00:25:47 -!- OxE6 has joined. 00:41:03 -!- oerjan has joined. 00:44:01 hm, the logs have changed their timezone... 00:47:12 looks like they moved to china... 00:47:28 it's either that, or perth 00:48:37 no wait, perth would have daylight saving 00:50:12 oh wait 00:50:28 wikipedia is confusing. as is perth. 00:50:36 oranges are too 00:50:46 "A referendum held on May 19 2009 concluded that daylight saving will not be held in the future." 00:54:50 lol wut 00:55:16 -!- Asztal has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 00:55:32 ok there _may_ be a few other insignificant countries in that time zone 01:11:46 -!- jpc has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 01:28:14 -!- kar8nga has joined. 01:37:50 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 02:04:53 ehird: I wonder how draw() will do for more complex expressions. <<< actually it's pretty simple to do it, basically you just do dynamic programming on expressions, and for each, store the size of the bounding box for the pic, combining them is just a matter of trivial. 02:09:17 uorygl: Remind me why putting things next to each other means multiplication rather than addition or something. <<< it's because of a(b + c) = ab + ac; a + bc = (a + b)(a + c) looks too aggressive! 02:09:57 oklofok, the latter one can't be correct. err... 02:10:18 wait, was that with no operator = + ? 02:10:34 no you use + too 02:13:36 uorygl: The thing about theorems is that in general, they're easier to verify than to find in the first place. <<< yes, but that's not what mathematica can do, it can *use* the theorem. 02:14:19 oklofok, your client uses : for what someone said? 02:14:22 it's confusing 02:15:02 oklofok: because it is often used to address someone (like this, though I set my client to use , normally for tab completion) 02:17:44 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 02:18:22 oklofok, anyway, how is a + bc = (a + b)(a + c) supposed to work? What was the implicit operator there? 02:19:02 none of +-/* works 02:20:00 Oh well, all I want is a fun symbolic computation environment that isn't really weird like Mathematica and isn't really archaic like Axiom and the like. 02:20:00 And Maxima. 02:20:01 hm 02:20:05 what is wrong with maxima? 02:20:39 ehird: Uh, why not? <<< because there is a countable amount of pairs like that, consider a base 257 number, each function can be considered a distinct number in that base => at most |N| functions 02:22:29 AnMaster: yes, it's confusing 02:22:47 it confused someone just the other day 02:23:06 AnMaster: oklofok, anyway, how is a + bc = (a + b)(a + c) supposed to work? What was the implicit operator there? <<< reversing addition and multiplication 02:23:53 anyway, that starts looking natural after doing a bit of boolean algebra, it isn't exactly inferior in any way 02:24:29 oklofok, ah yeah 02:24:38 oklofok, so + means "times"? 02:24:39 then 02:25:15 yeah that's just distributivity of * over +, a(b + c) = ab + ac 02:25:38 oklofok, so you say "(a + b)(a + c)" would be same as normal "ac+ab"? 02:25:48 because then you missed one c above 02:26:00 I think 02:26:29 or maybe not 02:26:56 if xy = yx, then yes 02:27:07 otherwise just ab+ac 02:27:27 oklofok, just that I think it should be "ac" not "a" in the first term in: a + bc = (a + b)(a + c) 02:27:42 or maybe not 02:27:56 this uncommon notation sure is confusing! 02:28:43 oklofok, oh wait, you said boolean algebra? 02:29:47 ab + bc would be (a + b)(b + c) in normal notation = (a + b)(c + b) = ac + ab + bc + b^2, which in reversed notation is (a + c)(a + b)(b + c)(b + b) 02:29:50 so no, that's not the same 02:29:58 i mean that's not what i meant 02:30:26 if you reverse notations, reversed a + bc is normal a(b + c) = ab + ac, which is reversed (a + b)(a + c) 02:30:38 and in boolean algebra, it's directly a rule 02:30:45 so that is a V (b ^ c) = (a V b) ^ (a V c) which seems.... almost but not quite correct? (^ doesn't work too well there... but can't be bothered to find the unicode codepoint) 02:31:08 that's right 02:31:56 oklofok, I always had problems remembering that law: if it was ^ or V that went between them 02:31:59 if you use ^ and V, it's less confusing because the symmetry is more visible 02:32:04 AnMaster: both. 02:32:24 everything that is true in boolean algebra is true if you reverse them 02:32:25 oklofok, well yeah but I mean if: a V (b ^ c) = (a V b) ^ (a V c) or V (b ^ c) = (a ^ b) V (a ^ c) 02:32:35 and reverse constant 1's and 0's 02:32:38 oklofok, ^ 02:33:11 s/or /or a / 02:33:11 oh 02:33:32 alright think of it like this 02:33:58 in "a V (b ^ c)", you're doing "a and (expression of b and c)" 02:34:17 then you just do the "a and" thing inside the expression instead of doing it to the result 02:34:31 and you get expression of (a and b) and (a and c) 02:34:32 well 02:34:33 okay 02:34:42 hm 02:34:54 i'm not sure that's helpful, i just think of it as outside => inside 02:34:54 err 02:35:00 well that is and in both cases 02:35:05 this was mixing and and or 02:35:27 in "a V (b ^ c)", you're doing "a and (expression of b and c)" <-- is actually: a or (b and c) 02:35:29 well "a V (b ^ c) = (a ^ b) V (a ^ c)" <<< this here makes no sense 02:35:53 oh sorry 02:36:19 a ^ (b ^ c) = (a ^ b) ^ (a ^ c) is also a valid rule 02:36:37 oklofok, well yes. But that again isn't the same as discussed here 02:36:53 because it was mixing ^ and V 02:37:57 oklofok, this is the distributivity stuff I'm talking about. 02:38:11 I think it is probably a V (b ^ c) = (a V b) ^ (a V c) then 02:38:37 yes, the point is the expression does not change 02:38:44 oklofok, well yes... 02:38:45 i thought that was still clear from what i said, but apparently not 02:39:07 oklofok, it is just something I trouble memorizing for tests and such. 02:39:11 I had* 02:39:31 hmm.. you do know a(b + c) = ab + ac right? 02:39:58 i mean that's really the exact same rule, it's just in boolean algebra you can put * = and, + = or, or just as well + = and, * = or 02:40:03 oklofok, well yes, that is trivial in normal math. the issue is in boolean algebra and "whatever the English name is for the ^ and V notation" 02:40:45 hm 02:41:36 you have a(b + c) = ab + ac, put ^=*, V=+ and you get a ^ (b V c) = (a ^ b) V (a ^ c) 02:41:49 hm okay 02:41:59 oklofok, that was most helpful indeed 02:43:01 oklofok, but (a+b)(c+d) doesn't work the same as in "normal" math does it? 02:43:42 (a+b)(c+d) meaning (a V b) ^ (c V d) or what do you mean? 02:43:49 and what about (a+b)(a-b) = aa-bb 02:43:56 oklofok, well yes 02:44:12 oklofok, which would expand to (in normal math): 02:44:30 it works the same, (a+b)(c+d) = a(c+d) + b(c+d) = ac + ad + bc + bd 02:44:36 hm 02:44:39 okay 02:45:16 BUT also ab + ac = (a + ac)(b + ac) = (a + a)(a + c)(b + a)(b + c) 02:45:44 oklofok, I'm pretty sure rules don't work the same the other way though. not (a V b) = (not a) ^ (not b) 02:45:50 again probably easier to see how that works if you use ^ and V, i'm just not used to the notation 02:45:56 for one thing, how would not translate? 02:46:01 (a+b)(a-b) = aa-bb <<< is this an axiom? 02:46:03 it's not. 02:46:22 and what's -b anyway? 02:46:30 oklofok, hm? 02:46:30 -b is usually an element such that b + (-b) = 0 02:46:40 these do not exist in boolean algebra 02:46:46 oklofok, well, I meant (a+b)(a-b) == (a^2)-(b^2) 02:46:58 that is true in normal math 02:47:05 easy to remember rule. 02:47:10 and it's nonsensical in boolean algebra. 02:47:24 not an axiom of course, just follows as a result from other rules 02:47:47 yes, but subtraction simply does not exist in boolean algebra 02:47:53 well yeah 02:47:56 good point 02:48:51 you can think of it like this, all objects are nonnegative, and less than one (not literally, just a mnemonic ofc), so addition always gets you closer to 1, and multiplication gets you away from it, towards 0 02:49:00 objects = elements in your algebra 02:49:25 you do know a boolean algebra is in fact any system whose elements follow these rules, and not just {0, 1} with some axioms added? 02:49:27 oklofok, you can't use the (a+b)^2 == a^2+2ab+b^2 rule either I think. 02:50:19 (a+b)^2 = (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b)+b(a+b) = aa + ab + ba + bb = a + b + ab, because both multiplication and addition are idempotent in BA 02:50:37 if you don't know that, ... = aa + bb + ab + ab 02:50:48 you do know a boolean algebra is in fact any system whose elements follow these rules, and not just {0, 1} with some axioms added? <-- well yes, the same rules are at least in part shared with simple set theory 02:51:07 if you do union = + and intersection = * 02:51:47 AnMaster: yes, and what's even more interesting (and, sadly, what makes finite boolean algebras uninteresting) is that in fact for each finite boolean algebra B, there is a set that's completely isomorphic to B 02:52:08 uhu 02:52:31 what exactly does finite/infinite mean in *this* specific context? 02:52:58 isomorphism just meaning one-to-one correspondence between elements, and multiplication and addition work the exact same way in both systems 02:53:09 well yes I know what isomorphism is. 02:53:14 AnMaster: same as always :) 02:53:17 learnt it in graph theory stuff 02:53:20 -!- Leonidas has changed nick to Xeonidas. 02:53:21 finite would be like {1, 2, 5} 02:53:34 infinite would be like N 02:53:40 oklofok, as the set of possible values? 02:53:43 as in* 02:54:02 formally, infinite <==> there is a proper subset that can be put in bijection with the original set 02:54:34 oklofok, oh that's an interesting and very useful definition of infinite. You learn something new every day :) 02:55:11 AnMaster: basically what a boolean algebra is is a set where you have some dudes, and you have these rules called "and", "or" and "not". the axioms just limit what sort of mappings they can form between the elements 02:55:21 finite just means there's a finite amount of dudes 02:55:38 oklofok, usually Mr. True and Miss False? ;P 02:56:13 also not "not", more like complement 02:56:25 well, you don't really need an actual operator for it 02:56:25 oklofok, but then what about the set of real numbers. Is there such a subset for it? 02:57:03 well, maybe you can form a bijection without starting somewhere. 02:57:32 AnMaster: yes, we could take all numbers of the form bbbbb0,bbbbbb..., and just kinda move the b's before 0 one step to the right 02:58:19 oklofok, how does this interact with cantor's diagonal argument? 02:58:31 AnMaster: mr. true and mr. false would form the simplest nontrivial boolean algebra, but for any n there is a boolean algebra with 2^n dudes 02:58:43 and these are *the only finite boolean algebras*Ä 02:58:58 this is what i meant by "for blah blah there's a set such that blah blah isomorphism" 02:59:00 -!- Xeonidas has changed nick to Leonidas. 02:59:02 oklofok, hm, I only worked with the true/false style boolean algebra 02:59:12 I did know there were other types 02:59:19 just never came in contact with those 02:59:33 you said you knew sets also form a BA 02:59:48 well 02:59:56 oklofok, actually what I said was that I knew that the same rules worked. 