00:02:22 augur: I was wondering about your opinions on the topic, and if you could read past the somewhat stupid article and tell me whether or not it had any... Useful meaning. 00:02:26 So, thanks. 00:02:44 no, it doesnt. 00:03:01 human language is far more complex than just any silly little thing that shows that monkeys have "prefixes" 00:03:06 as if this is surprising to begin with 00:03:12 oh god 00:03:25 ##philosophy is discussing language as well, and their discussion is even more inane 00:04:27 ofcourse it is 00:04:37 but not by much :) 00:04:40 philosophers are often completely ignorant of linguistics in any real sense. 00:04:59 i don't think the people there are philosophers, i think they're just trolls 00:06:26 well 00:06:27 even so 00:06:28 :P 00:15:19 ... Someone claimed that the Piraha don't have a language?! 00:16:28 I didn't *mean* to! 00:16:42 Mmkay. 00:23:50 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote closed the connection). 00:36:23 hey, I heard Piraha don't have a language.. 00:38:05 The Piraha don't have a language? Interesting; I'll make note of that. 00:41:49 I don't have a language, so I have to speak English instead 00:49:27 ¿No tienes una lengua? Yo pensaba que hablabas... I dunno. 00:49:59 Finnish or Spanish o algo. 00:54:21 es que no tengo mi propia idioma, solo hablo los de los demás 00:56:57 wenas 00:57:19 -!- coppro has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 00:59:40 Tampoco yo tengo mi propia idioma; inventar una idioma es difícil y otros no me comprenderían. 01:01:05 A menos que se basa en griego o algo. 01:02:11 (Que siempre he querido hacer, inventar una idioma basado en griego.) 01:02:29 (Podría llamarla "griego".) 01:08:43 uorygl: Mi pensas ke vi bezonas studadi Esperanton. 01:09:04 -!- ais523 has joined. 01:09:30 It would be nice if I knew how to ask how to say stuff in Esperanto in Esperanto. 01:11:23 La vorto "foo" en Esperanto estas kion? 01:11:40 (... I think; my Esperanto isn't *that* good.) 01:11:55 Also to ask the meaning of an Esperanto thing. 01:12:04 s// how/ 01:14:53 -!- Asztal has joined. 01:15:11 I guess that would be 'La vorto "bezoni" en anglo estas kion?' 01:15:33 And I'm sure it would be fine to say 'Kion estas la vorto . . .' 01:15:44 Yes. 01:16:13 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 01:16:15 And answering your question, "should" or "ought to". 01:17:04 Wiktionary says it's "needs to". 01:17:36 XD 01:17:42 You're right. 'Tis late. 01:18:43 Remind me how the letter V is pronounced. 01:19:09 like F, but you put your top teeth on top of your bottom lip while you say it 01:19:16 and you end up with a buzzier sound as a result 01:19:26 also, you let your throat resonate 01:19:30 so V has a pitch whereas F doesn't 01:20:27 So it's pronounced like a V, in other words. 01:20:52 Good to know. 01:24:19 oh, I was explaining in English 01:24:22 I don't know about Esperanto 01:24:42 I'd just assumed you'd forgotten how to pronounce it, it's not like it's used all this often 01:24:55 nor like it's the sort of thing that the sort of people who typically hang out here would particularly need to remember 01:25:11 I had feared that. 01:25:49 So you pronounce your Fs bilabially? 01:26:10 it's too early in the morning to remember what "bilabially" means 01:27:00 In a manner involving both lips. 01:27:52 yes, I think so 01:28:12 Interesante. 01:28:33 Technically, then, it would be very hard to pronounce anything non-bilabially without removing one of the lips, because they always affect how the sound radiates out. 01:28:50 Yes, but only minorly. 01:30:17 Vocal synthesizers still tend to have a lip radiation model. (Of course my viewpoint is the speech recognition one, not the linguistic one.) 01:30:36 -!- Pthing has joined. 01:31:31 ais523: It's roughly the same phoneme in Esperanto. 01:32:57 Says Wikipedia: "Mia kontribuo estas modesta sed mia subteno estas sincera." 01:34:00 Says another Wikipedia: "Mi cantidad es pequeña pero mi apoyo es sincero." 01:34:47 Says another: "My amount is little, but my support is sincere." 01:35:20 What a coincidence that three different donors with the same name should donate the same amount on the same date with messages that are word-for-word translations of each other. 01:36:38 same person, presumably they just translated the messages 01:36:58 I wonder what the original was. 01:37:11 The guy's name is Yizhao Lang, so probably English. >.> 01:37:11 Maybe the donation form asks for messages in all the Wikipedia languages? To keep the less clever donators out. 02:21:42 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 02:41:58 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Remote closed the connection). 03:06:54 -!- quantumEd has joined. 03:36:16 -!- oerjan has joined. 03:37:50 oerjan: monkey "languge"? because not even human language is turing complete. 03:37:55 *WHOOSH* 03:41:02 well if you don't understand his complicated linguistic babbles, you could just ask. 03:41:17 * oerjan swats oklofok -----### 03:41:45 was i helpless? 03:41:59 what does it mean to talk about human language in that way? 03:42:02 you misread the *WHOOSH* target 03:42:09 i mean helpless people are the ones you want to swat 03:42:28 _clue_less, oklofok, clueless 03:42:40 well, and willfully malignant 03:42:53 my will is full of malignant stuff 03:43:23 it's even worse puns than usual day 03:44:21 *wilfully 03:44:46 blah, i don't have a printer, can someone print these papers for me, scan them, and email them to me? 03:44:47 hm wait it's a US/british thing 03:45:25 you don't have a print to file option? 03:45:38 so willful would in fact only mean what i interpreted it as, in us english? 03:46:07 the reverse. if it is even that simple 03:46:45 those us/british spelling differences aren't always as clearcut as the dictionaries would seem to imply 03:46:52 gah, this is stupid 03:46:53 or so i think 03:47:01 is there no way to open a 1 GB uncompressed tar file on Windows? 03:47:10 without installing software? 