntax.
22:28:07 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
22:28:30 <Sukoshi> Well, strictly message-passing OOP is more-or-less imperative.
22:29:35 <lament> sounds like a good way to start a flamewar in some OOP channel :)
22:29:50 <bsmntbombdood> oop is imperative
22:30:09 <lament> bsmntbombdood: it is?
22:30:20 <bsmntbombdood> yes
22:30:26 <ihope_> How many very parallel programming languages are there?
22:30:53 <lament> bsmntbombdood: i don't se how...
22:30:55 <lament> *see
22:31:06 <ihope_> Cellular automaton-based and such...
22:34:47 <Sukoshi> lament: I'll bet your mom does, though.
22:35:17 <bsmntbombdood> lament: what's imperative?
22:38:29 -!- oerjan has joined.
22:45:57 <oklopol> Sukoshi: you were reading ankos then?
22:46:04 <oklopol> and uploaded it for me
22:46:12 <Sukoshi> Ankos?
22:46:14 <Sukoshi> Oh.
22:46:17 <Sukoshi> A New Kind of Science.
22:46:20 <Sukoshi> Yeah.
22:46:21 <oklopol> yeah
22:46:26 <oklopol> have you read it?
22:46:29 <Sukoshi> Not all of it.
22:46:35 <Sukoshi> I'm only on page 130 or so.
22:46:39 <oklopol> oh
22:46:43 <Sukoshi> Did you finish it?
22:46:49 <oklopol> i'm on 453... not much happened yet :D
22:47:02 <Sukoshi> I've gotten some nice ideas already.
22:47:11 <oklopol> until page 320 or so it's just looking for randomness
22:47:26 <Sukoshi> First, I wanna create a digital instrument that synthesizes waveforms based on cellular automata.
22:47:34 <bsmntbombdood> hot
22:47:52 <oklopol> hmm
22:48:22 <oklopol> i've thought of that, but with particles that move non discretely
22:48:32 <oklopol> cellular automata might make it easier to make
22:48:41 <oklopol> you mean, make it play it as music?
22:48:51 <oklopol> or just make the wave for the hell of it
22:49:47 <Sukoshi> Make it play music.
22:50:14 <bsmntbombdood> how would you aturrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrro
22:50:26 <Sukoshi> Aturo?
22:50:50 <oklopol> i've played a lot with ca, perhaps that ruined my experience :)
22:51:01 <oklopol> but it's getting more and more interesting
22:51:25 <Sukoshi> I've played only marginally with them, I guess.
22:51:32 <Sukoshi> I never found them interesting until Ankos.
22:51:38 <oklopol> i've made a 1d cellular automata simulator and a fractal generator
22:51:47 <oklopol> so i guess it's somewhat inspiring
22:51:53 <Sukoshi> IIRC, he doesen't start the actual physical modelling 'till page 500?
22:51:58 <Sukoshi> (I scanned through the book for yucks.)
22:52:01 <oklopol> i mean, in the course of a few days just because of the book
22:52:46 <oklopol> i've made many cellular automata and fractals before of course, though it took me days to finish them then :P
22:54:08 <Sukoshi> Yeah. His register machine and arithmetic based ones are quite fun.
22:54:15 <Sukoshi> Guh. My RSI is coming back.
22:55:40 <oklopol> i think physical modelin started somewhere between 300...499
22:55:42 <oklopol> *400
22:55:46 <oklopol> *modeling
22:55:55 <Sukoshi> See, that's quite interesting for me.
22:56:13 <Sukoshi> Since I seem to be more of an engineer than a theoretician.
22:56:49 <oklopol> water flowing around a solid object is simulated
22:56:56 <oklopol> that was awesome
22:57:38 <Sukoshi> Not much of a fluids fan at all (actually, I can't stand fluids).
22:57:43 <Sukoshi> I'm an EE/RF person.
22:58:17 <Sukoshi> I wanna see if I can simulate antenna radiation patterns through cellular automata, because my math isn't quite sophisticated enough to solve the more complicated diff eqs. for antenna theory.
22:58:18 <bsmntbombdood> fluid is what flooooooows
22:59:00 <oklopol> fluid is great, the more particles the happier :)
23:02:44 <Sukoshi> I wonder if we can build a small FPGA with opcodes that simulate cellular automata waveforms, and then have it play in real time.
23:02:56 <Sukoshi> Finally, the futuristic instruments that Asimov and Heinlein wrote about :)
23:04:15 <Sukoshi> And the longer you hold the key, the cellular automata generates more of the waveform.
23:04:21 <lament> do you expect it to sound nice?
23:04:31 <oklopol> it has to :|
23:04:39 <oklopol> white noise, most likely
23:04:49 <Sukoshi> The waveforms that gave me the idea imply it will sound nice.
23:04:56 <oklopol> what are those?
23:05:10 <Sukoshi> Because I've seen many of those waveforms as I've edited music, and they're in actual instrumental portions, not just noise.
23:05:30 <Sukoshi> oklopol: He shows graphs which look like waveforms in the numeric rule automata section.
23:05:50 <lament> what makes you think the cellular-automata-produced waveforms will sound similar?
23:06:05 <oklopol> you mean the increment ones?
23:06:06 <Sukoshi> ... Because I saw the waveforms ...
23:06:12 <Sukoshi> oklopol: Yeah, around there.
23:06:16 <oklopol> hmm
23:06:18 <oklopol> i'll check
23:06:42 <lament> Sukoshi: you mean the waveforms in ankos?
23:07:00 <Sukoshi> lament: Yes.
23:07:44 <lament> mm
23:07:51 <lament> i remain unconvinced.
23:07:56 <oklopol> hmm, subsequent numbers form a nested shape
23:08:03 <lament> he probably picked the nicest-looking parts of the wave, too.
23:08:10 <oklopol> but you don't mean that?
23:09:26 <oklopol> Sukoshi: i'm not really sure what you mean
23:09:26 <lament> i don't see what makes using cellular automata to generate sound any different from using any other algorithm to generate sound
23:09:43 <lament> and all the sound i've heard that was generated by computers without direct human intervention sounded like ass.
23:09:56 <oklopol> noise is great <3
23:11:04 <lament> (direct human intervention - that is, changing the process on the fly)
23:14:10 <oklopol> i like the idea of simulating the movement of a spring in a box full of particles and sampling sound from pressure changes
23:14:34 <oklopol> i doubt that's sound anything even close to an actual instrument though
23:15:01 <Sukoshi> Well, if it's an instrument, you get human controllable parameters, obviously.
23:15:02 <oklopol> but would be fun to try at least
23:15:24 <lament> Sukoshi: i just don't understand what would using a non-traditional process achieve. You won't get a "new sound".
23:15:51 <Sukoshi> lament: It's a proof of concept.
23:17:19 <lament> the following concepts have been proven beyond any doubt:
23:17:22 <lament> 1) programs produce output
23:17:32 <lament> 2) any kind of information can be taken to represent a waveform
23:18:21 <oklopol> lament: ca might create a sound that hasn't been tried, even if it naturally could've been
23:36:23 <Sukoshi> lament: My Lisp program doesen't produce output, it only returns things.
23:36:33 <Sukoshi> Same with my Io program.
23:36:50 <oklopol> i don't think that's a crucial difference
23:37:05 <oklopol> actually, i don't think that's a difference
23:37:24 <oklopol> Sukoshi: are you implementing it?
23:39:02 <lament> yeah, i'm not sure what Sukoshi meant by that
23:40:30 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+").
←2007-07-03 2007-07-04 2007-07-05→ ↑2007 ↑all