03:00:08 I didn't say I knew *why* this was 03:00:20 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:00:26 but this explains a lot 03:00:29 to be more precise, if we have any set S whatsoever, and take the powerset 2^S, then if you define and as intersection and or as union, then a boolean algebra will be formed 03:00:34 1 = S, 0 = {} 03:00:43 oh nice 03:01:00 nifty even 03:01:19 to prove the rules work is very simple, actually, you just have to prove a few things about unions and intersections 03:01:37 oh? hard? 03:01:47 as in, "hard to prove those" 03:02:03 AnMaster: oklofok, how does this interact with cantor's diagonal argument? <<< cantor's thing says there is no surjection N -> R, i proved there's a surjection "subset of R" -> R 03:02:27 oklofok, oh right. But N is a subset of R 03:02:40 well right 03:02:47 yes, it's not true that for all subsets Z of R, there is a surjection from Z to R 03:02:50 not all subsets might have such a surjection 03:03:08 consider {}, it's a proper subset of R, but you can't map one of it's 0 elements to each element of R :P 03:03:15 oklofok, would it be possible to construct such a set that for all subsets there is a surjection? 03:03:31 N is a big subset, and infinite one in fact; cantor's argument says it's still not big enough. 03:03:35 oh wait yeah {}: All subsets of {} form a surjection against {} 03:03:41 of course 03:03:42 there are none 03:03:49 which makes the whole thing pointless 03:03:51 -!- FireFly has joined. 03:03:55 yes 03:04:10 what was that "hard to prove those" thing about 03:04:19 oklofok, about " to prove the rules work is very simple, actually, you just have to prove a few things about unions and intersections" 03:04:26 i didn't say "hard" 03:04:32 i said "very simple" 03:04:32 :D 03:04:36 there's a slight difference 03:04:44 oklofok, no, but you are in general way above my level in maths 03:04:50 ah 03:04:57 that's what you meant 03:05:03 yeah 03:05:38 oklofok, what you consider trivial, I likely will consider "not too hard", what you consider "not too hard" I will likely go "huh?" at :P 03:06:05 (apart from the really trivial trivial bits) 03:06:23 well let's see, a(b + c) = ab + ac, with sets that's a \cap (b \cup c) = (a \cap b) \cup (a \cap c), well... do you even need a proof for that? 03:06:48 we're taking all elems that belong to either b or c 03:06:48 but 03:06:55 oh right latex. hm \cap is ^ and \cup = V right? 03:06:59 we then remove all elems that belong to a 03:07:11 clearly it doesn't matter whether we remove all elems of a before or after the union 03:07:19 just draw like a venn diagram 03:07:39 wasdo you even need a proof for that? <-- a venn diagram works just fine iirc. 03:08:11 oklofok, argh you said that too a few lines below :P 03:08:20 well yeah I don't need a proof for that one 03:08:38 and for boolean algebra you can prove it with a truth table 03:10:12 but, if you want proof: a \cap (b \cup c) = {x | (x \in a) \and ((x \in b) \or (x \in c))} = {x | ((x \in a) \and (x \in b)) \or ((x \in a) \and (x \in c))} = (a \cap b) \cup (a \cap c), basically just open the definitions, and you're done 03:10:28 * AnMaster fires up tex to render that 03:10:57 yes, for the boolean algebra with 2 elements you could write down a truth table 03:11:01 oklofok, \and? 03:11:08 prolly 03:11:27 i don't see a mistake, but if there's an and, should be \and prolly 03:11:42 anyway, in fact, for any finite boolean algebra, you can write a "truth table" 03:11:50 oklofok, just lyx didn't like it. Not sure if it is there actually 03:12:02 i mean obviously you can just check the rules work if you have a finite amount of elements 03:12:22 the whole bit \and((x\in b)\or(x\in c))}={x|((x\in a)\and(x\in b))\or((x\in a)\and(x\in c))}=(a\cap b)\cup(a\cap c) doesn't render. Just silently cut off 03:13:01 anyway the usual boolean algebra 0, 1 is just the powerset of a set with one element, {a}, you just have one dude 03:13:28 oklofok, makes sense 03:13:53 there is a unique boolean algebra on the power set {{}, {a}}, then the "1" of that algebra is {a}, and {} is 0 03:14:08 oklofok, hm from this follows that there is a boolean algebra with just {} ? 03:14:26 a degenerate case indeed 03:14:32 well you could say it's the trivial boolean algebra 03:14:40 err 03:14:48 no in fact i think there's the rule 0 != 1 03:14:49 hm 03:15:06 oklofok, oh there has to be at least one element? 03:16:00 "the boolean algebra with just {}" is the algebra you get if you take the powerset of {}, that is, {{}}, it has just one element, which is both 1 and 0 03:16:10 the empty boolean algebra i suppose would be even more trivial 03:16:17 having neither, set of dudes = {} 03:16:30 i'm pretty sure at least that is illegal 03:16:44 but i don't have a set of axioms here, and this is really not that important :P 03:17:08 ah 03:19:32 well okay there's a rule like "there has to be an element 1 with properties X" 03:19:48 (the properties say it's the biggest object) 03:19:49 mhm 03:19:53 if the algebra is empty 03:20:17 "the boolean algebra with just {}" is the algebra you get if you take the powerset of {}, that is, {{}}, it has just one element, which is both 1 and 0 <-- that one is still valid? 03:20:24 then that's false. because there's no element, there isn't an element 1, even if the properties X would be trivially true because there are no objects 03:20:36 yes 03:20:46 but quite a useless one 03:21:28 yeah, but i find thinking about the degenerate cases usually makes math feel more concrete, sorta like programming vs. using programs 03:21:54 oklofok, using programs being more concrete? 03:22:18 oklofok, btw that thing above rendered as something that actually shows up as you expected it would be: $a\cap\left(b\cup c\right)=\left\{ x|\left(x\in a\right)AND\left(\left(x\in b\right)OR\left(x\in c\right)\right)\right\} =\left\{ x|\left(\left(x\in a\right)AND\left(x\in b\right)\right)OR\left(\left(x\in a\right)AND\left(x\in c\right)\right)\right\} =\left(a\cap b\right)\cup\left(a\cap c\right)$ 03:22:25 there seems to be no \and or \or 03:22:44 oklofok, most importantly you forgot to escape the {} 03:23:23 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:23:35 sort of like how programming makes you understand why programs don't always do what you want, maybe :) 03:23:42 oklofok, ah 03:24:51 (maybe) math is similar, the details and degenerates aren't actually that useful, but so aren't unfinished programs 03:25:02 well dunno, feeling poetic maybe 03:25:04 heh 03:25:06 should do stuff now 03:25:13 oklofok, yeah very deep and poetic 03:26:41 well anyway has been fun discussing these important elementary school matters with you :P 03:26:59 first attempt -> 03:26:59 oklofok, hm btw is there a surjection between R and C? 03:27:24 err 03:27:28 you could take like 03:27:42 hm? 03:27:51 bababab.bababa.... to (bbbb.bbbb..., aaaa.aaaa...) 03:27:59 (real, imag) 03:28:02 oh good idea 03:28:20 i think that works, there are two representations for each real so there might be complications 03:28:39 oklofok, and there is the polar form 03:28:40 what i mean is 03:28:41 brb myself 03:29:35 back 03:29:45 oklofok, what you mean is? 03:30:00 we need to prove if we have some (bbbb.bbb..., aaaa.aaaa...), then there's a real that maps to it, but the problem is when we're finding what to map bababa.babab.... to, we might actually use another representation for that real, say bababa.ccccc..., and actually map it to (bbb.ccc...., aaa.cccc) 03:30:03 *... 03:30:08 can you follow this notation? 03:30:13 oh you mean that 1+2i and 12+0i? 03:30:30 again the tuples are complex numbers (real, imag) 03:30:31 err 03:30:37 what does that question mean? 03:30:48 oklofok, forget it, was thinking backwards 03:30:56 say in binary, 0.1111... = 1.0000... 03:31:03 hm 03:31:36 what "we map bababab.bababa.... to (bbbb.bbbb..., aaaa.aaaa...)" actually says is, given some real, we take a representation of it (one of the two), and map it to some complex number 03:31:50 if the complex number is different depending on the representation of the real we chose 03:31:54 hm right 03:31:55 then this is not even well-defined 03:32:16 because using the two different representations, we could find two different complex numbers to which the function maps the real 03:32:23 and functions don't do that. 03:32:29 oklofok, thus providing that C is larger than R? 03:32:37 do you mean "proving" 03:32:43 oklofok, err yeah 03:32:44 XD 03:32:48 crazy typo 03:33:16 no, this doesn't prove that. kinda like saying "the ill-defined function f(x) = 0 and 1 isn't a surjection between R and C, therefore C is bigger than R" doesn't prove shit 03:33:43 ah 03:34:10 there definitely *is* a surjection from R to C, and in fact i could just fix the error 03:34:24 we take some base say base 1010010 03:34:27 oklofok, oh? 03:35:03 now, numbers that have 293 as their ith digit, map to complex numbers with 0 as their ith digit, and numbers that have 8544 as their ith digit, map to complex numbers with 1 as their ith digit 03:35:10 everything else can be chosen arbitrarily 03:35:32 now, for each complex number, we can construct a real number that has 293's and 8544's in the proper places 03:35:58 why 293 and 8544? 03:36:11 because both 293 and 8544 are in the middle of the interval [0, 1010010), there won't be any complications 03:36:24 oh 03:36:37 numbers that only contain stuff from the "middle of the base", have unique representations, afaik 03:36:45 aha 03:36:51 and those were completely arbitrary, those numbers 03:37:09 right 03:37:18 now it's a surjection, but not a bijection, as you can probably see if you followed that 03:37:42 hm.... right 03:37:58 we just needed the function's values to be nice for numbers whose base 1010010 representation only contains 293's and 8544's 03:38:05 oklofok, what about constructing a bijection then? 03:39:45 there's a relevant theorem i can't find 03:39:59 ah 03:40:22 well anyway something like if there's a surjection both ways then there's a bijection 03:40:29 clearly there's a surjection from C to R 03:40:35 (see it?) 03:40:36 well yes 03:40:38 (:P) 03:40:56 just set the imaginary part to 0 03:41:47 yes. well, technically R is a completely separate field, it doesn't even have imaginary parts. that's just how R is embedded into C. 03:42:00 but anyway the function that takes the real part 03:42:01 well right 03:42:20 oklofok, not the one that returns the real part? 03:42:30 err yes returns 03:42:35 i mean takes from the number, and returns :P 03:42:38 right 03:42:41 anyway second attempt coming soon. 03:42:43 not takes (as argument) 03:42:52 oklofok, well cya. I shouldn't hold you up longer 03:42:58 yes bad terminology 03:43:01 this has been very interesting :) 03:43:16 cya! -> 03:45:29 -!- kar8nga has joined. 04:30:22 mathematica sure is buggy... like altgr inserting space. Found a fix on google groups for it. 05:09:04 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 05:55:53 I just invented a feather-like language I think 05:56:36 at least inspired by featuer 05:56:38 feather* 06:20:41 -!- rodgort has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:47 -!- MigoMipo has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:47 -!- FireFly has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:47 -!- oklofok has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:47 -!- jix has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:49 -!- comex has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:49 -!- olsner has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:49 -!- ineiros has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:49 -!