03:47:25 you should write one - in feather, naturally 03:47:43 oerjan: printing to file doesn't help, i need the stuff on paper 03:47:44 and, given that there isn't, why would anyone distribute Windows software in that form? 03:48:27 ais523: to get the thing in one file? 03:48:35 they could have used .zip, though 03:48:40 or, well, anything Windows actually handles 03:48:47 windows opens .zip? 03:49:04 yes 03:49:07 i thought it just had some sort of compressed folder thing of its own 03:49:07 nowadays 03:49:09 did you not know? 03:49:15 why would i know 03:49:21 I thought you used Windows 03:49:22 i probably won't know tomorrow either 03:49:25 yeah, sure 03:49:27 or am I muddling you with someone else? 03:49:27 all the time 03:49:57 i'm just not interested in how specific programs work 03:50:01 including oses 03:50:27 unless the details feel theoretically interesting to me 03:50:49 but i recall compressing a folder once 03:50:59 "new compressed folder" just creates a zip file 03:51:08 "Nowadays" is a bit stretching it, given that (source: Wikipedia) Windows has included zip file support (under the "compressed folders" terminology) since 1998. 03:51:10 And now is 2009. 03:51:31 that's not very many versions of Windows, though 03:51:45 win98 is what i know most about, probably 03:51:47 98, ME, XP, 2003, Vista, 7. 03:52:20 Oh, and 2000. 03:52:29 there's a windows 2003? 03:52:39 It's more of a server thing, I think. 03:53:14 Windows Server 2003 is the official name. But it's still arguably a version of Windows. 03:53:31 oh that actually does sort of ring a bell 03:53:48 which is weird, i'm not a serverologist 03:54:23 It's there sort-of between XP and Vista. The internal version numbers are 5.2.something. 03:54:57 xp and vista are both 5.2.something? 03:55:05 vista's 6.0, Win7's 6.1 03:55:14 XP is 5.1.something, as far as I know; and Vista's 6.x. 03:55:21 okay right 03:55:24 (I remember that precisely /because/ it's so ludicrous) 03:55:36 It's a bit bizarre that 7 is not 7 when it easily could've been. 03:55:45 would've been kinda weird if they'd had the same whole number for vista and xp 03:55:54 err whole number isn't a very good term for that is it 03:56:00 apparently the reason is to support broken programs that check the version number with == rather than >= 03:56:01 xkcd O_< 03:57:16 was the whole point just the pun? 03:57:26 obviously 03:57:46 *puns 03:59:26 the other one is the watch thing? 03:59:42 wanna break that down for me, i don't think it quite works 04:00:29 Film the one: "The Core is a 2003 science fiction disaster film -- concerns a team that has to drill to the center of the Earth and set off a series of nuclear explosions in order to restart the rotation of Earth's core." Film the other: "Sunshine is a 2007 British science fiction film -- with the Earth in peril from the dying Sun, the crew is sent to reignite the Sun with a massive stellar bomb, a nuclear device with the equivalent mass of Manhattan Island." 04:00:33 When in doubt, blow it up. 04:01:40 heh, I never noticed that my home dir was the same on the Windows and Linux systems here 04:02:07 there is also a film about prevent the sun from blowing up, or something 04:02:25 er wait you said that 04:03:14 i don't see what sunshine has to do with this 04:03:27 oklofok: also the subtitle pun 04:03:31 why isn't there a proof for these jokes, annoying trying to reverse-engineer them 04:03:43 ah 04:03:47 and the hovertext but i don't think that's different from the main one 04:04:26 which jokes? 04:04:44 Sunshine is the film the xkcd description most reminds me of. Though maybe that's only because I've seen it and not seen that The Core film. 04:05:27 well in the hovertext "happening on my watch" works (barely imo), in the actual comic i don't think the watch thing works at all 04:05:31 if it even tries to 04:05:36 quantumEd: newest xkcd 04:05:49 i tend to need some instructions for this stuff 04:05:51 oklofok: you need to reread it i guess 04:06:11 :D 04:06:14 grr 04:06:29 and by that i mean everyone 04:06:45 since you cannot get it before the end pun is revealed 04:07:40 that message into the phone is a bit amusing 04:08:28 but the thing is that guy is *for* daylight saving, is his point he wants to get to use the daylight saving feature on his watch? 04:09:28 the phone message is a side joke referring to the fact movie people are pretty, afaiu, if it's a joke about the sun being hot, i don't understand it at all. 04:09:51 oklofok: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic (MWAHAHA) 04:10:55 it's weird how reluctant people are to explain jokes properly, don't you want me to share the good laugh! :\ 04:11:03 oh umm i'll read 04:11:07 oh no 04:11:11 IT'S A TRAP 04:11:24 didn't you read the MWAHAHA 04:11:57 oklofok: puns don't work if you don't mostly get them yourselves? 04:12:09 *f 04:12:17 of course they do 04:12:41 that was a rhetorical question, you're not supposed to question it! 04:13:29 i was about to ask if there was a specific pun in that, but maybe i'll leave the subject of me being dense for now ;) 04:15:01 okay i guess i finally understand how tvtropes can be addictive 04:15:19 i guess the random articles i've tried to get hooked on didn't have enough terms 04:15:36 terms need to be checked of course 04:15:49 "what's this tomato surprise now?" 04:17:05 see you again on monday, then 04:18:58 i'll just read these two 04:19:19 are you one of those people who can eat just one peanut, or something? 04:19:58 generally not 04:21:16 good. i was beginning to question your humanity, there 04:27:40 -!- ineiros has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 04:43:43 why question that which you know does not exist? 04:45:29 i must not have got the memo 04:50:15 -!- ineiros has joined. 04:52:03 is there a tvtrope about characters never fucking telling someone "i'll explain this later" when someone starts asking something, but they really need to do something 04:52:20 happens in pretty much everything i watch, i'm like "tell him to fucking ask you tomorrow" 04:52:30 but no 04:52:35 * oerjan cannot recall 04:54:08 well, except in rare cases, doesn't always work, although that never seems very plausible, sure people can say something like "you always say that", but, well, if that's true, then maybe the characters should've been less crappy friends in the past. 04:54:25 should be *except in rare cases; 04:54:56 also "no seriously this is life or death, i'll explain this tomorrow at 12:00" 04:55:08 idiots 04:56:20 ...i mean that would definitely work, not sure it was clear. 05:18:13 oerjan: okay took almost an hour of my time 05:18:17 i'm impressed 05:18:51 -!- kar8nga has joined. 