00:00:06 because the factorial is based on multiplication which is based on addition 00:00:29 is my proof nice :p 00:00:46 No, mine is nicer. 00:00:50 Axiom: 2+2=4 00:00:53 Therefore, 2+2=4. 00:01:21 HOW TO PROVE ANYTHING: 00:01:21 But wait! 00:01:28 q => p 00:01:30 q. 00:01:32 You don't have x |- x as an axiom! 00:01:33 therefore, o 00:01:35 *p 00:01:44 Yay, modus ponens! 00:02:06 P, THEREFORE P 00:02:11 P 00:02:13 i win 00:02:13 I think, therefore I think! 00:02:20 I think! 00:02:27 I win, therefore I win. 00:02:29 I win. 00:02:33 Therefore, I win. 00:02:35 I win. 00:02:48 No, i Always win... because... eh... LOOOK IT'S SUPERMAN 00:02:54 my lungs are gasping for air, and telling you people to keep the funny down 00:02:55 thanks 00:03:09 I think, therefore I think! 00:03:17 i shouldn't find that hilarious 00:03:18 I am, therefore I win. 00:03:19 but i dooooo 00:03:32 I think, therefore you unexist. 00:03:46 * ehird` disappears now! 00:03:50 Hmm, something I find hilarious... 00:03:53 Captain Shakespeare? 00:04:05 Captain shakespeare will rescue thou. 00:04:20 Enforced is another law. 00:04:26 Brought is justice. 00:04:49 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 00:05:15 Obey Newton's laws or face elongation! 00:07:48 Thee, not thou! 00:08:28 -!- calamari has joined. 00:08:29 ye 00:08:37 hi 00:08:40 OPEN! YOUR MOUTH! 00:09:35 OPEN! NO, YOUR MOUTH! 00:09:39 -!- oerjan has joined. 00:09:55 oerjan: i had a question for you 00:09:58 Kung Pow: Enter the Fist<3 00:10:01 just thought you might wanna know. 00:10:01 Best. Movie. EVER 00:10:21 oh? 00:13:11 This? http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kung_pow_enter_the_fisthot_shots/ 00:13:40 And will it be as good as this? 00:13:43 Er, this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kung_pow/ 00:14:24 Just like Daddy Day Camp isn't as good as this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daddy_day_care/ 00:16:54 oklokok: what is it? 00:17:02 oerjan: glad you asked 00:17:04 i do not remember. 00:17:06 :D 00:17:40 i cannot see you mentioning my name in the logs since i was last on 00:17:48 hmm 00:17:51 ah 00:17:55 now i remember 00:18:02 it was about pi 00:18:23 that base with equal digits thing? 00:18:32 for any n, is there a base in which pi's first n digits are the same 00:18:32 yeah 00:18:38 integer base 00:18:53 Yes. 1. 00:18:55 including the initial 3? 00:18:58 no 00:19:00 3.14159... 00:19:02 -!- immibis has joined. 00:19:05 The first digit is the same as itself. 00:19:19 ihope: that's not what i mean 00:19:25 is there such a base for any n. 00:19:28 not some n 00:19:46 "every" 00:19:57 err yeah 00:20:10 Yay for any. 00:20:23 any means either of those i guess 00:20:30 Indeed. 00:20:33 any is one of english's subtle points 00:21:23 Is there a case where it definitely doesn't mean "some"? 00:21:44 (Help) I need anybody... 00:21:58 well, it is clearly impossible to include the 3, because 3.333... must approach 3 as the base gets large 00:22:08 yeah 00:22:13 i understood that much 00:22:27 so i just mean the decimals 00:22:30 err 00:22:35 hmm... is that the correct term 00:23:01 so let's look at 3.xxxxx... in base b 00:23:11 Just the fractional part? 00:23:15 Or possibly the decimal part? 00:23:28 fractional part 00:24:57 that's 3+x/(b-1) 00:25:11 hmm 00:25:53 we must have x < b-1 00:26:21 fortunately that's what we want 00:26:55 since pi can be approximated as close as we want by a rational number, we can get that as close to pi as we want 00:27:27 follohmm 00:27:32 oh 00:27:38 "follohmm" 00:28:28 i actually thought you either couldn't tell me the answer or couldn't explain it to me, but that's actually pretty obvious 00:28:57 so thanks, though i was actually telling you i had a question to you even though i didn't remember it just for the heck of it. 00:28:59 however there is a problem in that the closeness may still be too big compared to b 00:29:06 hmm 00:29:14 whut 00:29:45 ah 00:29:56 i.e. we could risk that 3.x is really close to pi, but still x is not the correct _next_ digit 00:31:23 because the approximation is still less precise than 1/b^2 00:31:43 for a while everything seemed so clear 00:31:55 and then you had to make me realize i hadn't gotten it. 00:32:01 :P 00:32:37 this might be related to a pretty weird theorem i (vaguely ;)) recall about pi - let me look it up 00:33:03 :PP 00:36:32 actually, what i'd like to know even more is whether that is true for *any* irrational number 00:37:04 ok 00:37:16 but 00:37:23 pi would be a good start 00:37:51 because that's *a* irrational number, and it's one of the most researched ones prolly 00:39:36 it is not however among the ones that are most easy to find digit properties for 00:39:44 hmm... yeah 00:39:59 for sqrt n you have a formula to get one digit at a time right? 00:40:09 i vaguely recall something like that 00:40:14 or perhaps was just sqrt2 00:40:40 there is an algorithm for calculating square roots, it's not a formula i think 00:41:31 well yeah, algorithm, but anyway, a simple way to get digit by digit 00:41:46 Digit by digit? 00:42:05 I know how to approximate it arbitrarily well. 00:42:08 err like get the digits one by one 00:42:14 Yeah, I know. 00:48:35 i cannot seem to find the theorem but it _might_ imply you cannot get better than 17 digits for pi 00:50:34 oh 00:50:39 how boring 00:52:16 yes 00:52:28 there is a digit extraction algorithm for sqrt(n)... 