- Cerise has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:20:52 -!- yiyus has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:34 -!- AnMaster has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:36 -!- Leonidas has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:36 -!- dbc has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:36 -!- HackEgo has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:36 -!- lament has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:36 -!- uorygl has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:21:36 -!- mycroftiv has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 06:22:27 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 06:22:27 -!- FireFly has joined. 06:22:27 -!- oklofok has joined. 06:22:27 -!- rodgort has joined. 06:22:27 -!- ineiros has joined. 06:22:27 -!- Cerise has joined. 06:22:27 -!- olsner has joined. 06:22:27 -!- yiyus has joined. 06:22:27 -!- jix has joined. 06:22:27 -!- comex has joined. 06:22:51 -!- Leonidas has joined. 06:22:51 -!- mycroftiv has joined. 06:22:51 -!- HackEgo has joined. 06:22:51 -!- dbc has joined. 06:22:51 -!- lament has joined. 06:22:51 -!- AnMaster has joined. 06:22:51 -!- uorygl has joined. 06:23:23 yeargh 07:06:26 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 07:14:13 -!- quantumEd has joined. 07:32:14 -!- adam_d has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:10:50 -!- oerjan has joined. 08:12:48 19:40:22 well anyway something like if there's a surjection both ways then there's a bijection 08:12:51 19:40:29 clearly there's a surjection from C to R 08:13:06 if there is an injection there is obviously a surjection the other way 08:13:53 the reverse is also true but probably requires the axiom of choice 08:14:11 oh no! that's a shame because axiom of choice is true 08:14:15 ack 08:14:21 isn't* I ruined that joke 08:14:37 it's independent. you can choose whether you include it. 08:14:45 uh ?? 08:14:50 all the axioms are independent 08:15:33 perhaps. however it requires proof, which gödel and cohen provided for the axiom of choice at least (and the continuum hypothesis) 08:15:37 why do people so often point out when they use choice.. nobody says, ..but that requires axiom of powerset 08:16:10 because choice is the only one which doesn't give you a unique thing you construct 08:21:41 the whole logic set theory is based on has that property 08:22:34 hm well yeah choosing an element from a general set doesn't really give a unique thing either 08:22:56 yes, but subtraction simply does not exist in boolean algebra 08:23:32 you can use xor instead of union/or though 08:23:45 then it's just a Z_2 module 08:23:56 s/module/vector space/ 08:24:20 hm wait 08:24:30 and is not a vector space operation 08:25:06 i really mean, it's then a ring (boolean ring) 08:25:08 -!- MigoMipo has quit ("When two people dream the same dream, it ceases to be an illusion. KVIrc 3.4.2 Shiny http://www.kvirc.net"). 08:25:54 of course addition = subtraction then 08:31:41 AnMaster: iwc 08:45:55 oerjan, indeed. hours ago. remind me 08:46:19 cyberspace. orcs. 08:46:33 ah yes indeed 08:46:50 and yeah, I agree fully with the annotation 08:48:08 oerjan, oh and D&D was rather funny today 08:49:42 i found it a bit grating, actually, pete being _too_ exaggerated 08:50:09 but well, i guess that's what you need to get jim to actually start noticing... 08:50:49 opinions on mathematica after having spent some time playing around with it: incredibly buggy, three serious usability isssues, was possible to work around two of them. It also crashes a lot. 08:51:09 Syntax is somewhat strange and I still haven't found out why function parameters need to end with _ 08:51:15 would not buy again. 08:51:37 oerjan, well yeah, having to rotate a 3D plot to be able to see it is rather annoying 08:51:49 it is the one serious issue that I have not found any working workaround for 08:51:55 *whoosh* 08:52:17 oerjan, I decided to ignore that joke. xkcd reference right? 08:52:56 hm xkcd used it (that bobcat thing), but i thought it was a meme... 08:53:22 for most simple purposes I have to say maxima with the wxmaxima frontend is as good and sometimes better. Definitely less buggy for a start. 08:53:37 oerjan, oh right. I'm no expert on memes 08:53:54 anyway the joke was really about the fact you didn't actually buy it, as far as i have discerned 08:53:58 oerjan, bobcat? wasn't it the send cat through ebay? 08:54:14 oerjan, gift! 08:54:29 well if you _say_ so 08:54:40 oh btw another thing I noticed is that Wolfram really likes boasting. 08:54:48 http://xkcd.com/325/ 08:55:03 ah 08:55:12 right, remembered it as "cat" 08:55:19 -!- lifthrasiir has joined. 08:55:27 http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/FunctionalProgramming.html says "Long viewed as an important theoretical idea, functional programming finally became truly convenient and practical with the introduction of Mathematica's symbolic language." 08:55:33 I would call that "a lie" 08:55:44 of course, the wording is rather vague 08:55:51 you mean you haven't noticed that about wolfram before? it's like he's famous for it 08:56:06 oerjan, well yes I noticed it, but I hadn't realised the scope of it 08:56:45 oerjan, oh and I think he claimed mathematica was fast somewhere in the docs. and "highly optimising" or something 08:57:39 on the other hand, taking a minute or so to compute NextPrime[800!] doesn't seem too bad. Probably not a representative example considering what I heard from ais and such 08:58:27 ehird (?) claimed mathematica _was_ fast as long as you only glued together things it knows well 08:58:41 oerjan, that seems quite plausible 08:58:48 oerjan, but I assume you do have a copy? 09:00:09 no 09:01:03 heck i'm not sure i've ever tried it, the institute went with maple... 09:01:52 oerjan, oh btw the serious issues with workarounds: 1) Pressing AltGr inserts a space, work around by editing internal file, fix found in google groups archive. 2) Maxima was hogging CPU and waking up the laptop cpu around 14000 times per second (!), work around by replacing some library files with updated versions from wolfram: reduced to around 7000 times per second, chmod the java link stuff to be 09:01:52 non-accessible got rid of the issue completely but as a side effect some features of the internal help system no longer works 09:02:39 -!- Asztal has joined. 09:02:54 maxima? 09:03:04 oerjan, what about it? 09:03:09 err 09:03:11 typo 09:03:15 meant mathematica 09:03:19 thought so 09:03:34 maxima is a lot less buggy. for a start 09:03:41 s/\.// 09:04:30 well it's open source version of old macsyma, isn't it 09:04:57 i think the vax/vms system they had when i joined university had macsyma 09:06:29 http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/04/monumental_egos.html 09:06:36 oerjan, yeah but development hasn't been standing still 09:06:52 i was really pointing out the open source part 09:07:01 which _should_ mean less bugs 09:07:23 indeed 09:08:59 http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/04/monumental_egos.html <-- heh 09:10:15 oerjan, that site uses almost unreadably small text however 09:10:33 not in my browser 09:10:41 (IE 7) 09:10:48 er 8 09:13:03 These Android fonts (available as a package directly) have a lot nicer monospace font; I get a pretty readable 99x19 term on the 3.5" screen. 09:13:05 one can set a minimum text size in many rowsers 09:13:22 fizzie: wow 09:14:08 ah found it, mac fonts (legally) on a non-mac 09:14:24 At least that's what "resize" said the size is, haven't counted the chars. 09:15:12 Number of rows matches, probably columns too. 09:16:04 99x23 in the no-title-bar "fullscreen" mode. 09:16:08 type a long line in vim? 09:17:50 SimonRC, s/vim/emacs/ 09:18:31 Yes, it counts correctly; used cat to avoid the editor war. 09:22:05 but now you're at war with PETA instead! 09:22:07 fizzie, :P 09:22:14 oerjan, PETA? 09:22:26 `define PETA 09:22:31 * Peta (PeTa, Peta) is a fictional character in the manga and anime series MÄR. He is a member of the Chess Pieces, the series main antagonists ... \ [22]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peta_(MÄR) \ * In physics and mathematics, peta- (symbol: P) is a prefix in the SI (system of units) denoting 1015, or 1,000,000,000,000,000. For 09:22:37 um no 09:22:42 `google PETA 09:22:43 PETA's animal rights campaigns include ending fur and leather use meat and dairy consumption fishing hunting trapping factory farming circuses bull fighting ... \ www.peta.org/ - [13]Cached - [14]Similar 09:23:01 fizzie: but cat doesn't have a column count function! 09:24:09 ^ul ((0123456789)S:^):^ 09:24:10 012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123 ...too much output! 09:24:34 SimonRC: Wrote 30 chars, copy-pasted twice, then counted the remaining empty spots. 09:27:50 Time for some bus-catching. 09:31:47 oerjan: you didn't answer, how did you do in mathemalympics 09:32:51 i did answer. fairly mediocre 09:33:02 oh you did 09:33:03 as in below the 50% medal cutoff 09:33:10 mathemalympics? 09:33:20 when was that? 09:33:28 international math olympiad 09:33:50 1988 and 1989 09:33:54 oh but international? 09:34:26 well yes 09:34:55 in the national competition i got 3rd and 2nd place 09:35:02 Results 1 - 1 of 1 for mathemalympics. (0.08 seconds) 09:35:02 wow 09:35:04 just wow 09:35:12 isn't there a special term for that 09:35:15 just one hit on google 09:35:24 oh cool 09:35:28 * AnMaster suspects spelling is wrong 09:35:40 well duh oklofok made it up afaik 09:35:45 AnMaster: there's "googlewhack", but that's for 2 words together 09:35:51 i wish i'd given a shit in the math competitions :| 09:35:53 Asztal, ah right 09:36:05 oerjan, so what was the real name for it? 09:36:27 international math(ematics) olympiad 09:36:37 i've probably told you my fun math competition stories? 09:37:04 *ical 09:37:44 internautical 09:40:41 that would be one where we are all put in a boat at sea, and have to solve math problems to escape 09:41:06 :D 09:41:08 we should do that! 09:41:38 or maybe the other way around, not to get thrown out 09:41:53 i hear that's the popular way with these reality shows 09:44:12 hi oklofok 09:44:20 when can i come live with you in finland? 09:45:05 * SimonRC rather liked the maths olympiad when he did it. 09:45:20 I got to go to the summer school. 09:46:23 bsmntbombdood: well wasn't i advertising an empty room just the other day... :D 09:46:58 how're the immigration laws? 09:48:40 no idea really. significantly less strict than yours, i'd wager. 09:50:19 what about work, would i be able to manage without speaking whatever it is the natives speak? 09:50:51 pretty much everyone speaks english here 09:51:49 but tbh i'm not sure you could live here, i mean i wouldn't mind, but my gf might (i suppose i could ask her though) 09:52:04 but you wouldn't speak english unless there was some reason to right? 