05:19:03 :D 05:19:04 wikipedia surfing is much more dangerous though 05:19:39 not to me 05:19:49 that's just because you already know everyhing 05:19:52 *everything 05:20:18 or possibly because you don't want to know everything... well might be a bit of a stretch 05:20:25 well, have to go clean dog vomit -> 05:24:20 -!- oerjan has quit ("Or both!"). 05:33:01 or both. 05:34:59 So you cleaned dog vomit or both? What's the other thing? 05:36:49 actually there were 4 puddles of vomit 05:40:01 -!- OxE6 has quit. 06:08:54 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Read error: 101 (Network is unreachable)). 06:09:20 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 06:19:28 in most situations, holding someone's eyelids open, then shining bright lights into their eyes, then asking them lots of questions 06:19:39 would be considered a torture, or at least a really nasty interrogation 06:19:45 so why are opticians allowed to get away with it? 06:20:42 i've heard similar arguments about dentists 06:20:50 and the mob 06:22:48 -!- lifthrasiir has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 06:26:24 -!- lifthrasiir has joined. 06:28:47 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 06:42:07 -!- Slereah_ has joined. 06:42:15 -!- Slereah has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)). 07:00:39 "Roger Penrose is the king of bullshit. He's got a fucking PhD in bullshit (and mathematics). However, since he actually understands quantum mechanics, he had to find another rug to sweep the details under: quantum gravity." 07:05:23 because you agree, because you don't, or other? 07:09:33 oh that dude 07:09:37 -!- FireFly has joined. 07:18:57 oklofok, what dude? 07:20:24 "Quantum computers are not known to be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time." 07:27:30 err 07:27:37 that doesn't seem quite true from what I remember 07:27:47 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote closed the connection). 07:44:56 -!- coppro has joined. 07:51:25 -!- coppro has quit ("I am leaving. You are about to explode."). 07:52:41 That statement needs clarification. 07:52:53 Quantum computers are not known to be able to solve /all/ NP-complete problems in polynomial time. 07:53:04 There are NP-complete problems which are solvable in polynomial time by quantum computers. 07:53:57 (IIRC) 07:55:27 huh. 07:55:39 do you know the definition of np-completeness? 07:56:15 or can't quantum computers do polynomial time reductions in polynomial time 07:56:18 It's NP-complete if it's in NP and it's NP-hard. It's NP-hard if all problems in NP can be reduced to it. 07:56:22 Oh, hahah. 07:56:37 When I say the definition, clearly it's stupid to think that some NP-complete problems are and some aren't X-D 07:56:40 Didn't think that one through :P 07:56:55 Well, certainly some NP problems are solvable in polynomial time on a quantum computer. 07:57:00 yeah remembering stuff is dangerous 07:57:08 yes, like doing nothing :P 07:57:30 Fleh, some NP-P problems. 07:58:17 i can't find a reason to laugh at that, so it's probably true. 07:58:35 if someone finds a quantum algorithm to do NP-hard problems then did they prove P=NP? 07:58:46 I mean a P algorithm 07:59:01 if they find an quantum algorithm to solve NP problems in P 07:59:11 No. 07:59:17 well can polynomial time runs on a quantum computer be simulated by polynomial runs on a tm? 07:59:18 why not? 07:59:24 They just prove that quantum computers are more powerful than they thought. 07:59:35 more powerful than a turing machine? 07:59:37 oklofok: No. 07:59:43 quantumEd: Yes. 07:59:47 Well 07:59:50 Not more powerful per se 07:59:56 if they can, then that would prove P=NP, because you'd have an algorithm to solve the problem in polynomial time, just simulate the quantum algo. 07:59:56 But able to compute more in less time. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:00:17 since everyone seems to think P <> NP, then the reasonable assumption is that quantum computers are stronger than normal computers? 08:00:17 Gregor: the question was mostly socratic method, i think 08:00:43 oklofok: my questions? They were not socratic I was genuinely asking 08:00:47 quantumEd: In the sense that they can compute things in lower time bound, not in that they can compute more overall. 08:00:57 quantumEd: no i mean my question about the polynomial runs 08:01:07 T.M.s are still valuable as a representation of all that can be computed, Q.C.s can just compute it faster. 08:01:10 Gregor answered it, i was sort of trying to make you answer your own question 08:01:27 I thought you were asking him... 08:01:28 I MUST ANSWER ALL. 08:01:35 lol 08:02:22 even if it can only compute the same things.. it's still stronger than a turing machine though? 08:02:26 quantumEd: afaiu the quantum computing model is somewhere between determinism and nondeterminism, i haven't seen a formal definition for that stuff, and sadly i don't understand anything but that. 08:02:32 well it's still a TM complexity class isn't it..... 08:02:35 anything that isn't formal 08:02:57 It's not more powerful, it's just faster. At least by the definition of computational power I'm used to. 08:03:47 well 08:04:05 so can you make a random number generator on a quantum computer? 08:04:15 quantumEd: it's just as strong in the turing reduction sense, less strong using other reductions, like a polynomial time reduction, at least nondeterministic tm's 08:04:48 im consfued.. 08:05:01 Now that's an interesting point ... kinda. Quantum computers may be able to produce truly random numbers, which could arguably make them more powerful than a T.M. since the problem "produce a completely-random number" can be run on them but not a T.M. 08:05:05 -!- `Fuco` has joined. 08:05:17 -!- `Fuco` has changed nick to Fuco. 08:05:30 I'm still confused about the P vs NP thing 08:05:52 it can only compute tthe same set as the turing machine... but it can do it faster: Without proving P=NP 08:05:58 that seems almost like a paradox 08:06:34 np doesn't mean you do things faster 08:06:49 it means you do them in polynomial time in a different model of computation 08:07:06 Specifically, nondeterministic Turing machines. 