00:53:03 very tedious though, I've tried it with pen and paper and after 5 digits or so it starts to get messy 00:56:21 * oerjan gives up trying to find it. 00:56:43 heh 00:56:57 it's _something_ like: |pi - p/q| cannot be less than 1/q^17, but how the heck do you google for that? 00:57:45 * oerjan suddenly gets the brilliant idea of googling for pi-p/q :) 01:00:25 ah, that found http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/01_incoming/approximable 01:01:22 > I know that for irrational a there are infinitely many integer p and q such 01:01:22 > that |a - p/q| < q^-2 01:01:22 > and that in general you cannot do better than the exponent -2. 01:01:55 (and mentioned later, the golden ratio is the worst) 01:03:52 okay... so the answer to my question is "no" 01:04:12 ehird`'s intuition beat mine then. 01:04:35 for pi, http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/69162.html says q^-42 is the best known bound 01:08:15 but the first link implies it may really be around 8 01:14:35 wouldn't be the worst approximation ever =) 01:17:05 that is probably graham's number 01:20:24 * oerjan looks it up instead of blathering yet another vague recall 01:20:26 "Ramsey-theory experts believe the actual Ramsey number for this problem is probably 6, making Graham's number perhaps the worst smallest-upper-bound ever discovered." 01:20:46 (although my vague recall _was_ right) 01:21:48 oh. "More recently Geoff Exoo of Indiana State University has shown (in 2003) that it must be at least 11 and provided evidence that it is larger." 01:22:45 it would be ironic if someone proved the actual answer _is_ of the order of Graham's number 01:23:02 hmm 01:23:09 dilemma dilemma dilemma 01:23:34 I am creating an imaginary character for online use... 01:24:01 I am not sure whether it should give any hint that it is imaginary. 01:25:13 Since I have my real self in the same online group (though no connection has been suggested) I think I will keep it completely in-character. 01:25:19 advice? 01:25:38 darn, i thought you were talking about unicode characters :D 01:25:38 * SimonRC goes, but his client is still listening and logging. 01:41:39 a variation of the tree-in-a-forest problem: 01:41:51 if we keek SimonRC, does it matter that his client is "listening and logging"? 01:41:53 *kick 01:47:41 blargh why can't msn messenger record webcam... god i hate that program 01:49:33 can skype do it? 01:49:43 my msn can't do webcam at all (not supported on mac) 01:50:19 are there programs that use the messenger protocol and can record webcam? 01:50:39 i can't exactly tell ppl i wanna record to change to scype... 01:50:49 (recording my gf, don't worry) 01:52:15 i guess it doesn't matter who i'm gonna record, why the fuck doesn't this thing support recording 01:52:27 like... blargh 01:53:13 i don't know anything about scype 01:53:18 *skype 01:53:34 i assume it allows recording but no one i know uses it 01:54:44 -!- ihope__ has joined. 01:56:54 -!- ihope has quit (Nick collision from services.). 01:56:56 -!- ihope__ has changed nick to ihope. 02:04:30 i'm back 02:04:37 what did i miss? 02:04:42 Um... 02:04:59 Nothing, although I can add something to miss. 02:05:00 You missed it! It was the most amazing thing ever! 02:05:17 * pikhq proves the stupidity of argument ad Hitler. . . 02:05:42 Hitler thought that eating meat was terrible. Since Hitler was evil, vegitarianism is evil. QED. 02:05:45 :p 02:06:10 did he really think eating meat was terrible? 02:06:19 * pikhq tries to find a citation for that 02:06:19 Maybe sort of. 02:06:22 he couldn't eat meat, a medical thing 02:06:40 and that thinking eating meat is terrible thing is just propaganda 02:06:42 I guess that's a form of thinking it terrible. 02:06:44 {{fact}} 02:06:57 (i'm just repeating stuff i heard when i heard this conversation last...) 02:07:01 * ihope holds up a sign that says {{fact}} 02:07:20 Now to bring it to some political speech. 02:07:24 * pikhq holds up a sign saying {{fact}}{{fact}} 02:07:41 Prove that you need a citation! 02:07:51 {{npov}} 02:08:00 (or something like that) 02:09:20 Hmm. Apparently he ranged from "Meat is evil" to "Kill that cow, damn it, I'm hungry!" 02:09:48 that's how the deranged range 02:10:19 * pikhq nods 02:10:37 (citation: [[Vegitarianism of Adolf Hitler]]) 02:11:23 fix link (Vegitarianism -> Vegetarianism) 02:11:35 Sorry. 02:13:14 * ihope cites WP:V 02:17:33 -!- cherez has joined. 03:31:09 -!- Svenstaro has joined. 03:46:02 -!- poiuy_qwert has joined. 04:13:09 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 04:17:55 -!- wellons has quit (Remote closed the connection). 04:33:46 -!- Sgeo has joined. 04:45:10 some of you guys might like this: http://rodger.nonlogic.org/images/watchers.png 04:47:02 a bit too hard to see the texts at this hour :P 04:48:02 (they're reeeeeeeeeally small) 05:03:11 make like a glass and magnify 05:03:42 magnnity mag 05:04:59 i wonder if tabs could be abstracted more 05:06:41 -!- poiuy_qwert has quit. 05:37:48 real numbers fail 05:38:05 everything should be rational 05:38:34 The rational numbers are a *subset* of the reals. . . 05:38:42 duh... 05:38:59 One would assume that a real would succeed at the same things that rationals do. 05:39:17 * pikhq just wants to be able to work with the set of *numbers* in his code. ;p 05:39:58 except reals are ugly 05:40:06 Why not just use improbable numbers? 