09:52:24 you mean do i speak english with finns? no, usually not 09:53:06 natives speak finnish 09:59:22 those pesky natives 10:01:28 is there a way to tell google that "this word must appear in this page", because most hits I get is when selecting cached shows that "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page:" 10:01:43 and all results are fairly irrelevant 10:01:54 i've been annoyed by that too 10:02:12 don't think so, it doesn't work by words on the one page 10:02:27 hm did prepending + help i don't quite recall if that worked 10:02:31 although there's no reason that couldn't be done as post processing so forget that 10:02:37 yeah sometimes i wish google was a search engine 10:02:55 and didn't just try to read my mind 10:03:00 and give me what i want 10:03:22 oklofok who said anything about mind reading 10:03:30 oerjan, prepending + seems to reduce the issue but not solve it completely 10:03:33 i did! 10:04:33 oklofok literal interpretation of that question misses the intended meaning 10:04:35 i think there is a google help page somewhere, i think i've seen links to it 10:05:07 oklofok I guess I was assuming you knew a bit about how google ranked pages 10:05:13 why google doesn't put it on their front page is beyond me 10:06:22 * SimonRC goes 10:06:58 oh wait there it is 10:07:59 broken unicode in the norwegian version, not encouraging 10:08:53 quantumEd: all i need to know is they don't look for pages containing exactly what i write in the box. 10:09:23 although they do something close to that 10:10:06 oklofok dunno, what you were saying seemed kinda smug and sarcastic to me 10:10:16 :D 10:10:18 okay 10:10:22 i suppose it was 10:10:45 google is big, obviously i'm allowed to bash them 10:11:06 you're funny 10:11:22 * oerjan tries the english version in the hope it is more up to date 10:13:07 * AnMaster suspects google turned evil quite some time back. Around the same time as sponsored links were introduced 10:13:24 that's google in general, sure there are still parts that aren't evil 10:13:25 for now 10:16:22 quantumEd: a good example of what i mean by mind reading is they correct my typos, 99% of the time they just give me something i didn't want, because what i wanted was less popular than something that sounds similar. 10:16:47 yeah that sucks 10:17:02 or s/99%/50%/, i haven't made statistics, just become annoyed ;) 10:17:29 oklofok: that's what adding + is supposed to disable, anyway 10:18:12 you and your superior arguments. 10:18:44 as if i have the time to press + everytime i search for something :d 10:19:00 do it in greasemonkey! 10:19:25 oerjan, + doesn't disable it in my experience always 10:19:37 hah, take that! 10:21:14 it's supposed to disable synonyms, it says 10:21:22 says nothing about links 10:24:12 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 10:26:22 oh well i cannot find any way to turn off links-only hits either 10:27:05 goddamnit 10:27:10 not nazi zombies 10:28:24 of course nazi zombies 10:29:41 -!- puzzlet_ has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 10:29:50 -!- puzzlet has joined. 10:37:44 oklofok: why do you search for so many things containing typos? 10:38:53 -!- Asztal has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 10:39:19 they are not typos, they are just oppressed words 10:39:22 -!- Asztal has joined. 10:43:56 posix_madvise 10:43:57 Did you mean: posix_fadvise 10:43:58 example 10:44:02 both exist btw 10:45:36 uorygl: ,aybe i just never typo accidentally, so all the corrections are always wong in my case? 10:49:14 * uorygl binks. 10:49:43 XD 10:51:00 oerjan, oh ffs. I think wolfram just tried to claim mathematica somehow is the best programming language at handling name spaces 10:51:11 And isn't it? 10:51:20 I've heard people claim mathematica is teh best language 10:51:45 uorygl: i seem to detect some doubt about oklofok's perfection, there. repent, sinner! 10:51:49 quantumEd, from looking at the docs it seems to provide a fairly bulky way to handle name spaces 10:51:55 bulky? 10:52:01 quantumEd, correct 10:52:07 meaning what ?????? 10:52:44 meaning it seems more complex and messy than it needs to be. For no gain. And that even C++ 10:52:53 c++'s* namespaces seems better 10:53:07 and let it be known that I'm no C++ lover at all 10:53:24 in fact I positively detest C++ 10:53:41 well at least you aren't negative about it 10:53:47 har 10:54:45 * uorygl sics Eliezer Yudkowsky on oerjan. 10:56:08 * oerjan places eliezer yudkowsky in a black box, tells everyone it is an evil AI and not to let it out under any circumstances 10:56:50 * uorygl talks to the black box for two hours. 10:56:58 * uorygl sics Eliezer Yudkowsky on oerjan. <-- everything before "on" there seems like some other language than English 10:56:59 I'm convinced that I should open this box. 10:57:01 * uorygl does. 10:57:16 lol 10:57:23 i was afraid of that 10:57:27 AnMaster: "uorygl" is a Lojban spelling of an English word. "sic" is an English word. 10:57:39 uorygl, you mean as in [sic] ? 10:57:39 O_o 10:57:42 well right 10:57:52 No, it's a verb, also spelled "sick". 10:57:53 AnMaster: sic means to tell to attack 10:57:53 and here i was trying to check if it was rot-N 10:58:11 yarr i didn't realize it was ihope either 10:58:17 before now 10:58:25 -!- ehird has joined. 10:58:32 oerjan, I did that in a few seconds and found it unlikely 10:58:41 whois would've told that tho, it seems 10:58:46 oh that i realized long ago 10:58:47 oerjan, I also tried reverse 10:58:49 what do you know 10:59:15 ehird, hi there 10:59:22 oklofok, how so? There is no ihope in it 10:59:24 "Eliezer" is a Biblical name meaning "God is help". As for "Yudkowsky", all I can tell is that it's an English proper noun meaning "Eliezer Yudkowsky". 10:59:35 18:04:53 ehird: I wonder how draw() will do for more complex expressions. <<< actually it's pretty simple to do it, basically you just do dynamic programming on expressions, and for each, store the size of the bounding box for the pic, combining them is just a matter of trivial. 10:59:35 I meant how reasonable output will it give. 10:59:35 AnMaster: everyone knows warrie is ihope 10:59:43 We're talking about Yudkowsky's name? 10:59:49 ehird: kind of. 10:59:53 oklofok, sounds familiar 11:00:05 ehird: < AnMaster> * uorygl sics Eliezer Yudkowsky on oerjan. <-- everything before "on" there seems like some other language than English 11:00:05 ehird, logs! :P 11:00:05 ... 11:00:07 ehird: great output. 11:00:26 oklofok: but you can't get smaller and smaller text w/ ascii 11:00:40 uorygl: -owsky is a pretty common slavic name suffix afaik 11:01:09 18:14:19 oklofok, your client uses : for what someone said? 11:01:09 18:14:22 it's confusing 11:01:09 As does mine. 11:01:10 18:15:02 oklofok: because it is often used to address someone (like this, though I set my client to use , normally for tab completion) 11:01:10 Ho ho, the primitive oklofok knows not the customs of IRC! 11:01:13 ehird: yes, that's why you need to know the sizes of bounding boxes of subexpressions 11:01:23 oklofok: that's not actually the context I meant 11:01:33 i meant like in power towerzzz 11:01:55 ehird I'm forced to give you an award... 11:02:11 18:20:39 ehird: Uh, why not? <<< because there is a countable amount of pairs like that, consider a base 257 number, each function can be considered a distinct number in that base => at most |N| functions 11:02:11 contexxzt? 11:02:19 :D 11:02:25 it was about functions not being representable 11:02:34 in what sense 11:02:43 oh the free variable 11:02:44 things 11:02:45 arglist + expression is not enough to give you all functions 11:02:49 really pretty obvious 11:03:08 expression can be arbitrarily big tho... 11:03:15 but it must be finite 11:03:19 well right 11:03:21 hmm 11:03:25 well recursion 11:03:26 of course 11:03:37 what about recursion 11:03:50 are we including impossible functions here 11:03:51 Recursion doesn't change the fact that expressions are finite. 11:03:55 yeah 11:03:58 What's an "impossible" function? 11:04:04 An uncomputable one? Definitely. 11:06:35 a meaningless one? :P 11:08:24 basically 11:08:53 there's more functions than you can write down 11:09:04 actually a function can be definable without being computable 11:09:06 (if you fix a countable language) 11:09:18 oklofok: ofc 11:09:40 ehird: maybe ofc, but that was an answer to your question 11:09:45 oh 11:09:49 now i see 11:10:07 i see the world 11:10:29 i see so much more than that 11:10:34 like space and stuff 11:11:41 i see the nested hilbert-hotel of concepts 11:12:04 how many computable functions are there? 11:12:06 (every room contains a hilbert hotel just as big as the main one, containing all the ideas and subhotels of related ideas) 11:12:09 quantumEd: infinite 11:12:16 i think 11:12:18 (say in infinitary lambda calculus) 11:12:23 f(x) = x+1 11:12:25 f(x) = x+1-1 11:12:27 f(x) = x+1-1+1 11:12:28 etc 11:12:40 you could argue that's two functions 11:12:59 Yeah, in most definitions of a "computable function", there are aleph_0 of them. 11:13:23 computable function restricted to the physical universe would be interesting 11:13:30 but we don't know how dense we can pack information for a computer 11:13:34 etc 11:13:46 and we don't know how fast we can compute (to avoid the death of the universe) 11:13:55 and we don't know when the universe will die either :P 11:13:57 s/ / / 11:13:59 ehird, what about one that "did something useful" (of course you need to define that first) 11:14:08 *does 11:14:30 ehird, did, since we spent so much time thinking about it that the universe already died. 11:14:31 uorygl that's just some definition though, it's not necessarily the truth 11:15:02 There is no "truth". 11:15:10 was just about to say that 11:15:26 Your incorrect philosophy of mathematics may lead you to believe that there is a real "truth" behind computable functions — which ONLY means their definition — but there is not. 11:15:45 Computable functions mean what consensus defines them as; they are abstract concepts with no underlying truths. 11:16:23 heil, mein führer 11:16:52 oklofok: wrong channel 11:16:56 * oerjan ducks 11:17:23 i thought this was the one with the nazi zombies 11:17:41 no. this channel still has some brains left. 11:17:52 brains? where? 11:17:54 * OxE6 drools 11:17:59 oops 11:18:05 irc rooms are kind of a sucky place to hunt. 11:18:24 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 11:18:28 -!- puzzlet has joined. 11:18:33 quantumEd: in math, definitions are the truth. 11:18:37 bsmntbombdood seems to be the only one even trying to get into physical contact with his prey 11:18:44 ? 11:18:51 uorygl, not so! Truth in undefiniable 11:18:56 is* 11:19:08 How do we know that pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter? It's defined that way. 11:19:11 What do you mean? 11:19:26 bsmntbombdood: you're a zombie, and you want to eat my brain 11:19:35 oh baby 11:19:44 you are so busted 11:19:47 A statement is true in a theory if it holds for every model of that theory. 11:19:50 uorygl, it's a theorem of Tarski 11:19:56 Which theorem? 11:20:02 quantumEd: that's just some definitions tarski made up 11:20:04 quantumEd: not the truth! 11:20:30 s/true/provable/, iirc 11:20:42 true and provable are not synonymous 11:20:48 imo thinking about true is usually pointless esp. since godel means, well, it's kinda inaccessible 11:20:56 i think provable is a formal concept and true isn't, but that's just a hunch 11:21:00 no but i think the tarski theorem is about provability? 11:21:27 Well, I think something is a "logical consequence" or whatever if it holds for every model of the theory. 11:21:33 otoh isn't that godel's completeness theorem 11:21:43 I'm not talking about godels theorem 11:22:22 they may be close nevertheless 11:22:44 Yeah, remind me. Is there a Turing machine that halts in some models of ZFC but not others? 