08:07:30 we know the actual algorithms you can write are the exact same, but in the known reductions, nondeterministic algorithms just map to deterministic algorithms that take a fuckload of time. 08:07:47 Am I getting mixed up between computational models and complexity classes? 08:08:01 they are different things right? 08:08:10 yes 08:08:38 usually we define complexity classes as classes of languages that have some properties 08:08:48 these properties can involve different computation models 08:09:20 but there's quantum complexity classes 08:09:21 like the property defining P is "the problem of whether w \in L can be solved in polynomial time with a deterministic turing machine" 08:09:35 why do they exist? I mean aren't the nomal complexity classes good enough? 08:10:08 if the quantum complexity classes are not equal to any known complexity class, but they are studied, why not give them a name? 08:10:24 well why aren't they equal to the other classes 08:10:32 how can a new model of computation lead to new complexity classes 08:11:03 for the same reason that it's not necessarily true that P = NP 08:11:04 it is just to give a more fine grained characterization so that we can observe the difference in 'speed' like that 08:11:11 because we define the steps the machine can take differently 08:11:16 (between quantum computers and turing machine) 08:11:31 so differently, that a polynomial amount of steps in the other can't necessarily be translated into a polynomial amount of steps in the other 08:11:58 yes, you could say that 08:12:03 the speed thing 08:13:57 also there's probabilistic machines, which afaik give us completely separate classes again 08:14:24 -!- AnMaster has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:24 -!- Fuco has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:24 -!- kar8nga has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:24 -!- sebbu has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:25 -!- HackEgo has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:25 -!- lament has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:25 -!- uorygl has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:26 -!- Leonidas has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:26 -!- Pthing has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:28 -!- dbc has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:28 -!- olsner has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:28 -!- Cerise has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:28 -!- yiyus has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 08:14:55 i don't really know much complexity theory, it's fascinating, but we don't have courses about it atm, and i don't really have much time for anything outside courses and irc 08:14:55 where by atm i mean ever. 08:15:02 but if it's just a language why are the different 08:15:21 a prof did tell me today he might give a course in recursion theory if i managed to recruit more people interested in it 08:15:32 quantumEd: it's a class of languages 08:15:43 a specific machine recognizes some language 08:15:55 we define a class of them by taking all possible machines and seeing what they can do 08:16:22 usually given some restriction, like finite termination, termination on positive instances, termination in polynomial time... 08:16:45 oh and by class i just mean a set 08:16:46 termination in polynomial time???? 08:17:25 -!- Pthing has joined. 08:17:25 -!- Fuco has joined. 08:17:25 -!- kar8nga has joined. 08:17:25 -!- sebbu has joined. 08:17:25 -!- AnMaster has joined. 08:17:25 -!- Leonidas has joined. 08:17:25 -!- HackEgo has joined. 08:17:25 -!- lament has joined. 08:17:25 -!- uorygl has joined. 08:17:27 termination in polynomial time. that's how P is defined, there's some polynomial that bounds the computation steps for an input of size n 08:18:06 -!- dbc has joined. 08:18:06 -!- yiyus has joined. 08:18:06 -!- olsner has joined. 08:18:06 -!- Cerise has joined. 08:19:23 P is defined as the set of all such languages L that there is some machine M that recognizes exactly L, and there's a polynomial p such that the machine M always halts in p(|w|) steps or less 08:19:26 afaik 08:19:45 does machine have a definition? 08:19:51 oh and the polynomial can be specific to the machine M 08:20:03 we define it as a deterministic turing machine in the case of P 08:20:16 in the case of NP, we take the exact same definition, but use nondeterministic turing machines 08:20:32 well i'm not sure what it's supposed to do with negative instances 08:20:46 as i said i don't know any complexity theory 08:20:57 oh right 08:21:03 so you might define say QP 08:21:16 which replaces the turing machine with a quantum machine 08:21:18 but in any case it must recognize exactly the correct instances, and if the instance is positive, then it must halt in polynomial time. 08:21:23 hrm 08:21:24 yep 08:21:36 the question P = NP or QP = NP don't make sense..... 08:21:44 since it's for different machines how can you compare 08:21:59 and probabilistic P, where you also have some sort of details about probabilities with which it succeeds 08:22:07 P = NP makes sense, these are just sets of languages 08:22:44 p contains stuff like {{"a", "b"}, a*b*c*, {"a", "aa", "aaa", ...}, ...} 08:22:51 np also contains some languages 08:22:57 we just ask whether they contain the same languages 08:23:11 (where a*b*c* is a regexp defining a language) 08:23:30 what's the definition of a language? A set of strings? 08:23:32 complexity classes are sets of languages which are sets of words which are sequences of characters 08:23:33 finite? 08:23:36 ^ 08:23:48 alright then I suppose the questions make sense 08:23:53 and 08:24:00 words must be finite, languages and classes can be infinite 08:24:18 in fact a language is considered trivial if it's finite. 08:24:51 -!- ais523 has joined. 08:25:15 ugh, this laptop is getting more and more broken 08:25:21 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 08:25:30 now the screen frame has got deformed somehow, and the screen doesn't shut as a result 08:25:53 so is there a proof that NP <> QP? 08:26:03 I wonder if I invented QP or if that's a real one... 08:27:29 QMAM: Quantum Merlin-Arthur-Merlin Public-Coin Interactive Proofs 08:27:49 i don't know the answer, but i think NP is a superset of QP, and QP is a superset of P, in which case we couldn't know, because then we'd also know P!