05:40:07 scheme lets you do that 05:40:45 You're right. sqrt(2) is ugly. :p 05:41:35 you don't need to be sqrt(2), just arbitrarily close to it 05:43:30 58/41 05:43:33 You want to know why I want to be able to do reals? 05:43:47 I want infinite storage, dammit. 05:43:55 infinite storage? 05:43:57 or 17412268/12312333 05:44:06 infinite storage is impossible 05:44:13 immibis: A real can store every number between -oo and oo. 05:44:13 immibis: prove it 05:44:18 Let me dream, at least. 05:44:40 do you know anyone capable of making an infinitely big hard drive 05:44:44 no, a real can store every _real_ number between -oo and oo 05:44:48 is it possible to get an infinite amount of iron 05:44:51 Oh, right. 05:44:58 and turn it into an infinite amount of bit 05:44:59 and turn it into an infinite amount of bits 05:45:07 which can store infinite data? 05:45:18 Is when I'm dreaming. 05:45:20 immibis: do you know anyone who has written an algorithm to solve an NP complete problem in P time? 05:45:23 no? 05:45:27 therefore, it must be impossible 05:46:02 a what in what time? 05:46:17 O_O 05:46:27 'night, guys 05:46:42 pikhq: you can spend your whole life gathering iron and silicon to make a hard drive and never get an infinite amount. 05:46:44 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 05:47:11 every living thing in the universe could spend their whole lives gathering iron and silicon for you and never get an infinite amount. 05:47:23 bsmntbombdood: are you sure that's a valid proof? 05:47:42 oklokok: of course it's not, i was demonstrating immibis wrongness 05:47:44 immibis: I *want* reals, I'm not saying that it's at all possible. ;) 05:48:05 bsmntbombdood: sorry, i misunderstood what your point was 05:48:08 anyone who doesn't know the definition of P and NP is not qualified to speak about impossibility, period. >:) 05:48:27 heh 05:48:35 Nothing is impossible, just improbable :P 05:48:53 P and NP = probable and not probable? 05:48:58 eh no 05:49:03 Solving the halting problem for turing machines with a turing machines... 05:49:09 omg that's like the basicest basics 05:49:18 " Nothing is impossible, just improbable :P" 05:49:55 immibis: you gotta learn some basics, it hurts me if you don't know what those are :P 05:50:03 (deterministic) polynomial and non-deterministic polynomial 05:50:10 It hurts this high-schooler as well. 05:51:47 -!- immibis has left (?). 05:52:21 Maybe he left to learn? 05:52:26 :D 05:52:36 * pikhq thought it was polynomial and non-polynomial. . . XD 05:52:49 * oklokok too, but let's not tell oerjan 05:53:12 Of course, I kinda assume 'deterministic' for both. 05:53:31 * oerjan crosses pikhq and oklokok off his list of people qualified to speak of impossibility >:) 05:53:42 :P 05:53:45 oerjan: I'm 17, and willing to admit mistakes. 05:54:20 And, apparently, I'm wrong. 05:54:21 pikhq: i guess he'll be waiting for your enlightenment with an eraser in his hand 05:54:31 AUM 05:54:42 i'm 18, too late for me. 05:54:54 my brain is sealed 05:54:57 When 18, I also plan to be willing to admit mistakes. 05:55:23 Although I'll probably still be doing stupid stuff like quines. 05:55:36 i've been watching so much friends this week i can't really think at all right now. 05:55:54 * pikhq doesn't really *watch* TV 05:56:11 * oerjan doesn't either 05:56:31 http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/quine.c My first quine in C, btw. 05:56:40 i just watched a pretty decent tv series 05:56:41 me neither, i just dl'd all friends and decided to watch them all. 05:58:20 and friends was pretty good in the the beginning 05:58:42 i like the last episodes most 05:58:52 last? 05:58:53 Thoughts on my stupid bit of Quinery? 05:59:03 i mean 05:59:35 like un-firstish episodes. 06:01:39 pikhq: that's a pretty normal quine :P 06:01:41 hard to say more 06:01:56 i never made a quine in C 06:02:11 because i'd've'd to do it like that... and it seemed boring 06:02:40 It's also my first quine not taking advantage of Tcl's introspection. . . 06:03:22 heh 06:03:24 10 LIST 06:03:30 ((lambda (x) `(,x ,'x)) (lambda (x) `(,x ,'x))) 06:04:04 Hmm, never mind. . . 06:04:40 My quine actually just rewrites the proc command in Tcl to store the "code" argument. . . 06:04:53 bsmntbombdood: you miss a ' i think 06:05:03 oops 06:06:39 also, i think it should be ',x 06:06:45 [lambda x {\$x \$x}] [lambda x {\$x \$x}] 06:07:05 oh blargh 06:07:07 >>> ul i 06:07:08 -> i 06:07:11 i are type bad 06:07:11 quine! 06:07:18 ... 06:07:28 quine "quine" 06:40:13 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Ex-Chat"). 07:22:19 -!- Svenstaro has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:27:28 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 07:33:42 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:17:48 very bad quality music video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=A4cFYmsuZ60 08:19:17 why is it notable? 08:20:11 * puzzlet_ watches 08:28:27 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 08:28:46 8 days till school 08:31:06 3 weeks for me :) 08:34:57 :( 08:38:45 -!- sebbu has quit ("reboot"). 08:51:53 -!- jix has joined. 09:26:09 -!- sebbu has joined. 09:41:56 -!- RedDak has joined. 