11:23:12 yes 11:23:17 ...Yeah, I think there is. Just add "the Turing machine halts" as an axiom. 11:23:44 uorygl, if it's undecidible whether or not a turing machine halts: It does not halt 11:23:52 That is true. 11:23:53 ... 11:23:57 ur momz 11:23:59 is the new topic 11:24:06 I don't think the axiom "the Turing machine halts" is okay to suffix 11:24:09 Still, for some Turing machines that do not halt, ZFC + "that Turing machine halts" is consistent. 11:24:39 Because a theory is consistent if and only if you can't prove a falsehood from it. 11:24:43 I think. 11:24:48 anyway all this talk of turing machines just brings us back to cold hearted determinism, there's so much more 11:25:13 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection). 11:25:18 -!- puzzlet has joined. 11:26:01 oh dear not all this again 11:26:20 quantumEd: oh great, let me guess 11:26:26 free will exists because of quantum effects 11:26:27 did i guess right 11:27:26 ugh 11:27:45 -!- Azstal has joined. 11:28:25 -!- Asztal has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 11:28:38 -!- Azstal has changed nick to Asztal. 11:28:49 haha the channel collectively grunts in disgust 11:29:13 yes, puzzlet's hop was just that annoying. 11:30:00 xD 11:30:05 xxxxxxxxxxD 11:30:10 20:30:22 mathematica sure is buggy... like altgr inserting space. Found a fix on google groups for it. 11:30:10 to insert special characters, I recommend name 11:30:12 in mathematica 11:30:28 inf, pi etc work 11:30:40 infinite pie 11:30:45 yes 11:31:04 chocolate pie? 11:31:24 it's chocolate _somewhere_, it's infinite after all 11:31:30 re: start of today's logs, people who don't use the axiom of choice upset me :P 11:31:34 oerjan: um, no 11:31:36 oerjan: no, it could be uniform 11:31:44 or a repeated tile 11:31:47 to insert special characters, I recommend name 11:31:51 but where is the fun in that 11:31:54 ehird, you forgot about Swedish keyboard 11:31:55 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 11:32:00 ehird, I need altgr for [ and { 11:32:08 AnMaster: dude, remap that shit 11:32:08 all sets of axioms should be used an equal amount 11:32:21 ehird, anyway the fix works, *shrug* 11:32:23 even the inconsistent ones? 11:32:23 apply the axiom of choice to an infinite set of axioms 11:32:59 00:50:49 opinions on mathematica after having spent some time playing around with it: incredibly buggy, three serious usability isssues, was possible to work around two of them. It also crashes a lot. 11:33:00 00:51:09 Syntax is somewhat strange and I still haven't found out why function parameters need to end with _ 11:33:00 because 11:33:03 f[foo] 11:33:10 SimonRC: well if they are hard to prove inconsistent, they can be interesting for a while 11:33:13 ehird, means? 11:33:21 pattern matches on the symbol foo 11:33:21 it's a symbolic language 11:33:21 also, what are the usability issues? 11:33:30 ehird, ah I see 11:33:45 ehird, they were mentioned below 11:33:46 a bit 11:33:54 some page or pages later 11:33:55 00:51:37 oerjan, well yeah, having to rotate a 3D plot to be able to see it is rather annoying 11:33:55 00:51:49 it is the one serious issue that I have not found any working workaround for 11:33:55 works in os x without rotating 11:33:55 iirc 11:33:55 00:51:15 would not buy again. 11:33:55 00:52:17 oerjan, I decided to ignore that joke. xkcd reference right? 11:33:55 no, it predates the internet i believe 11:34:03 works in os x without rotating 11:34:06 linux specific bug 11:34:09 linux of course is a fringe platform for mathematica 11:34:16 ehird, intel graphics even 11:34:20 most people are on windows or os x, or use maxima or axiom or w/e 11:34:38 ehird, some intel chipset revisions only, only linux 11:34:40 yeah a bit rare 11:34:48 maxima is horrible after getting used to mathematica's web interface 11:35:00 oklofok, web interface? You mean W|A? 11:35:11 most likely 11:35:12 that's one of thhem 11:35:13 00:54:40 oh btw another thing I noticed is that Wolfram really likes boasting. 11:35:13 he's probably a malignant narcissist 11:35:15 *them 11:35:20 he definitely has a gigantic ego 11:35:25 mathematica has tons of web interfaces 11:35:29 web faces 11:35:43 oklofok, what about wxmaxima? 11:35:52 oklofok, better than the command line I have to say 11:35:53 i don't know what that is 11:35:55 quite nice even 11:36:02 oklofok, graphical frontend to maxima 11:36:13 okay i have wxmaxima 11:36:17 that's the annoying one 11:36:19 :) 11:36:33 oklofok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WxMaxima_0.7.1_screenshot.png ? 11:36:44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism) 11:36:45 later versions are more like mathematica note book in style 11:37:08 oklofok, as in, you edit directly in the buffer rather than having an input line at the bottom 11:37:09 hmm 11:37:13 mine does ascii rendering for instance 11:37:18 so that's probably newer 11:37:20 AnMaster: did you miss the talk about me musing about writing y own maxima/mathematica-alike? 11:37:28 oklofok, wow your has to be really old 11:37:30 oklofok: you're using the command-line version, probably 11:37:34 probably 11:37:36 ehird, most of it yeah 11:38:23 -!- augur has joined. 11:38:29 AnMaster: features in a nutshell: *good* command-line interface with good ASCII art drawing of expressions, a simple syntax that matches mathematical notation quite closely, and some assorted other stuff 11:38:36 *writing my 11:39:05 oh, and the ascii art drawing is optional, by default it'll display linear expressions, which is nice 11:39:31 ehird, mathematical notation is ambiguous without context. As in what does a d mean? dx/dy is probably different from ab+dc 11:39:43 00:58:27 ehird (?) claimed mathematica _was_ fast as long as you only glued together things it knows well 11:39:43 ais523 claimed it and i parroted based on my experience 11:40:08 AnMaster: dx/dy is dividing the variables dx and dy. ab+dc is adding ab and dc. for the former use the derivative function 11:40:15 for the latter you mean a b + d c 11:40:19 or (a b)+(d c), not sure 11:40:23 i said close, but also simple 11:40:25 ehird, dx/dy is probably a differentiation 11:40:27 and understandable 11:40:31 so it diverts ofc 11:40:35 AnMaster: no it isn't, not in my syntax 11:40:36 or what you call it in English 11:40:52 ehird, well I said "mathematical notation" 11:40:53 duh 11:41:00 it was about 11:41:01 Then why did you state that to me? 11:41:06 ehird, "that matches mathematical notation quite closely" 11:41:10 "quite closely" 11:41:13 Obvious keyword. 11:41:50 ehird, about ascii art drawing, do you mean unicode or plain ASCII? 11:42:28 plain ascii, unicode doesn't really help all that much for most of it 11:42:36 the layout engine will prolly have different backends 11:42:43 like ascii, unicode, html etc 11:43:01 (TeX...) 11:43:32 (although the TeX will probably be quite low level as the layout engine will mostly result in things like "row, 2, row, line, row, 3" for 2/3) 11:44:18 * AnMaster wonders how to plot a function in the complex plane with mathemematica. 3D plot. x for real part, y for imaginary part (for the input value), And z for absolute value and colour for argument (for the output value) 11:44:36 I haven't been able to figure out the colour stuff 11:44:49 When in doubt, type Plot3D, hit F1, and navigate the docs. There is a special function fofr complex numbers, I believe. 11:45:00 Oh, and the documentation search is quite good. 11:45:03 "plot complex" might help. 11:45:34 *for 11:45:52 AnMaster: Here's something that'll make you go WTF: The documentation is a set of Mathematica notebooks. 11:46:02 The documentation for Plot3D is the same thing as your REPL. 11:46:18 (You can even shift-enter the examples from inside the docs.) 11:46:40 ehird, I did on reference.wolfram.com, since the built in docs requires java (except for basic ?Function stuff). And the java stuff is what causes the exessive wakeups and CPU hogging. Using built in docs slows down the computer so much that the mouse pointer take several seconds to react 11:47:13 The built in docs areer far superior. 11:47:14 I suggest fixing the Java issue, it really is a lot more pleasant with the built-in doccs. 11:47:14 *are 11:47:36 AnMaster: Oh, and here's some fun functions — {Example,Country,Astronomical}Data 11:48:08 I hope Mathematica doesn't need installation instructions. 11:48:11 ehird, heh 11:48:48 ehird, the java issue is known, and it is a mathematica bug, not a bug in java. Working fix not yet released. 11:48:53 uorygl: You run a script and enter two paths. 11:48:54 this I found from googling 11:49:02 AnMaster: So work around it. 11:49:09 It's not heh; those functions really are fun. 11:49:17 ehird, official workaround is chmod a-rx JLink 11:49:21 to disable the java stuff 11:49:22 XD 11:49:58 So do an unofficial workaround...? 11:50:14 ehird, none found so far. at least as far as I have been able to find 11:50:25 tried different jvms? 11:50:29 ehird, I did 11:50:43 Well, alright then. 11:50:57 New suggestion! Use my thing instead. 11:51:09 ehird, there is some suggestion to downgrade kernel(!) to 2.6.27 or earlier, but that would break all sort of stuff. Like being able to boot my laptop iirc. 11:51:16 ehird, sure, go code it first 11:52:58 AnMaster: Surely I should go design it first, being that it is a huge undertaking, involving not only the creation of a completely new, unconventional programming language that should be quite fast and yet has to be based around tree rewriting, the programming of complex and subtle algorithms as far down as basic algebra that nonetheless have to be optimised the shit out of, the programming of many, many mathematical and utility functions — that must run 11:52:58 efficiently, writing the drawing layout engine, ... 11:53:08 ... but tons of other things too. 11:54:47 why based on tree rewriting? 11:55:02 That's what symbolic computation is. 11:55:47 It's basically the only way to easily handle expressions involving numbers like pi and insanely big 'uns and still be able to manipulate and compare them efficiently and only evaluate them to arbitrary precision at the last step. 11:57:14 wow I think this plot just reinvented flower power or something 11:57:23 ehird, want to see? 11:57:45 Such patterns are not uncommon, but sure. 11:57:47 Screenshot 'er up. 11:57:51 OR 11:57:55 Save a notebook and send it to me! 11:57:57 ehird, the expression is http://sprunge.us/QMhM 11:58:12 btw, those lines at the right side select various parts of the expression 11:58:29 AnMaster: That Function would be more idiomatically written with lambda syntax 11:58:37 ehird, oh? 11:58:39 well yes 11:58:43 less copy and paste I guess 11:58:48 (#+2)& → \x→x+2 11:58:48 (#+#2)& → \x,y→x+y 11:58:49 ehird, or you mean the colour one? 11:58:52 # is #1, #n is argument n 11:58:59 you postfix the expression with * 11:59:00 erm 11:59:01 with & 11:59:03 yes, it's weird 11:59:04 AnMaster: yes 11:59:19 ehird, I just based it on the examples at http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/ColorFunction.html 11:59:36 well, maybe it isn't more idiomatic, but it is shorter, and mathematica is tedious to write :P 11:59:46 ehird, also I didn't quite grook that syntax you just gave above 11:59:55 ehird, agreed it is tedious to write indeed 12:00:04 [19:57] ehird: btw, those lines at the right side select various parts of the expression 12:00:04 other tips: In and and Out actually are real arrays, you can access them in expressions; % means Out[last line], Mod+L recalls the last line, you can modify lines in place and re-evaluate them to replace them 12:00:10 ehird, anyway what do you think of the result of that plot? 12:00:24 * ehird evaluates that 12:00:35 ehird, nifty eh? 12:00:49 Who spiked my drink? 