=NP 08:28:38 so if you prove P = QP and QP <> NP, or P <> QP and QP = NP, then you'd have solved the NP thing 08:29:18 yes, assuming the chain of inclusion 08:29:27 but that's just basic set theory 08:29:51 they're just sets of languages, remember 08:30:08 " QNC: Quantum NC 08:30:08 The class of decision problems solvable by polylogarithmic-depth quantum circuits with bounded probability of error. (A uniformity condition may also be imposed.) " 08:30:28 that's interesting a lot of the quantum stuff incorperates error bounds 08:30:42 i don't understand that 08:30:44 I guess what we really want is hooking up quantum computers with normal ones -- so we can check the outupts 08:31:06 so many things to learn, so little time... oh wait, i have tons of time left 08:31:37 BQP: Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time 08:31:44 http://qwiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Complexity_Zoo:B#bqp 08:31:52 BQP^BQP = BQP 08:31:56 that means you can use subroutines 08:32:00 I think 08:32:13 in general, for a class C, C^C = C means you can use subroutines? 08:32:47 Arthur is a BQP (i.e. quantum) verifier who can exchange quantum messages with Merlin. So Arthur and Merlin's states may become entangled during the course of the protocol. 08:32:48 lol 08:32:49 yes, usually A^B means you have an oracle that solves B in, say, one step, and you solve A given that oracle 08:34:44 like P^NP = NP, in P^NP you can solve any problem in NP in one step, but a nondeterminitic turing machine can already do that. 08:34:57 and NP^NP = NP 08:35:03 ?? 08:35:04 i think, at least, might be talking out of my ass, in which case i hope someone corrects this. 08:35:05 hmm 08:35:12 no in fact i don't think that's true... 08:35:20 * oklofok thinks 08:37:46 eerr, hehe... 08:37:56 it's an open question whether P^NP = NP 08:38:11 -!- poiuy_qwert has joined. 08:38:59 NP \subset P^NP anyway... :) 08:39:54 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 08:40:09 oh fucking hell!!! 08:40:16 only 10 mins and we stumble over an open question 08:40:44 now I remember why I was too scared to study complexity theoryy befor 08:41:42 http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/qchallenge.html 08:41:44 Ten Semi-Grand Challenges for Quantum Computing Theory 08:42:32 yeah complexity theory is full of open stuff, and it's full of towers that might be completely useless, like the whole polynomial hierarchy 08:43:04 towers, as in, we have these infinite sequences A1, A2, ..., and it's not known whether we're actually just talking about one set 08:43:14 yeah 08:43:31 but the thing is we have tons of structure between these sets, it's just... it might all be just relations between the set and itself :P 08:44:53 "yay we solved the open problem of whether the complexity class A <= complexity class A with regard to this awesome reduction, using this awesome binary search technique" 08:45:54 (...at least, again, this is how i see it, mostly hearsay...) 08:46:47 "After twelve years of effort, not only do we still not know whether BQP sits in the classical polynomial hierarchy, there's really no evidence either way" 08:47:01 oh 08:48:32 we do have courses about quantum computing, or at least one 08:48:41 should probably take it 08:48:48 * quantumEd jelous 08:49:12 we have a lot of computing stuff here, discrete math uni sorta 08:49:44 AnMaster: I just found http://whybzrisbetterthanx.github.com/ 08:50:24 then again the materials for our real analysis course come from another university completely, and the professor who lectures the course doesn't even really do it. 08:50:43 ofc, github are potentially biased 08:51:20 oklofok here's a good one "Is BQP = BPP^BQNC? In other words, can the "quantum" part of any quantum algorithm be compressed to polylog(n) depth, provided we're willing to do polynomial-time classical postprocessing?" 08:51:37 (This is known to be true for Shor's algorithm.) 08:51:41 ...let me do some polynomial time classical postprocessing on that sentence for a while 08:51:48 haha 08:52:07 hmm 08:52:11 ah okay i think i get it 08:52:29 if it was true the implication is that it's easier to build quantum computers than currenlty though 08:52:31 thought 08:54:01 well... i don't know how they're currently built, so... 08:54:05 god for them? :P 08:54:18 *good 08:54:44 it's something to do with physics and chemisty, I think.. not my domain 08:55:39 -!- boily has joined. 08:55:48 not mine either, although interest has arisen this year 08:55:53 well for physics 08:55:57 really?? 08:55:58 why ? 08:56:16 well... i don't really know... i have this problem that i find pretty much everything interesting. 08:56:41 I hardly find anything interesting 08:56:42 used to be all of math and cs, but it's getting out of hand! 08:56:48 *just all 08:57:16 well with this quantum stuff it seems like knowing a good bit of physics is important for the computing bits 08:57:49 anyway i need to go read about mortality now 08:58:16 that doesn't sound interesting 08:58:38 it's philosophy 08:58:45 ...of matrices 08:58:55 huh?? 08:59:13 those 3 things sound completely unrelated 08:59:15 mortality of matrices means given a set of matrices, can you multiply them to zero 08:59:49 oh ok 08:59:53 what 09:00:16 in this course, basically leading to proving gödel's incompleteness, although mortality is a much studied field in our uni 09:00:19 afaik 09:00:40 who cares about proving godels incompleteness :/ 09:01:06 oh well i guess no one, but isn't it sort of something people are supposed to hear about? 09:02:04 maybe you're right, maybe it's the mortality problem that's the interesting one, and not the provability of statements 09:02:20 I thought mortality was about death rates 09:02:37 it's about that too 09:02:45 :S 09:02:52 terms can have many meanings 09:03:06 especially in mathematics where every word has a separate mathematical meaning... 09:05:12 -!- poiuy_qwert has quit (Nick collision from services.). 09:05:32 -!- abasjueuygeg has joined. 09:11:50 -!- boily has quit ("leaving"). 09:14:05 -!- p_q has joined. 09:15:00 -!- p_q has quit (Client Quit). 09:29:26 -!- abasjueuygeg has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 09:32:26 Mortalitys could be some sort of "more philosophical" finishing moves in the Mortal Kombat games. They already have plain old fatalities, and a huge number of variants (animality, babality, brutality, friendship; probably some I don't know of), so why not a mortality too. 09:37:15 -!