10:30:45 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 10:31:09 -!- jix has joined. 11:29:44 -!- ehird` has joined. 11:33:35 -!- jix has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 11:44:02 school in 2 days 11:51:14 -!- Svenstaro has joined. 12:06:02 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection). 12:35:58 -!- jix has joined. 12:51:59 10 days for me 13:22:34 * SimonRC likes SG-1. 13:23:30 pikhq: your quine is like the Thompson quine but ugly 13:27:29 -!- jix has quit ("CommandQ"). 13:30:40 what quine 13:39:42 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 13:41:29 -!- ehird` has joined. 13:57:56 " http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/quine.c My first quine in C, btw." 14:36:19 SG-1 ftw 14:48:56 sp3tt: being such good sci-fi, the Scifi Channel aren;t showing it. 14:48:59 :-P 14:49:13 too bad it was cancelled :) 14:49:15 :(* 14:49:33 I only have 10 episodes left 14:50:07 huh? 14:50:20 wait, are you following it on SkyOne/Two? 14:50:38 no, I'm downloading 15:34:55 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 15:53:46 -!- sebbu has quit (Connection timed out). 15:54:05 bah 15:55:36 okokookko 15:57:07 pikhq: that quine sucks 15:58:10 int main(){char *s="int main(){char *s=%c%s%c;}printf(s,37,s,37,10);return 0;}%c";printf(s,37,s,37,10);return 0;} 15:58:10 :) 16:02:01 -!- SimonRC has changed nick to Outlook_Express_. 16:02:11 -!- Outlook_Express_ has changed nick to Sick_bastard. 16:02:33 -!- Sick_bastard has changed nick to SimonRC. 16:05:21 -!- ihope__ has joined. 16:05:39 -!- ihope__ has changed nick to ihope. 16:24:34 Wait, did pikhq cite another wiki article 14 hours and 14 minutes ago? 16:27:38 ehird`: ITYM 34 16:27:49 er 16:27:50 yes 16:34:47 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 16:35:05 hi everyone 16:37:25 how offensive 16:38:30 RodgerTheGreat: i'm definately not going to 'hi' everyone, i have *some* decency 16:38:43 that'd be like an unbelievable flood 16:38:56 that's why I just use the macro 16:42:09 you did not use the macro! 16:42:11 the macro is & 16:42:13 you said hi everyone 16:52:04 hmm 16:52:10 someone give me an interesting fact about... base 21! 16:56:57 * SimonRC goes to watch SG-1. 16:57:22 21 in base 21 is 10. 16:57:49 !!!!!!! 16:57:58 1/20 in base 21 is 0.{1} 16:58:13 * SimonRC goes to watch SG-1. 16:58:21 sam hughes says that a good plot for a first-contact story would be "hello, we are working in base 10 today. what about you?" and i agree. 16:58:24 :p 16:58:42 aliens: "what do you mean pi starts 3, 1, 4? you are evidently fools! goodbye!" 16:58:46 interesting 16:58:52 17:00:56 the example my math teacher always gave was that a group of aliens come to earth, claiming peaceful intentions. To confirm that the aliens are telling the truth, they ask the aliens how many of them there are on the ship 17:01:18 the aliens respond 103, but when the humans count them, they find 67. 17:01:32 knowing the aliens must be liars, the humans proceed to destroy the aliens 17:01:56 but then, as a doctor is examining one of the corpses, he starts to look very worried 17:02:12 "Sir," he says, "The aliens only have four fingers on each hand!" 17:02:24 hehehe 17:02:57 poor guys :p 17:03:06 "And that's why a proper understanding of base notation is vital to the future of humanity" 17:04:23 truly inspiring 17:04:37 i like base 100 17:04:42 or maybe base 1000 17:04:45 yeah, he was a pretty good teacher 17:05:14 there is at least a googol atoms in the universe right 17:05:18 its googolplex that overflows it? 17:05:26 known universe 17:05:37 argh 17:05:41 well 17:05:47 i was thinking "base googol" 17:05:48 :) 17:06:03 "g_64 is only 384729834723942394 digits!" 17:06:08 "and then some!" 17:09:20 you know, i've just realised how much i hate idioms 17:09:24 die, idioms. die! 17:10:18 idioms are peanuts to dogma and dead metaphors 17:10:41 well i hate everything that isn't logical in language! 17:10:41 :( 17:11:11 dogma isn't logical, and dead metaphors degrade the beauty and cleverness of language 17:12:05 INDEEEED 17:12:54 the odd thing about lojban is how unalike it is to other languages 17:13:01 it isn't based in a SVO/VSO, etc. structure, for one 17:13:10 "selbri" is a pretty unique idea when it comes to languages 17:13:22 lojban is a lot like most languages imo 17:13:24 :| 17:13:32 not reall 17:13:33 y 17:13:35 only place structure is different 17:14:03 i mean, argument place matters in lojban, whereas it rarely does in normal alngaueg 17:14:05 langs 17:14:45 ooo i like quaternary 17:14:53 does quaternary have many interesting properties 17:15:33 the numeral system. that is 17:16:45 ON THE SUBJECT OF MATHEMATICS: 17:16:47 it's a pretty hot system 17:17:03 here is a stupid and crazy New Age-esque page on pi: http://www.spiritart.org/Numbers/Pi/ 17:17:07 "Pi can be considered a very mystic number, as it bridges the linear world with the curved or circular world. Pi itself may be an incredible relevant value for the physical universe, and therefore this page is dedicated for it. " 17:17:33 "I cannot write about this yet, but I feel Prime-Numbers are living beings, not as we imagine them as deceased beings for a form and ideas of being human, but they, as all numbers, are conscious beings; and there is a way to address Prime-Numbers in an affirmation and discover their hidden nature which has not been yet discover or cover by the solely mathematical approach. As soon I find reference material or by my own experience I will 17:17:33 include this here on this page. " 17:20:14 "Especially the fibonacci-numbers with their strong connection to nature you can look at them as a prayer build by the names (invocation) of the names of the numbers making up the sequence. As we address human with their names, the fibonacci- numbers already manifested themselves in so many ways, that when we invoke them we honor and acknowledge their presence in all their manifestations. 