12:00:58 ehird, XD 12:01:00 Yep. 12:01:03 AnMaster: Anyway, to explain: 12:01:44 By == I just mean is equivalent; they aren't technically equal, but they behave identically 12:01:44 (# + 2) & == Function[x, x + 2] 12:01:44 (# + 2 * #2) & == Function[{x, y}, x + 2 * y] 12:01:44 * AnMaster waits 12:01:44 etc 12:01:56 (...) & is a lambda, # is the first argument, #1 is too, #n is argument n 12:02:11 err okay 12:02:57 ehird, how does this call Hue, Sin and Arg? 12:02:58 AnMaster: To explain: Mathematica has postfix operators. Yes, you read that right. That's how 3! works. 12:03:03 It's 3 !. 12:03:11 AnMaster: Umm... the body of a lambda is just an expression. 12:03:14 ehird, that makes perfect sense 12:03:16 How on earth is this confusing to you? 12:03:32 Your ColorFunction would be written as: 12:03:49 I should probably define f to be the function I'm plotting or something 12:03:52 (Hue[Arg[2 (# + I*#2)^3 - ...]) & 12:04:01 WTF are you confused about? 12:04:01 like f[re_, im_] := ... 12:04:03 It's just lambda syntax. 12:04:10 AnMaster: ?????? 12:04:13 ehird, well okay 12:04:14 sure 12:04:20 No, you use expressions inline with Plot3D. 12:04:27 ehird, oh? 12:04:35 Don't define a function unless you need to, and if you must use PlotFunction. 12:04:37 code duplication, can't be having with that 12:04:40 -!- OxE6 has quit. 12:04:47 Oh, you use it more than once? So you do. 12:04:52 AnMaster: I think there is a way to simplify this. 12:04:57 So that there is no duplication. 12:05:00 But yeah, use PlotFunction and co. 12:05:03 hm okay 12:05:11 No search results for PlotFunction 12:05:11 Erm 12:05:14 err 12:05:17 lemme try and find it 12:05:25 Hmm, nope 12:05:26 -!- boily has joined. 12:05:27 Just call the function then 12:06:19 Eh, who knows. 12:07:16 well defining a function then using it in Plot3D seems to work 12:07:23 maybe PlotFunction was for older versions? 12:08:34 No, it let you actually do 12:08:41 PlotFunction[f, {10, 50}] 12:08:41 iirc 12:08:43 I may be imagining it 12:08:45 Probably am. 12:09:25 -!- kar8nga has joined. 12:09:26 * AnMaster wonders if there is a parametric 3D plot 12:09:47 AnMaster: Right click → Copy As → LaTeX. 12:09:49 Erm. 12:09:53 I didn't mean to address that to you. 12:09:55 I was just noting a fun thing. 12:10:07 ehird, I noticed that before 12:10:29 \frac{1}{2} 12:10:31 Yep, that works. 12:10:45 ehird, yet mathematica claims to have uniquely superior state of the art math type setting 12:10:53 I'm certain I saw that somewhere 12:11:00 Well, Mathematica's TraditionalForm output is very nice. 12:11:11 (try TraditionalForm[Hold[some expression]]) 12:11:40 It can even interpret a subset of TraditionalForm's output. 12:11:43 *of Tra 12:11:45 stupid spces 12:11:46 http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/RegionPlot3D.html <-- nice 12:11:48 *spaces 12:12:30 ehird, stupid letters 12:12:50 ooh, RegionPlot3D[x y z < 1, {x, -5, 5}, {y, -5, 5}, {z, -5, 5}, 12:12:50 PlotStyle -> Directive[Yellow, Opacity[0.5]], Mesh -> None] is pretty. 12:12:53 from that page 12:13:05 Apparently that's \text{RegionPlot3D}[x y z<1,\{x,-5,5\},\{y,-5,5\},\{z,-5,5\},\text{PlotStyle}\to \text{Directive}[\text{Yellow},\text{Opacity}[0.5]],\text{Mesh}\to \text{None}] in LaTeX. 12:13:06 :P 12:13:33 ehird, I don't quite think that is true 12:14:14 Well, it is. 12:14:15 well, I guess it depends, I don't think the Plot commands does have any good translations 12:14:24 It's copying the formula itself. 12:14:34 ehird, it should generate pstricks commands XD 12:14:36 Not TeX that evaluates the formula. 12:14:52 AnMaster: Well, it's just like how it'll give you 2+2 instead of \horriblemacromagic{add}{2}{2}. 12:14:57 Because it should show as 2+2, not 4. 12:15:04 well yeah 12:15:10 TeXForm::unspt: TeXForm of Graphics3DBox[<<1>>,<<7>>,ViewVertical->{-0.210506,0.583037,0.784701}] is not supported. >> 12:15:18 Aww. Gimme a LaTeX version of the plot itself! :P 12:15:58 -!- poiuy_qwert has joined. 12:16:43 AnMaster: btw, wolfram is a narcissist but that's mostly the documentation's fault, usually the actual meat is good, if slow and buggy 12:16:47 ehird, well that is non-trivial. Did you want it as an asymptote graph? Or pstricks? Or something else? 12:16:58 wolfram mostly sits around, mathematica isn't really his these days 12:17:14 AnMaster: I want it rotatable in the output pdf, clearly. 12:17:14 ehird, he still write the docs? 12:17:24 Adobe recently added Flash embedding to pdfs... 12:17:29 argh 12:17:30 And there's a C→ActionScript converter... 12:17:33 hm 12:17:34 And Mathematica is mostly C... 12:17:37 Do you see where I'm going? XD 12:17:40 oh my 12:17:45 yes I'm afraid so 12:17:50 also what? C→ActionScript? 12:17:53 seriously? 12:18:00 Yeah, it's called Alchemy 12:18:06 There's a Flash port of Doom 12:18:11 With it 12:18:14 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/470460 12:18:36 "Recompiled from the original sources by Mike, using Alchemy! Thanks Adobe!" 12:18:43 Not that much of a port, then. 12:18:54 ehird, try changing the range to -Pi/Pi in the "Who spiked my drink" plot 12:18:58 something strange happens 12:19:05 to be exact, a strange message 12:19:07 repaste the expression? 12:19:39 Power:indet:Indeterminate expression (0.+0.ii)^(0+0.ii) encountered 12:19:42 to be exact 12:19:57 those i are stylised ones 12:20:00 Paste the expression and I'll diagnose. 12:20:04 sec 12:20:47 ehird, http://sprunge.us/FUaa 12:20:59 01:03:34 maxima is a lot less buggy. for a start 12:20:59 well, and a lot less featureful :) maxima is alright, but it doesn't cover everything mathematica does 12:21:11 ehird, of course 12:21:40 ehird, btw how do you zoom in on a part of a plot in mathematica? 12:21:40 AnMaster: when you see an error click the >> next to it 12:21:44 that opens in the built-in docs though, ha. 12:21:51 ehird, there are no >> there? 12:22:04 Screenshot. 12:22:11 sec 12:22:27 ehird, sec 12:22:43 AnMaster: it's shortcuts; shift-drag moves the image, alt-drag i think zooms 12:23:01 ah here we go 12:23:01 Drag \[LongDash] interactively rotate a 3D graphic 12:23:04 Shift+Drag \[LongDash] zoom a 3D graphic 12:23:08 Ctrl+Drag \[LongDash] pan a 3D graphic 12:23:15 "Mathematica provides real-time view control for all 3D graphics, wherever they may appear in a document. Mathematica's advanced human interface device system also automatically supports joystick and gamepad 3D graphics control, with special features available on the Wolfram Research 2+12 degree-of-freedom gamepad." 12:23:18 Wow, they have a gamepad. 12:23:30 btw for me shift-drag isn't zoom i guess ymmv 12:23:46 -!- boily has quit ("leaving"). 12:23:47 AnMaster: if you zoom in you can see a white patch where the graph was cut 12:23:53 that's the effects of the Poewr::indet error 12:24:03 *Power 12:24:06 Anyway, it's 12:24:10 "This arithmetic corresponds to multiplying zero and infinity:" 12:24:12 hm 12:24:14 Power means it happened when doing a power 12:24:19 ehird, you mean the "slit" in the middle? 12:24:24 The expression is, removing the immaginary part, 0^0 12:24:26 that was there in the smaller version too 12:24:27 Work it out. 12:24:32 AnMaster: Well, yes. 12:24:36 But you can see it more clearly zoomed in. 12:24:40 ehird, the warning wasn't there then 12:24:54 tl;dr your plotting function does 0^0 at one point 12:25:07 fix it 12:25:26 hm 12:25:29 basically 12:25:35 ::indet means that the expression is indeterminate 12:25:38 well that's intended, it isn't well defined over the whole range 12:25:44 like 1/0 12:25:45 a function doesn't have to be 12:25:48 and the like 12:25:54 AnMaster: But you told Plot3D to plot over that range. 12:26:02 ehird, screenshot you asked for http://omploader.org/vMnhpbg 12:26:10 AnMaster: So add a safe guard. 12:26:20 AnMaster: Huh. I guess Qt Mathematica is just neglected :P 12:26:28 Also, argh! Turn the anntialiasing up to full in the settings! 12:26:35 ehird, well yes and? If there are asymptotes I may still want to plot over that range 12:26:41 Appearance → Graphics → Highest Quality 12:26:51 AnMaster: If you can'tt compute the value for that point, you can't plot that point. Simple as. 12:27:23 ehird, that setting makes no difference 12:27:28 I blame shitty intel graphics 12:27:35 AnMaster: you have to reevaluate an expression 12:27:37 maybe even restart mathematica 12:28:44 ehird, none of those changed it 12:29:01 i told you to go with the ati graphics 12:29:06 but did you listen ohhh no :) 12:29:19 ehird, ati graphics were reported to have power usage issues too 12:29:30 surely not at low load. 12:29:38 who cares anyway, you get like 2 hours of battery anyway 12:29:41 that's near-useless 12:29:41 ehird, at suspend to ram 12:29:43 even 12:29:57 and from what I heard, the open source drivers are still buggy for ati 12:30:00 -!- cal153 has joined. 12:30:38 Shift+Drag \[LongDash] zoom a 3D graphic 12:30:38 Ctrl+Drag \[LongDash] pan a 3D graphic 12:30:40 for some reason 12:30:41 AnMaster: yes, they are, but ati have released specifications freely 12:30:43 those are reversed for me 12:30:55 so using their closed-source drivers temporarily isn't some huge moral issue :P 12:30:57 AnMaster: ditto 12:31:07 documentation bug? 12:31:19 ehird, their closed source drivers are worse 12:31:21 ever used them? 12:31:29 If you have a supported card, fglrx is nice. 12:31:29 I did during one point 12:31:31 some years ago 12:31:38 A supported, recent card, that is. 12:31:40 ehird, fglrx crashed and froze all the time 12:31:45 AnMaster: Some years ago, yes. 12:31:47 had to use reset button a lot 12:31:56 Nowadays, they're competitive with nvidia's proprietary drivers, which are nice. 12:32:17 I can't believe this... mathematica only provides one level of undo 12:34:18 In what sense? 12:35:20 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 12:38:26 -!- Slereah has joined. 12:40:02 -!- zzo38 has joined. 12:40:23 ehird, most programs provide more 12:40:25 or rather 12:40:29 most non-trivial ones 12:40:33 Ah, in the text entry field. 12:40:38 I just backspace, usually. 12:40:58 I fixed my character's back-story, I think?? http://zzo38computer.cjb.net/dnd/raw_transcripts/Vyb_back_story.txt 12:41:58 If you really want to see the true power of Icoruma, look at spells.irm 12:42:44 ehird, would want to undo last operation, say, rotating a graph 12:42:50 or zooming something 12:42:58 AnMaster: You can reset that by right-clicking and choosing an option, I think. 12:42:59 Maybe I should read the log 12:43:01 or even evaluating an expression 12:45:49 AnMaster: highlight the result line and delete it. 12:46:16 ehird, what if I was re-evaluating over an old result? 12:46:21 "don't do that then" right 12:46:40 AnMaster: What about it? 12:46:45 Doing that is perfectly kosher. 12:48:49 ehird, " AnMaster: highlight the result line and delete it." 12:48:52 won't work then 12:49:07 Why not? 12:49:14 Oh, return the evaluatation? 12:49:16 *evaluation 12:49:24 yes 12:49:37 Well, yeah, don't overwrite if you don't want to overwrite. 