- facsimile has joined. 09:37:40 -!- quantumEd has quit (Remote closed the connection). 09:38:23 -!- facsimile has quit (Remote closed the connection). 09:38:39 -!- quantumEd has joined. 09:38:53 -!- mu has joined. 09:38:59 -!- mu has changed nick to OxE6. 09:47:53 and the animation could be like a bunch of matrices around the dude that multiply towards it and finally implode into singularity 09:48:13 does he die????? 09:48:46 he becomes a total zero and everybody laughs at him 10:27:12 "We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year" is a famous unsolved problem in mathematics. 10:27:31 It's been proven that we wish you either a merry Christmas or a happy new year, and most mathematicians believe we wish you both. 10:28:00 Also, it's been proven that we wish him a merry Christmas and that they wish you a happy new year. 10:28:13 lol 10:28:20 what if I want a happy christmas and a merry new year? 10:28:23 are there any norwegians here? there are dubious reports of a giant UFO above the whole of norway 10:28:34 and I was wondering if someone would confirm or deny 10:28:38 ais523 I saw pics of it 10:28:53 And there are a few papers about whether we wish you other time periods of other degrees of novelty and other enjoyabilities. 10:28:58 but I've not seen it myself.... 10:29:13 http://www.pasteit4me.com/83001 10:29:22 OxE6: that would contradict the axiom of choice, but it's believed to be consistent with plain old ZF. 10:29:25 there's some links to pics and news reports 10:30:00 ZF? 10:30:25 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. 10:30:45 ah 10:31:04 -!- augur has joined. 11:00:13 -!- jpc has joined. 11:02:00 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote closed the connection). 11:03:01 AnMaster: I just found http://whybzrisbetterthanx.github.com/ <-- heh 11:04:20 ais523, if I said something like that about git then ehird would get very angry and point out how irrelevant it was due to being opinion based. Yet I'm quite sure he won't act that way when it is about bzr 11:04:55 meanwhile, I've been having my own thoughts about writing VCSes 11:05:07 anyway, I should really go home 11:05:17 issue is that the laptop screen's having hardware problems, and as a result the laptop no longer closes 11:05:20 I really badly need a new computer 11:05:30 ais523, cya 11:05:35 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote closed the connection). 11:05:36 ais523, get a new laptop then? 11:05:38 meh 11:20:12 -!- jix has joined. 11:23:49 -!- oerjan has joined. 11:24:58 -!- jpc has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)). 11:26:21 When I say the definition, clearly it's stupid to think that some NP-complete problems are and some aren't X-D 11:26:50 glad you realized it. also glad that i didn't comment before reading on in the logs for once 11:27:46 23:57:30 Fleh, some NP-P problems. 11:28:24 i am not sure whether any of the candidate problems are known not to be in P, even assuming P != NP 11:29:22 (factorization and discrete logarithm are the once i recall reading about) 11:29:27 *ones 11:30:51 NP-P problems? XD 11:31:08 problems in NP not in P 11:31:10 well can polynomial time runs on a quantum computer be simulated by polynomial runs on a tm? 11:31:23 oerjan: I was interpreting that as "NP minus P" problems. 11:31:23 i think that's as unknown as P vs NP 11:31:40 ... Which suggests I'm not sure what. 11:31:53 well the - is set difference, which is probably pronounced minus rather often 11:32:09 Fair 'nough. 11:33:19 oerjan: quantumEd found that out 11:33:48 oklofok: well i've obviously gone back to commenting before finishing reading, haven't i :D 11:34:01 since everyone seems to think P <> NP, then the reasonable assumption is that quantum computers are stronger than normal computers? 11:34:23 it's _a_ reasonable assumption, but i'm not sure there's a clear implication either way 11:34:34 anyway i really don't know anything about quantum computing, not all my questions were socratic method 11:34:42 they were also "i have no idea" 11:35:00 as in quantum computers _could_ be simulated in P even if P != NP, but they might also require PSPACE which is harder than NP... 11:35:15 *could possibly 11:35:54 all unsolved problems iirc 11:36:17 -!- jpc has joined. 11:36:55 T.M.s are still valuable as a representation of all that can be computed, Q.C.s can just compute it faster. 11:37:58 heck T.M.'s aren't that good for fine-grained complexity anyway, because they don't have random access memory so you might get a quadratic overhead to use memory 11:38:39 although all the "big" questions that i know about care only about polynomials, so aren't that fine-grained 11:38:40 infinitely addressble random access memory would certainly be cool :) 11:38:58 subleq may be a good model for that 11:39:29 abstractly 11:39:32 Hey, whoa; Debian unstable's updating VirtualBox from 3.0 to the recent 3.1, which *finally* adds: "VM states can now be restored from arbitrary snapshots instead of only the last one, and new snapshots can be taken from other snapshots as well ("branched snapshots"; see the manual for more information)" 11:40:24 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 11:42:23 quantumEd: afaiu the quantum computing model is somewhere between determinism and nondeterminism, i haven't seen a formal definition for that stuff, and sadly i don't understand anything but that. 11:43:14 i think it's a different kind of nondeterminism than NP, with adding (superpositions) of quantum states and all, so not obviously contained either way as i said 11:43:17 (Also a couple other nice changes; virtio-net support for guests to sidestep the silly "emulate a real network card" and live migration of VMs between hosts, for example.) 