17:20:14 One, One, Two, Three, Five, Eight, Thirteen, Twenty-One, . . . " 17:20:45 just absolute crazy stuff 17:20:47 but it's hilarious 17:23:12 LOOOOOL 17:27:54 :) 17:31:35 Hmm, lojban seems fun. Anyone got a textbook? 17:32:47 yes 17:32:50 google lojban for beginners 17:34:30 http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html 17:34:32 i'm reading this 17:34:35 found it 17:44:39 "Pi also is considered a transcendental number (a mathematical term), it means it cannot be expressed by a ratio of two integers." No it doesn't. 17:45:03 Well, it does imply that. 17:45:12 But it's not what the word itself means. 17:47:58 Indeed. 17:48:20 sqrt(2) isn't transcendental, but it cannot be expressed by a ratio of two integers. 17:49:46 Transcendental \subset J \subset R \subset C \subset H 17:49:56 \subset O 17:53:52 Oh my. 17:53:58 What are those? 17:54:16 J irrational, H quaternion, O octonion? 17:55:16 You know, really, the number 7 is only needed for things like calculus and 1/7. 17:55:40 Elsewhere, you only need 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 17:56:18 And the occasional extension. 17:56:51 Like x such that x^7 + x + 1 = 0. 17:57:00 (And by x^7, I mean x*x*x*x*x*x*x.) 17:57:19 Er, no. Not plus but minus x. 18:17:04 7 is evil! :p 18:25:02 x^7 - x +1 = 0? 18:26:34 I think the largest number used in the proof of fermat's theorem ins 12 18:27:12 It should have been graham's number :( 18:31:10 Yes, x^7 - x + 1 = 0. 18:32:21 Though perhaps the nimbers are nicer. 18:32:47 There's a nimber called 7, but it's not the same as the number 7. 18:33:08 *7 removes some ambiguity and then adds some. 18:33:26 But 7 is what it's called. 18:33:51 I mean, 7 is what you call it when... um, actually, by that last sentence I didn't mean anything at all. 19:16:08 Now, back to esoteric programming languages! 19:16:20 Um, OISC. 19:16:38 Is there one that's elegant, fast and small? 19:18:43 Oh, right, MiniMAX. 19:18:50 reverse subtract and skip if borrow for the win! 19:19:16 Not elegant enough. 19:19:27 The program counter is location 0! 19:20:23 Something like BCT is nice if your computer has ADD. 19:20:52 maybe something based a wrapping add to a specified location, a GOTO and self-modification? 19:20:56 man, non-open source programming culture is so weird. 19:21:00 GOTO-ADD... 19:21:05 like, efnet programming channels 19:21:20 what in particular, lament? 19:22:00 different approach, different priorities 19:22:08 have you seen the dolphin smalltalk death announcement? 19:23:10 http://www.object-arts.com/content/blog/2007Aug10.html 19:23:23 read the next-to-last paragraph 19:24:02 So MiniMAX x,y,z puts the current x in the previous z then adds 3 to the current y to determine the offset in words? 19:24:19 http://rodger.nonlogic.org/images/watchersi.png <- on an unrelated note, here's an inked version of the comic I posted last night- somewhat better contrast on this one 19:26:41 hm. interesting. 19:27:03 "It simply will not happen! Both Blair and I dislike the Open Source movement intensely and we would rather see Dolphin gradually disappear into the sands of time than instantly lose all commercial value in one fell swoop." 19:30:31 "Dislike the Open Source movement intensely"? 19:30:46 What does he mean by "Open Source movement", exactly? 19:31:35 I think he's talking less about the practice of open-source and more about the religion. 19:31:47 i think he's talking about the practice. 19:33:51 The practice of making stuff open source? 19:35:57 well, the practice of making things "open source" is just to release the source, period. You don't even have to license things for them to be open-source. The religion is the belief that developers are "morally obligated" (or similar) to make things both open-source and licensed under a free software license. 19:36:33 there's significantly more to disagree with about the religion 19:36:42 Yeah, the religion thing is silly, in my opinion. 19:36:53 I can't see how you could intensely dislike the practice. 19:37:29 As is anything that contradicts economic stuff in certain ways :-P 19:39:00 it just occurred to me how amusing the statement "Never deal in absolutes" is. 19:40:16 Never deal in whats? 19:41:21 absolutes. like the linguistic equivalent of the mathematical "For All" symbol. 19:41:55 ...what? 19:42:04 http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/4/d/d4d49bead125261b226eaa867bd016ce.png 19:42:11 that thing. 19:42:18 Never deal in upside-down A? 19:42:22 ... 19:42:26 nevermind. 19:42:29 Never deal in anything? 19:42:31 RodgerTheGreat: no, just releasing the source doesn't make it open-source. 19:42:40 here we go... 19:42:45 "open source" has a specific meaning and implies a free license 19:42:51 this isn't religion, this is what "open source" _means_ 19:45:45 Sort of like "never say never"? 