12:50:08 ehird, realised that too late? well sure, you can be extra careful and such, still a bit irritating 12:50:31 Just use Mod+L to try out new ideas. 12:50:33 (Ctrl, maybe.) 12:50:35 (Or alt.) 12:50:36 (Cmd on OS X.) 12:51:28 ctrl 12:52:08 anyway, can't test now, laptop turned off and in backpack for tomorrow, cya going to sleep soon (will probably return for a short bit in 0.5-1 hour or so) 12:52:41 AnMaster: what kind of sleep is that 12:53:41 powerman? 12:57:27 -!- OxE6 has joined. 12:58:18 no AnMaster is just bad at self-control 12:59:16 hi 230 12:59:38 oklofok: HEY i object to offering that room to bsmntbombdood, i'm reserving that shit 12:59:40 :D 13:00:00 * SimonRC likes to use quote-marks when quoting people 13:00:12 i didn't quote anyone 13:00:17 " 13:00:21 ah, ok 13:00:22 i couldn't live in finland anyway it has mandatory military service 13:00:42 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""ACTION likes to use quote-marks when quoting people""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 13:01:17 where did you get ACTION from? 13:01:28 The screen. 13:01:31 "/me" 13:01:45 02:13:07 * AnMaster suspects google turned evil quite some time back. Around the same time as sponsored links were introduced 13:01:45 Oh god, advertising! It's so unusual for a capitalist company to be capitalist. 13:02:01 Clicking on a sponsored link shortens your lifespan by 5 years, you know. EVIL 13:02:06 I know that /me is transmitted using "ACTION" and some magic char, but I don't know what kind of IRC client would actually show you that string "ACTION" 13:02:22 PHIRC does 13:02:35 And it displays it in red (normal messages are in blue) 13:02:55 weird 13:02:57 PHIRC being zzo38's own client. 13:03:03 Written in PHP, for the command-line, I believe. 13:03:06 Yes, it is 13:03:14 It is written to be used with PuTTY 13:03:15 I'll just, uh, leave it at that, yeah. 13:04:57 zzo38: in what way is it specially adapted for PuTTY? 13:05:05 and how many users do yuo have? ;-) 13:05:11 SimonRC: have you ever *used* cmd.exe? 13:05:18 I don't know if anyone else other than me have used it 13:05:28 also, this is the guy who has said he'll switch to linux when he needs to buy a new computer, but he'll make it entirely from scratch 13:05:35 so i'll bet uh 13:05:36 1 user 13:05:52 Not entirely from scratch, but more from scratch than most distributions 13:05:54 ehird: what does cmd.exe have to do with this? 13:06:01 putty vs cmd.exe 13:06:08 as a terminal 13:06:10 cmd.exe is the Windows command-line 13:06:13 yeah 13:06:31 Windows console window doesn't support the ANSI/VT/XTERM terminal codes 13:06:53 but PuTTY supplies its own terminal emulator 13:07:15 Because PuTTY's terminal emulator supports the codes I used. 13:08:00 but PuTTY also supports the codes that irssi etc use 13:08:09 Yes, but zzo38 didn't write irssi. 13:08:29 The FreeGeek has terminals for Linux, and I have some troubles to run it on there using Xterm or the other ones 13:08:34 I don't use irssi 13:08:45 ah! I see what zzo38 means now I think... 13:08:57 I wrote my own because I didn't like some things in other IRC client so I decided to write my own to make it the way I wanted it to be 13:09:28 zzo38 is on windows, and he wrote an IRC client for use within PuTTY as opposed to for fur use within the windows CLI? 13:09:43 There's a screen-shot if you want to see: http://zzo38computer.cjb.net/img_10/IRC-strange-characters.png 13:09:56 SimonRC: yes. 13:09:58 O, and there's another screen-shot: http://zzo38computer.cjb.net/prog/PHIRC/screenshot0.png 13:09:58 In PHP. 13:11:12 I didn't even know that PHP did CLI stuff 13:11:28 SimonRC: It does ... painfully... 13:11:40 the display format seems to be quite close to the IRC protocol 13:11:42 SimonRC: It is, of course, a hideous abuse. 13:11:51 Quite close — you mean, identical. 13:12:13 doesn't it get confusing if you are on 20 channels? 13:12:42 PHP does do CLI stuff. And some programs, such as FurryScript, are a CLI program and then other PHP program can include it in a HTML form 13:12:50 zzo38 is only in here 13:13:14 And, yes it can get confusing on 20 channels if you use that many channels on the same server at once!! 13:13:22 zzo38 must be the re-incarnation of Chuck Moore or something 13:13:28 But I don't ever use that many channels at once, not even on separate servers 13:13:35 ah 13:14:08 SimonRC: Hey, Chuck Moore used a *decent* language. :) 13:14:16 also, can an alive person really be reincarnated? 13:14:23 dunno 13:14:31 Chuck Moore, O, I did write Forth interpreters, and some programs in some Forth systems too. 13:14:45 I put a Forth interpreter in MegaZeux, and I wrote a program for writing GameBoy programs in Gforth 13:15:44 It'd be fun to work for Chuck Moore's company. I wonder if his odd manner of speech is the same in person. 13:17:37 AnMaster: what kind of sleep is that <-- taking a shower before 13:17:42 that was what I did 13:18:34 zzo38: I was thinking more about the willingness to put lots of effort into replacing huge existing bits of software with stuff you wrote yourself 13:18:59 I don't think syntax-highlighting IRC really takes *that* much code... 13:19:14 um, exactly 13:19:26 ehird, what would it syntax highlight on? 13:19:38 embedded code examples? 13:19:39 his software does what he needs with way less code than ordinary irc clients 13:19:40 http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/09.12.06 13:19:42 or IRC itself 13:19:51 oh logs 13:19:52 right 13:19:55 SimonRC: yes, but i contend that the simple code involved isn't that much effort 13:19:58 well that should be simple 13:20:02 a regex even 13:20:13 match date data 13:20:17 well 13:20:19 AnMaster: no 13:20:20 AnMaster: i meantt 13:20:26 read the F. logs 13:20:30 to see what we're talking about 13:20:31 SimonRC: his fork of Conkeror with ... green tabs, and rewritten gopher support with a scripting language... that's probably a better example 13:20:35 a few more lines to handle join/part/quit and /me 13:20:58 AnMaster: you're rambling about an irrelevant thing. 13:21:05 ah, yeah, not that much effort 13:21:31 (his fork's at http://zzo38computer.cjb.net/; i'll leave that root link there because it's fun trying to figure out where the page is) 13:21:32 zzo38: where do you find the time to write all that sort of stuff? 13:21:48 SimonRC: I don't know 13:22:18 or does it not actually take that much time 13:23:09 You can try to figure out 13:23:49 ehird, ah you mean highlighting the protocol itself yes 13:27:34 -!- OxE6 has quit. 13:27:55 someone tell that guy it's 0x 13:28:43 also, can an alive person really be reincarnated? <-- i've read claims to that effect. after all in some spiritual traditions, time is an illusion as is the individual 13:28:56 *, as 13:29:22 i was going to say "yes, but that's just unsubstantiated bullshit". then i realised we were talking about reincarnation 13:29:24 ehird, invalid in nicks though 13:29:31 AnMaster: you're invalid in nicks. 13:29:37 :D 13:29:44 ehird, so is your mom 13:32:26 int width_times_height_minus_one = width * (height - 1); 13:32:27 —actual C code 13:32:43 In what program? 13:33:00 A really terribly-written one, clearly. 13:33:11 http://pastebin.ca/raw/1703757 13:33:43 Arrrrgh. 13:34:22 I mean... not only is the name hideously verbose, not descriptive and much longer than the actual expression, it's an expression that has near NO cost. 13:34:41 But what is the program? What program is this function part of? 13:34:46 And "int * map", way to have the disadvantages of "int* map" while still looking weird. 13:34:56 that is the entire "program" 13:35:10 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/abh84/the_1717_challenge/c0grbec 13:35:10 includes link for what it's for 13:35:17 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/abh84/the_1717_challenge/c0grssk counterpoint — a really concise J version 13:35:23 I prefer like "int*map" instead of "int * map" 13:35:54 I sometimes program in C, I added codes into MegaZeux in C 13:36:36 ugh that is just as bad 13:36:37 int *map 13:36:41 is what I would write 13:36:59 int*map is alright since the * is almost like a space, but I would write int *map too. 13:37:02 zzo38, so you write int*map,*foo; 13:37:08 that looks plain weird 13:37:11 And I omit spaces almost always. 13:37:20 int *map, *foo; 13:37:21 of course 13:37:24 (e.g. i'd write x=(y*z)/f; instead of x = (y * z) / f; 13:37:28 s/$/)/ 13:37:36 No. I never declare multiple pointers on the same line, and I also never declare pointers and non-pointers on the same line 13:37:40 and if(x) instead of if (x) 13:37:45 and if(x){ instead of if (x) { 13:37:48 I'd generally write int *map, as well. For such is what the good Lords of C, K&R intended. 13:37:53 I write like: if(x) { 13:37:55 well, i do add whitespace in places that others don't 13:37:57 for instance 13:38:02 int 13:38:02 foo(...) 13:38:02 { 13:38:07 that way you can grep for ^foo( 13:38:20 pikhq: k&r is obsolete, plan 9 c is the amended k&r style! :-P 13:38:29 (which is, uh, identical to what I just said) 13:38:41 ehird: Plan 9 C is also acceptable. It offends not. 13:39:26 Preferring K&R over Plan 9 C is like, um, only reading the KJV! As opposed to some other bible that is. Not as opposed to no bible. Also only the Christian bible. 13:39:26 I find it confusing to see "int *map=something;" so that's why I omit the space. 13:39:30 That was tenuous. 13:39:39 zzo38: I find that quite readable. 13:39:47 The value assigned is bound tightly to the variable. 13:39:58 int a=3, b=4, c=5; is nice and readable. 13:40:10 It is confusing because it is the value of the variable called "map" not the value of the variable called "*map" at first 13:40:13 int a = 3, b = 4, c = 5; makes it harder to distinguish each definition, so I omit the spaces. 13:40:14 ehird, what about int a,b,c;\na=b=c=3; 13:40:16 for example 13:40:21 zzo38: That's true. 13:40:34 AnMaster: doesn't int a=b=c=3; work? 13:40:37 hmm, no 13:40:38 it should :P 13:40:43 ehird, how could it? 13:40:45 AnMaster: I'd write it as either 13:40:56 int a,b,c; 13:40:57 a=b=c=3; 13:40:57 or 13:40:57 int a, b, c; 13:40:57 a=b=c=3; 13:40:58 depending on how i felt. 13:41:01 If the names were longer, probably the latter. 13:41:01 the last time I wrote C code it was like that first prototype J interpreter. Incredibly dense and macroy, all functions fitting on 1 line. 13:41:10 If they're literally a, b and c I would write it without the spaces. 13:41:17 I don't make functions fit on one line :P 13:41:22 I just try to make my code reasonably readable when it comes to spacing 13:41:31 apart from the int *foo thing 13:41:38 AnMaster: I've read your code and find it to have too many spaces to read nicely. 13:41:49 Spaces are meant to separate; when you put them around everything, it's like a linear blob of mud. 13:41:49 ehird, different taste *shrug* 13:41:55 Sure, each operator looks sparkly and pretty. 13:42:02 But it's disconnected, floating away from the relevant operandss. 13:42:04 *operands 13:42:08 ehird, newly washed and hand polished! 13:42:09 also 13:42:18 I tend to do i++; not i ++ 13:42:20 :P 13:42:26 i ++ ; 13:42:31 XD 13:42:33 AnMaster: So, you're inconsistent too? Whoopy 13:42:39 1 i +! 