11:43:53 yeah 11:45:00 PSPACE might be considered a higher form of nondeterminism than both (arbitrary mixing of existential and universal quantification is the essence of the PSPACE-complete problem QBF (quantified (nothing to do with quantum) boolean formula) 11:45:07 ) 11:46:21 ah yes 11:46:39 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_quantified_Boolean_formula 11:46:40 so can we also define pspace with an alternating turing machine 11:46:51 um... 11:50:14 well the wp article on the latter seems to imply so 11:51:00 (AP = PSPACE) 11:55:44 how can a new model of computation lead to new complexity classes 11:56:18 many complexity classes are simply what you get when adding resource bound measurements to a computational model 11:57:27 L, P, PSPACE you get from adding it to ordinary deterministic turing machines 11:57:38 NL, NP with nondeterministic ones 11:58:06 and those are believed to be different. so why shouldn't quantum models give yet another set 11:58:26 (PSPACE = NPSPACE but that is a theorem which needed proof) 12:02:21 00:20:16 in the case of NP, we take the exact same definition, but use nondeterministic turing machines 12:02:24 00:20:32 well i'm not sure what it's supposed to do with negative instances 12:02:42 if you switch positive and negative, you get the class co-NP instead 12:03:25 co-SPACE = SPACE is another nice theorem... 12:03:49 er 12:03:58 co-NSPACE = NSPACE 12:06:08 * oerjan notes he is repeating some of what oklofok said 12:06:31 well, except oklofok actually explained in some detail 12:07:22 i don't know the answer, but i think NP is a superset of QP, and QP is a superset of P, in which case we couldn't know, because then we'd also know P!=NP 12:07:32 ok that one i think i contradicted ;D 12:10:19 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection). 12:10:19 like P^NP = NP, in P^NP you can solve any problem in NP in one step, but a nondeterminitic turing machine can already do that. 12:10:27 i think, at least, might be talking out of my ass, in which case i hope someone corrects this. 12:10:33 indeed :D 12:10:40 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 12:11:41 that's connected with the unsolved NP = co-NP problem, i think 12:12:19 basically NP cannot obviously use itself as a subroutine because there is no way to utilize a "no" result 12:13:07 but if NP = co-NP then you can convert between yes and no, so you get a way around that 12:13:32 also in that case the polynomial hierarchy collapses iirc 12:15:28 actually i'm not quite sure about that, should goolge 12:15:32 *gl 12:20:43 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 12:21:47 bah i cannot find a clear statement in any of wp articles i checked 12:21:57 *the 12:24:16 oerjan: ok that one i think i contradicted ;D <<< but unfortunately so did quantumEd :P 12:24:21 oh wait 12:24:41 yes he did, i just got to it 12:24:45 that was not QP, i think it was some other character mess 12:24:56 "After twelve years of effort, not only do we still not know whether BQP sits in the classical polynomial hierarchy, there's really no evidence either way" 12:24:56 also 12:25:07 the NP vs. P^NP thing i googled myself :D 12:25:37 i assumed BQP was what you meant by QP 12:25:52 "oerjan: basically NP cannot obv..." <<< oh lol that should've been obvious, thanks 12:26:01 that's what you get for not knowing the exact definition 12:26:36 "oerjan: if you switch positive and negative, you get the class co-NP instead" <<< this doesn't tell me what the machine does with negative instances, does it? 12:26:52 um 12:27:19 a nondeterministic turing machine answers "yes" if there is any path which gives a yes answer, "no" otherwise 12:27:24 oh yeah i prolly meant BQP 12:27:31 the co-classes reverse that 12:27:55 it's the same as switching existential and universal quantification 12:28:04 but how fast does it answer no? 12:28:17 oh 12:28:26 can it just not halt? 12:28:37 if you know the polynomial bound, then there is no reason not to cut off after you get to it, regardless 12:28:48 i mean in cook's original reduction he said it returns false right away iirc 12:28:56 oh 12:29:34 well okay i've read a version of it that uses a more traditional model of a computer 12:29:53 to think after all this time i don't know exactly what NP means :D 12:29:53 there is also the answer checking version... 12:30:05 but they are equivalent 12:30:58 -!- iamcal has joined. 12:31:14 well i am pretty sure assuming the machine has the same time available whether it answers yes or no gives the right class 12:31:49 well, i suppose it's enough that it accepts stuff in polynomial time, and doesn't accept the wrong stuff 12:32:11 i mean for proofs... would just make it easier to think of it as an actual machine if i had any idea what it actually does for other instances 12:32:37 hmm 12:32:45 yeah 12:32:54 as i said, if you know the polynomial bound, you can just cut off once it is reached, say by adding a time counter to your machine 12:33:07 yeah 12:33:14 so you don't get anything more general 12:33:21 oerjan, iwc 12:33:27 AnMaster: indeed 12:33:28 read it hours ago 12:33:30 me too 12:33:37 oerjan, remind me? 12:33:40 what was it about again? ;D 12:33:44 oerjan: is calculating the time bound a computable function though? 12:33:45 :D 12:33:49 i mean just out of interest 12:33:58 doesn't change the argument if it isn't 12:34:07 err 12:34:42 oklofok: well in a sense no, it could involve a constant you don't know... 12:35:29 but for proofs, you can just start with the assumption a polynomial bound exists 12:35:35 yes, sure 12:36:14 unless you are doing something meta over many problem instances, i am sure this subtlety _can_ trip you up somehow then :D 12:37:01 ah nazis it was 12:37:20 ein little bischen romance 12:37:35 klein is small 12:37:41 *bisschen 12:37:53 little was a bigger typo imo 12:37:55 oklofok: i was not attempting perfect german here 12:38:02 what does bisschen mean? 12:38:06 a little 12:38:13 that wouldn't fit into the theme anyway :D 12:38:29 "ein bisschen" is like "a bit" 12:38:38 for proper german i would leave out the "little" 12:38:47 bisschen already implies it 12:39:32 (actually this should be sz but that is awkward on this keyboard) 12:39:33 oerjan, err klein being small would be more "common knowledge" wouldn't it? 12:39:51 AnMaster: well to non-german speakers perhaps... 12:40:00 oerjan, that is what I meant yeah 12:40:01 duh 12:40:15 oerjan, after all everyone surely knows about Eine kleine Nachtmusik? 12:40:22 (not sure about caps there) 12:42:25 they're correct 12:42:31 i guess 12:42:38 nouns are caps 12:43:10 i was more wondering about the "kleine", since it's a title 12:44:05 * oerjan notes the top google results are inconsistent, but wp doesn't use caps for it 12:44:29 isn't that just an english thing 12:44:43 or maybe american 12:44:44 well my german is rusty 12:48:39 -!