19:45:54 (Rather, "never say 'never'".) 19:46:04 ihope: alright, let me try to explain this again. An absolute is a statement that makes a sweeping logical statement, like "Everyone that plays baseball uses steroids", or "Nobody in poland knows how to tie a square knot". 19:46:16 yeah, that's equivalent 19:46:20 * ihope nods 19:52:39 ihope: Except "never deal in absolutes" is an absolute, obviously 19:54:34 yeah, that's what I was commenting on as funny. 19:56:02 yes 19:56:43 random sorta-esoteric-idea i've had going on in my head for ages: 19:57:01 a game (well - a toy. there's no objectives) called Lucid. You get a randomly generated character and setting, then have complete control over it 19:57:23 You could, for example, give a building legs (If the legs that you wanted were avaliable in the "catalog") 19:57:35 ok. What variables in particular would you be able to control? 19:57:46 If something you want to give to something or similar isn't in the catalog, you can draw it, and some sort of simple-animation tool like a flash-for-dummies 19:58:02 then, you could even give it custom actions beyond a set of default ones by coding it in some sort of scripting language designed to be good for it 19:58:06 Would the interface be intuitive as that for lucid dreaming? 19:58:15 probably not :p 19:58:17 RodgerTheGreat: most things 19:58:43 RodgerTheGreat: Gravity. Colour. Size. You could even change the script for a particular object 19:59:49 You could, for instance, if you have enough keyboard shortcuts, jump in the air very high, materialize a random dummy, make it explode into confetti with a confetti-producing-machine-gun, get out a pneumatic drill, go down quickly to land, get rid of the pneumatic drill, and hop on to a worm, which would go faster than the speed of sound./ 19:59:56 Providing, of course, you set up some of that beforehand 20:00:14 I'm thinking of a multi-mode thing: you have keyboard shortcuts and some other fast ways of accessing the common options as-you-play 20:00:24 but you can also pause and get a rich interface where you can take all the time you want 20:00:48 basically it's a god game but you control more than the creatures - you control absolutely everything, and can create things the game designers didn't 20:01:49 ... it would, of course, be horribly complex to create 20:01:55 but damn it'd be fun 20:02:27 I sort of have the programming language in my head 20:02:29 I'll write an example 20:03:54 well, it's hard to write an example without the enviroment of objects 20:04:01 but it's kind of like a cross between IO and smalltalk in syntax 20:04:32 instead of "object a(b, c)" (Io) or "object a withSomeLabel: b withAnotherLabel: c" it's "object a[b c]" 20:04:37 well, that or object a[b, c] 20:04:47 comma-less is ambigious i think 20:06:27 if-then-else is done like in Smalltalk: "true if{x}" returns "x call" (Note: {} is closure. [] can be omitted if the only argument is a closure), "false if{x}" returns false, 20:06:36 so: 20:06:45 conditional if{2} else{1} 20:06:49 err, false if{x} returns true 20:07:09 presumably every method would ignore else 20:07:10 so: 20:07:37 cond if{2} else{cond2 if{3} else{4}} 20:07:52 is "if (cond) { 2 } elseif (cond2) { 3 } else { 4 }" 20:08:35 oh! maybe elseif 20:08:56 "bool elseif[x, y]" is "bool else{x if[y]}" 20:08:59 but, yeah, you get the syntax idea 20:11:08 of course, you won't write full definition blocks much 20:11:14 since there'll be a visual interface 20:11:21 hmm 20:11:25 when making an object, you'll have a tree of all the different events it can recieve 20:11:27 in plain english names, etc 20:11:32 Ilaksh >> Lojban 20:11:34 and you can just navigate to one and get a small textbox 20:11:55 also Christianity --> Newspeak 20:11:56 so, basically, it's like smalltalk with the visual interface on steroids, but much simpler 20:11:57 in a freeform system like that, a functional language might not be what you really want. Perhaps you could break the language into universal "rules" and "axioms", with objects carrying "properties" and "values" 20:12:04 * SimonRC reads up 20:12:14 RodgerTheGreat: That's not really functional what I have 20:12:17 it's more object-oriented 20:12:44 And universal "rules" and "axioms" are just properties (for e.g. gravity) or methods (for more advanced stuff) on some sort of Universe object 20:12:50 perhaps, though 20:12:50 perhaps 20:12:59 note also: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html "Pi is wrong" Correct IMO 20:13:04 but overriding behaviour for single objects is *exactly* what happens in lucid dreams 20:13:12 "oh, i can fly but nobody else can" 20:13:16 heh 20:13:18 "oh, this building can walk but none else can" 20:13:18 bastard 20:13:24 well hey, that's what happens 20:13:35 I am not having much success with them yet 20:13:37 have you ever been lucid and went "ok, everything that is blue MUST BE PINK" 20:13:47 no, you probably went "ok, that blue thing MUST BE PINK" 20:13:53 hmm 20:13:54 i'm not exactly the master of getting lucid either 20:14:03 I haven't managed to be lucid yet 20:14:04 but my current game model models it as well as i can think of 20:14:06 not properl 20:14:10 (any hints?) 