13:42:41 Even K&R C omitted quite a lot of spaces, btw. 13:42:44 ehird, well sure, if it is for readability 13:42:54 You'd never catch "a = (b * c) / f;" being written by them. 13:42:59 and why should I care about K&R? I mostly write the code to be readable by myself 13:42:59 Maybe "a = (b*c)/f;" at most. 13:43:14 Because a lot of people who write in such a hideous over-spaced style claim to write in K&R style. 13:43:19 ehird: I'm more offended by the redundant brackets than the whitespace :-P 13:43:21 ehird, what about a = ( b * c ) / f ; 13:43:27 (yeargh) 13:43:50 Deewiant: In my opinion, b*c/f is easily parsed as both b*(c/f) and (b*c)/f. 13:44:06 Your opinion is poor 13:44:08 ehird, */+- have easy to remember well defined ordering 13:44:18 other operators may be harder to remember 13:44:19 AnMaster: I don't want to remember it, it's arbitray. 13:44:21 *arbitrary. 13:44:30 ehird, it is standard math practise 13:44:39 C isn't mathematics. 13:44:40 practice* 13:44:57 ehird, those are math expressions. And? 13:45:03 No, they are not. 13:45:12 oh? 13:45:18 For instance, a+b > a can be true. 13:45:19 erm 13:45:21 a+b < a 13:45:21 -!- cal153 has quit. 13:45:24 and a+b < b 13:45:29 and all sorts of things 13:45:57 The rule to use with parentheses, IMO, is to use them when the order of operations could reasonably be misunderstood. 13:46:15 I would say that (a*b)/f is one of those cases. 13:46:19 As would I. 13:46:28 and I would disagree 13:46:35 with < I would agree however 13:46:46 however 13:46:57 I don't find the (a*b)/f irritating 13:47:01 I'm fine with either 13:47:03 I wonder why I chose f for that variable. 13:47:06 I probably write both 13:47:16 I would also like to note that it only makes a difference with integer arithmetic as done in most programming languages, and not on the reals... 13:47:19 whoo. 13:47:32 pikhq, hm? 13:47:42 If there's a disagreement about whether it was ambiguous between two people who don't think the other is *completely* insane, then it's ambiguous. 13:47:46 AnMaster: a*(b/f) = (a*b)/f in "real math". 13:47:49 It makes a difference with floating-point arithmetic as well 13:47:59 Deewiant: Also true. 13:48:04 A float is definitely not a real. 13:48:13 Also true 13:48:13 pikhq, well yes indeed 13:48:25 pikhq, just couldn't parse the English there 13:48:48 too tired 13:57:01 -!- zzo38 has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:01:47 -!- MigoMipo has quit ("When two people dream the same dream, it ceases to be an illusion. KVIrc 3.4.2 Shiny http://www.kvirc.net"). 14:06:41 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:06:46 -!- puzzlet has joined. 14:13:40 * ehird rewrites his sconvert utility in haskell 14:14:00 haskell for vertical scones 14:14:15 Storage Convert. :P 14:15:41 night → 14:16:00 http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=231 14:18:34 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:28:14 -!- poiuy_qwert has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 14:31:48 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 14:39:56 -!- nate has joined. 14:40:33 -!- poiuy_qwert has joined. 14:40:46 can I get assistance here on brainfuck code? 14:47:45 -!- nate has left (?). 15:08:52 Yes, if you're patient. 15:13:28 -!- Pthing has joined. 15:17:51 ah, well, better Nate than Lever! 15:17:58 >_< 15:17:58 15:18:09 I spent half an hour reading that joke and at the end I was "..." for about as long 15:18:26 don't get me wrong, it was an enjoyable story 15:18:30 it is traditional to put a small novel-worth of shaggy dog story before that pun 15:18:36 ah, you too 15:18:52 it only works in American 15:19:07 "lever" and "never" don't rhyme in English 15:19:22 eh, my brain adjusted for it 15:19:30 true 15:19:36 as soon as I read "better Nate than" my brain went into RHYME AT ALL COSTS mode 15:20:21 it would be fun to have a novel of Finnegans Wake length that all builds up to one terrible pun 15:20:28 * SimonRC recalls the guy that didn't realise you could be in more than one IRC channel at once 15:20:35 ehird: aye 15:21:01 it would need to be written "properly", otherwise people wouldn't stick at it long enough 15:21:12 I mean, so it actually worked without the pun 15:21:31 alas, then the editor would cut the pun at the end as ruining the whole tone of the book 15:21:59 unless the whole thing was suficiently surreal, when you might get away with just hinting at it 15:22:12 publish it on the internet, have a hardcopy on lulu, and solicit donations. you'll get very little money and little exposure, but it's free :P 15:22:15 and there's no editors 15:22:37 SimonRC: maybe the book could turn into a book about writing the book gradually 15:22:51 and so the ending pun could be mentioned as a pun you were *going* to add 15:22:58 hm 15:23:14 then all the characters laugh, for which there is no explanation 15:25:13 this is just reminding me that i have a semi-decent idea for an AI short story and no writing talent, topic change time! 15:25:58 "AI"? 15:26:07 artificial intelligence 15:26:20 "AI short story" is confusing, agreed 15:26:39 define 15:27:36 a short story concerning an artificial intelligence (or indeed many); subgenre of scifi 15:27:44 beyond that, I'm sure you own a dictionary :-P 15:28:01 i guess if i wanted to be specific it'd technically about the singularity 15:28:13 but beyond that there starts to be a fine line between a specific genre and the actual story :P 15:29:25 -!- OxE6 has joined. 15:29:41 oh, ok 15:29:48 OxE6: s/O/0/ 15:29:51 what did you think i meant? 15:29:53 SimonRC: i said that earlier 15:29:55 not valid on irc 15:33:14 ehird: ah, ok 15:36:45 yeah, this is the best I can do on irc unfortunately :( 15:56:07 OxE6: {0xE6} 15:56:12 evaluates to 0x56 in all good languages! 15:56:15 erm 15:56:18 0xE6 15:57:06 :D 15:57:08 + 15:57:11 oops 15:58:51 -!- adam_d has quit ("Leaving"). 16:00:05 More people should use SI prefixes on currency! 16:00:14 1 million dollars? Pah! 1 M$, methinks! 16:00:48 1 billion? 1 G$! 16:00:55 -!- p_q has joined. 16:01:13 people already say megabucks 16:01:13 :P 16:01:13 Oh, and if you have 10^21 bucks, well that'd be 1 Z$. 16:01:27 Asztal: Yes, but they never say M$! 16:01:35 It's always 1M $. 16:01:37 Nor do they progress past M! 16:01:42 Gigadollar sounds so cool. 16:01:55 1.21 JIGGAWATTS! 16:01:57 I used megametres a lot back in school 16:02:45 Most people would say 1,000 km :P 16:02:55 1 Ym = really fucking long 16:03:02 Z is the best prefix though. 16:03:04 I mean, it's a bloody Z. 16:04:29 OTOH, I think furlong/firkin/fortnight is the best system of measurements. 16:04:32 Perhaps attoparsecs, too. 16:05:33 60 km/h is 100 kilofurlongs per fortnight (100 kfl/fn). The more you know. 16:08:32 -!- poiuy_qwert has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 16:08:33 what about beard seconds? :D 16:08:48 SECONDS ARE A HERETICAL UNIT OF MEASUREMENT! 16:09:01 My only qualm with the furlong/firkin/fortnight system is that it uses SI prefixes. 16:09:14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement#Beard-second 16:09:26 I know. 16:09:35 Beardseconds are necessarily related to seconds. 16:09:44 hmm 16:09:58 what measurements of time are "good" then? 16:10:45 Dunno. It'd be fun to devise an entirely new system of measurements. 16:10:51 Ooh, a smoot might be a good base. 16:11:32 -!- OxE6 has quit ("going back to my dorm"). 16:11:40 im surprised an article this awesome has survived the rampaging wikicops and deletionists 16:12:00 "Philosophers talking about Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism sometimes use the conceptual unit of the Hedon to describe the amount of pleasure, equivalent to the amount of pleasure a person receives from gaining one util of utility." 16:12:10 It's utilon, bitches! 16:12:12 Yudkowsky says so. 16:12:46 hedon vs util(on) reminds me of watt vs joule 16:14:33 I wonder if anyone's formalised Utilitarianism (given black boxes to deal with fiddly ill-defined human matters) 16:18:56 -!- kar8nga has joined. 16:24:09 Mmm, cinnamon peppermint soda. 16:25:48 Gregor: send me a bottle. 16:25:52 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 16:25:57 Send yourself a bottle! 16:26:12 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection). 16:26:16 I invented a word! conceviances, n. that which is conceived. misconceviances, n. that which is misconceived. 16:26:28 Both are excellent words to describe: ideas; children. 16:26:29 ehird, in a bunch of cases sure 16:26:36 usually in terms of monetary compensation though 16:26:46 yeah i don't see utilitarianism as being economic 16:26:57 like did you never see one of those industrial-injury payout tables 16:27:04 a lost digit gets you such-and-such 16:27:07 a lost limb is worth this 16:27:21 a lost eye is worth another amount 16:27:28 that's more about physical pain than the more lofty hedonism of utilitarianism, imo 16:27:35 no 16:27:40 it's about dismemberment, not pain 16:27:52 well, you know what i mean 16:27:55 that's about physical injuries 16:28:04 so for example, the loss of a right hand is more than the loss of a left hand (mutatis mutandis) 16:28:10 utilitarianism is mostly about intellectual achievement 16:28:16 Pthing: that's leftist! :P 16:28:22 hence mutatis mutandis 16:28:29 i don't just break out in latin for no reason >:| 16:29:50 Where as I do! Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. 16:30:57 -!- puzzlet has joined. 16:33:03 * SimonRC goes 16:35:40 -!- FireFly has quit ("Leaving"). 17:08:13 -!- p_q has changed nick to poiuy_qwert. 17:12:44 -!- kar8nga has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 18:14:02 -!- OxE6 has joined. 18:24:48 -!- jpc has joined. 18:52:54 -!- quantumEd has quit ("* I'm too lame to read BitchX.doc *"). 18:55:29 -!- poiuy_qwert has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 19:03:34 -!- Asztal has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 19:49:48 -!- OxE6 has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 19:55:56 -!- ehird has quit. 20:17:19 -!- AnMaster has quit (Network is unreachable). 21:02:40 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 21:12:37 -!- mu has joined. 21:12:45 -!- mu has changed nick to OxE6. 21:33:41 -!- OxE6 has quit (Nick collision from services.). 21:33:42 -!- mu has joined. 21:33:50 -!- mu has changed nick to OxE6. 21:58:15 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 21:59:18 -!- puzzlet has joined. 22:37:22 -!- OxE6 has quit. 22:50:26 -!- FireFly has joined. 23:11:19 -!- mu has joined. 23:11:25 -!- mu has changed nick to OxE6. 23:13:59 -!- kar8nga has joined. 23:23:08 -!- AnMaster has joined. 23:25:29 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 23:25:34 -!- puzzlet has joined. 23:33:31 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 23:38:02 ah, well, better Nate than Lever! <-- I did get the joke in the first context (of that nick) but what on earth was the stuff about the dog story about? 23:40:20 Perhaps attoparsecs, too. <-- that works out to.. uh... 3 cm or such? 23:40:58 according to google, 3.09 23:41:33 Dunno. It'd be fun to devise an entirely new system of measurements. <-- centifortnight? 23:43:56 coppro, units(1) claim 3.0856776 23:44:11 AnMaster: I was rounding 23:44:22 also, Planck units > all 23:44:29 (I actually gussed it would work out to "less than a meter, more than a millimeter" before checking) 23:49:02 -!- FireFly has quit ("Leaving"). 23:52:52 -!- coppro has quit ("I am leaving. You are about to explode.").