20:14:19 ok, hint: 20:14:28 wait until you have a dream whose plot is you doing various reality checks 20:14:38 then what? 20:14:58 after you have done about 10, you will think "wait... i am doing reality checks... and they are returning that i am in a dream... yet what i am doing in the dream, for some reason, is reality checking! wait a minu-" 20:15:05 ^^ actually happened to me 20:15:15 i don't know why i dreamed about doing reality checks 20:15:18 so how do i get that far? 20:15:31 I can't remember to do them often enough 20:15:44 how do you get that far - dumb luck 20:15:50 you have to suddenly happen to have a dream about RCs 20:15:55 yeah it's not a very good way :) 20:16:18 http://www.lucidipedia.com/misc/index.php this site's wiki is drowning in methods 20:16:34 but anyway, i think Lucid might be even better than a lucid dream 20:16:42 i mean, there's some things that would be very hard to do in a lucid dream 20:16:44 I was just using the everything2 guide 20:16:51 ehird`: like? 20:16:54 morphing the universe so that pi is a different value for example. 20:17:04 your brain probably has no idea what a universe with a different pi looks like :) 20:17:10 that would be.. interesting 20:17:13 a computer program could have a good guess though 20:17:16 have you seen the simplicity of some formulae for pi? 20:17:24 SimonRC: ok, visualize me a universe 20:17:29 then visualize it with a different pi 20:17:31 SimonRC: like? 20:17:36 Leibniz' sum? 20:17:40 how about 5.123 recurring 20:17:51 if you can do that - i'm impressed 20:17:54 it would have to be one where pi became the normal value at small scales 20:17:57 >now< do it when lucid dreaming and make the universe do that. 20:18:01 :) 20:18:04 I can just about do negative and positiv curvature 20:18:14 ok what about this - a 4-dimensional universe 20:18:17 9! 20:18:19 well, bad example 20:18:22 Lucid will be 2d 20:18:22 sp3tt: ?? 20:18:24 or even 9!-dimensional 20:18:31 ah 20:18:37 i don't think lucid would be good in 3d 20:18:59 it'd be too fussy, and the graphics would either have to be very good (not as fun! you can easily tell that pink elephant is fake!) or look absolutely horrible 20:19:07 plus placing objects and stuff would be annoying 20:19:11 a cartoony-2d style would be nice, i think 20:19:13 um 20:19:14 not too cartoony though 20:19:16 ah 20:19:27 actually dreams are very hard to draw 20:19:32 :) 20:19:42 there are percepts in them that *do not correspond* to a visual stimulus 20:19:52 hmm, really? 20:19:53 like, objects that do not have a colour 20:19:58 i never noticed any. 20:20:04 i've never had a dream that has an object sans colour 20:20:08 people don't dream in B&W, they mostly dream in *no colour* 20:20:13 what 20:20:14 no 20:20:16 i dream in colour 20:20:23 do you remember colours? 20:20:23 :/ 20:20:24 I dream in color, and i suspect that everybody does. 20:20:26 yes 20:20:26 i do 20:20:39 although my dream recall isn't spectacular - everything is a little blurred and hazy 20:20:42 but i DO remember colours 20:20:48 very detailed colours 20:20:51 colours like real life 20:21:09 SimonRC: dreams are very realistic 20:22:16 SimonRC: you just tend to not remember that 20:22:23 no 20:22:24 not IMO 20:22:28 no, they are 20:22:32 you are wrong, whatever you remember 20:22:36 hmm 20:22:42 ehird`: how do *you* know? 20:22:46 SimonRC: you are wrong, just wait till you get a lucid dream and look around. 20:22:58 if you didn't dream in full realism you would be lucid every time 20:23:03 this is scientifically tested 20:23:08 although where i cannot recall 20:23:14 hmm 20:23:31 so why do they make no sense? 20:23:40 oh let's think 20:23:48 because the mind isn't barraged by things like - say, physical constants? 20:24:23 ehird`: no, that wouldnt't explain why they're realistic 20:24:24 but perception is excellent in dreams 20:24:29 that is a interesting definition of "realistic" 20:24:29 i mean perception, anyway 20:24:36 ah 20:24:37 your perception is realistic 20:24:41 so it all looks real 20:24:43 yes 20:24:45 and it all sounds real 20:24:46 and feels real 20:24:47 etc. 20:24:57 the plots don't hang together 20:25:11 you mean, abrupt changes? 20:25:28 SimonRC: presumably because the dream-world is constructed at a level of consciousness which is capable of analyzing and modeling the physical world, but not of doing logic checks such as "but does this make sense" 20:25:37 My near-lucidity AFAICT brings me into a slightly-conscious panicy non-thinking state 20:25:47 lament: ok 20:26:02 my lucid dreams so far have not been very convincing 20:26:05 i didn't get lucid enough 20:26:09 so i woke up soon 20:26:12 gah that wiki reads like an advert 20:26:19 ehird`: ditto 20:26:22 and also i only remember it blurred 20:26:32 although i can do the basic stuff like morphing stuff and flying and all that 20:26:42 yay, i got this audio library working and set up! 20:26:44 I think I was actually seeing out of my real eyes in one of them, but it was at 10am 20:27:11 my lucid dreams are always right before i would normally wake up 20:27:21 like, i'll stop lucid dreaming half an hour before my alarm would go off 20:27:35 and i'm only lucid for one dream - the short dream before that 20:29:07 Actually, there are *some* unrealistic sensations in dreams. when I read, I can really feel the strain of my brin inventing the text. 20:29:18 yes you can't read in lucid dreams 20:29:20 or any kind of dream 20:29:24 it's just impossible and nobody knows why. 20:29:32 I keep checking my (digital) watch 20:29:36 IRl, I mean 20:29:37 and it changes? 20:29:40 oh 20:29:41 irl 20:30:11 I can read slightly, but the text is inconsistent and I can feel myself making it up 20:31:01 did you notice the previous words changing while you read new ones? :) 20:31:04 infinite story generator! 20:31:16 yes 20:31:40 "once upon a time there was a asdasd" "on a dark and stormy night tear col d asdasd" 20:31:47 You know when a program is using up all your CPU, making your mouse respond poorly. reading feels all stiff like the mouse feels stiff. 20:33:13 heh 20:33:19 so, what do you think about this game idea? 20:33:30 it would be hard to make; of course 20:33:42 but i think the end product would be mind-exploding-awesomeness 20:35:55 :) 20:36:12 especially if you could export/import just about everything 20:36:58 now, i want to write a program that needs microphone input, and my computer doesn't have a microphone.... 20:37:18 and? 20:37:25 it's tricky. 20:38:22 do you think? really? :p 20:39:19 i got the idea for Lucid from the Spore demo and http://www.official-linerider.com/play.html linerider 20:39:30 sort of as a combination of those taken out of control 20:39:49 it's a bit of a pain to debug. I have to compile it, upload it somewhere, and then download and run it on my friend's computer (which doesn't have any devtools) 20:40:30 you could...get a microphone 20:41:02 eventually. 20:42:37 spore sounds like a game i might actually want to try 20:44:08 yes 20:44:36 (I just remembered the most irritating one though: I was using the power of my mind to change reality, and I failed to notice I was dreaming! Gah!) 20:46:12 i wonder if lucid was released today, on all the major platforms, with not-too-much hardware requirements, if it would sell well 20:46:19 i think it wouldn't, because today's games market isn't creative 20:46:33 it wants there to be 1 way to complete the game, and it wants to be shown that way 20:46:40 it wants to be entertained only on a predefined path. 21:02:26 admittedly it does sound terribly boring 21:05:25 the most striking aspect of my dreams, to me, is the dialogue. It's particularly interesting whenever someone starts to explain things (which happens quite often in my dreams.) 21:05:37 lament: Lucid? :( 21:05:43 but you can do anytthiiiiiinnnggg 21:06:25 visually, my dreams are usually either strikingly realistic or highly abstract (I can recall 2d dreams). 21:06:59 i barely have any dialog in my dreams 21:07:09 beyond 3 or so muffled words 21:07:26 2d dreams... what was it like? 21:07:37 did you have 1px of vision and black at each side or was the 1px of vision stretched out? 21:07:55 it looked like a SNES game. 21:08:07 a third-person sidescroller 21:08:27 ah 21:08:31 third-person dreams 21:08:33 i have those often 21:08:40 i wonder what a lucid third-person dream would be like 21:11:18 ditto re third-person 21:12:10 well that wiki partially contradicted the everything2 21:13:23 :p 21:13:24 how? 21:13:33 lament: well why do you think Lucid would be boring? 21:23:51 I forgot now 21:24:04 :p 21:24:10 hmm 21:24:15 i wonder how long Lucid would take to make 21:24:17 probably years 21:24:19 years and years and years 21:24:23 duke nukem forever-years 21:24:40 Many games have some kind of restriction or thing that is trying to stop you. 21:25:04 Lucid is more a toy than a game :) 21:25:08 there are no objectives 21:25:11 apart from to have fun 21:25:28 you could, of course, use the editor to code an objective 21:25:37 How will it be different from single-person Second Life? 21:25:46 it'll be 2d, and have much less restrictions 21:25:51 :-S 21:25:54 and you'll be able to completely modify everything 21:25:57 gravity, universe code, everything 21:26:04 if it's there, it's modifiable 21:26:07 will things take a fraction of a second to render once they cme on-screen? 21:26:09 and you can create new things too 21:26:15 umm, maybe 21:26:20 probably not too noticable though 21:26:23 hmm 21:26:27 .3 seconds when you first spawn them 21:26:30 then it'll all be instant 21:26:35 but, of course, the game will pause for those .3 seconds 21:26:39 It should just be slightly noticeable, maybe 21:26:40 so any timing isn't destroyed 21:26:44 hmm 21:26:45 why? 21:26:56 that doesn't give the impression of a universe you can morph in realtiem 21:27:17 Ehn I am semi-lucid, i can tell that some things idon't appear until I looked for them 21:27:21 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 21:27:22 *When 21:27:34 hmm 21:27:42 -!- ehird` has joined. 21:27:47 also, with Lucid 21:27:47 I am lacking sleep, and it is 21:27. 21:27:49 you can code objectives 21:27:49 Bed-time! 21:27:57 you could code some simple AI objects, and some global triggers, and boom - catch the flag or whatevr 21:27:57 zzzzzzzzzz 21:27:57 okay 21:28:01 bye 21:28:15 (I realise, excitement is also needed.) 21:28:17 zzzzzzzzzz 22:02:29 zz 22:09:36 -!- Sgeo has joined. 23:12:13 -!- test_ has joined. 23:20:22 -!- oerjan has joined. 23:25:46 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 23:26:21 err 23:26:22 i am ehird`. 23:26:24 -!- test_ has changed nick to ehird`. 23:45:43 -!- sebbu2 has quit ("@+"). 23:54:33 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).