- cal153 has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 12:48:51 are there any norwegians here? there are dubious reports of a giant UFO above the whole of norway 12:48:54 wtf? 12:49:06 i cannot say i noticed while walking home today :D 12:50:09 oerjan, err when was that? 12:50:15 would be bad timing, they have put out a lot of anti-aircraft batteries for obama's visit tomorrow ;D 12:50:41 oerjan, put them out where? 12:50:44 02:28:23 lof time 12:50:47 *log 12:50:48 lof? 12:50:53 oerjan, what is offset? 12:50:59 beijing time 12:51:11 changed the other day from something US 12:51:17 oerjan, "huh" 12:51:28 +8 GMT 12:51:32 *UTC 12:52:08 AnMaster: also, around oslo, in case of any terrorist airplane hijackings 12:52:58 well or airplanes anyway 12:54:09 oerjan, hm there is just one news story in those links mentioned there: dailymail 12:54:16 from what I remember that is untrustable 12:54:26 but I'm no expert on UK news papers 12:54:29 duh :D 12:55:09 the daily mail article looks like a joke 12:55:12 indeed 12:55:14 also "whole of norway" could very well be just one town before rumors spread 12:55:51 oerjan, it said "northern norway" there 12:56:07 indeed 12:56:10 oerjan, Tromsø is mentioned. 12:57:02 and trøndelag, which is here 12:57:38 oh 12:57:40 heh 12:57:48 * AnMaster launches google earth 12:59:05 oerjan, which place with that name? 12:59:27 Sør-Trondelag? Slightly south of Trondheim? 12:59:29 oerjan 12:59:31 err 12:59:35 augur, what? 12:59:44 Sør-Trøndelag is the county containing Trondheim 13:00:00 anmaster: is your name oerjan? 13:00:03 augur: yeah what? 13:00:24 why did you comment about monkey "language" not being TC? 13:00:25 augur, no but I was confused by that it wasn't followed by anything else on the line? 13:00:29 * oerjan goes to check norwegian newspaper 13:00:32 oerjan, ah 13:00:55 AnMaster: is tht a statement or a question 13:00:55 augur: because Gregor made an Ook joke and i followed along 13:01:03 oh ok. 13:01:18 augur, either 13:01:51 as long as you dont think that human language is TC 13:01:52 :P 13:02:22 ah it's the top story at vg.no 13:02:32 vagino! 13:02:48 italian for "male vagina"! 13:02:56 it's short for "verdens gang" (although no one uses the long form these days) 13:03:16 verdens gang? 13:03:18 word gang? 13:03:39 hm gang is hard to translate idiomatically 13:03:50 verdens = of the world 13:03:57 ah 13:03:58 wordly gang 13:04:03 vagino 13:04:23 quantumEd: yes. 13:04:28 literally it means walk, movement 13:04:44 a large one a vaginissimo, and a small one is a vaginino! 13:04:49 * AnMaster just had a new idea for silly warranty/license combination 13:05:33 inside the shrink-wrapped package there is a paper with the text "warranty void if shrink wrapping is broken" 13:07:10 hm it seems to be genuine 13:07:30 oerjan, huh really? 13:08:15 well as in people really have seen something 13:10:25 i think you could write an interesting story around that 13:11:04 *seen and taken videos of something 13:11:36 our "experts" suspect a russian rocket 13:12:16 /missile 13:12:29 * oerjan is happy irssi didn't know how to run that command 13:13:23 where like 13:13:50 augur: what? 13:15:06 http://www.vg.no/nyheter/vaer/artikkel.php?artid=596439 includes video 13:15:49 sorry brb 13:16:57 so what is it? 13:17:16 it's not a rocket they don' whirl :/ 13:18:50 speculation is it could be a rocket spiraling out of control 13:19:16 ALIENS 13:31:03 oerjan, what does "selv" mean? 13:34:49 * AnMaster notes that Google translate for Norwegian → Swedish is quite a lot better than usually, but still far from good 13:35:16 self 13:35:35 oerjan, what? 13:35:37 that makes no sense 13:35:39 "skyldes en russisk rakett, selv om det ennå ikke er offisielt bekreftet." 13:35:41 in that 13:35:43 oh 13:35:45 even 13:35:56 oerjan, so one word means self and even? 13:35:57 XD 13:36:02 :D 13:36:14 -!- kar8nga has joined. 13:37:08 oerjan, "kilder"? 13:37:24 oh and "Ifølge" 13:37:33 in the context "Ifølge kilder i den russiske TV-kanalen Russia Today" 13:37:56 sources, according to 13:38:02 aha 13:38:24 so "själv om" doesn't mean "even if" in swedish? 13:38:42 " benektet en talsmann for at de visste noe om en rakettoppskyting." 13:38:43 well 13:38:47 google translate fails there 13:38:52 "nekade en talesman att de inte visste något om en raket lansering. " 13:39:05 I suspect 13:39:15 a bit too much negation? 13:39:23 oerjan, exactly 13:39:30 oerjan, is it in the original too? 13:39:37 I'm unable to tell 13:39:42 no, just "benektet" is negative 13:40:22 for the benefit of English speaking users: "denied that they knew anything" turned into "denied that they didn't know anything" basically 13:40:23 -!- MigoMipo has quit ("co'o rodo"). 13:40:29 ok so the idea is like 13:40:55 maybe in some future world companies will just do this shit with license-violated-if-plastic-is-broken 13:41:02 but theyll take it to the extreme where the license is INSIDE the plastic 13:41:16 but in its OWN plastic so youd have to break the plastic to read the license 13:41:46 and then some smart guy down in econometrics realizes, well, who cares then if we just leave out the actual inner material for the license 13:41:54 just let the license sheet be blank, but for the front page 13:41:59 we'll save a boatload of money 13:42:39 and eventually theyre just selling software or whatever without licenses 13:42:56 but theyll take it to the extreme where the license is INSIDE the plastic <-- yes I said that far 13:42:58 and this leads to some humor and a doctorowesque tragedy-of-copyright-law thing 13:43:24 augur, nice 13:43:54 oerjan, "hevder fenomenet kan komme fra en lyskaster"? 13:43:59 especially that last word 13:46:24 wp crosslink gives me "stage lighting instrument" 13:47:16 hm floodlight 13:47:29 (section on that crosslinked page) 13:47:54 oerjan, other theory: 13:48:09 hm could be spotlight too 13:48:18 oerjan, ufo, and government trying to hush it up and failing to coordinate the hushing up with Russia. 13:48:39 yeah right 13:48:49 oerjan, is there a video somewhat watchable? Like youtube or youtube? 13:49:08 what was wrong with the video on that page? 13:49:19 oerjan, no javascript, no flash 13:49:43 well the article mentioned youtube so probably 13:51:33 the one I found was quite a fail 13:51:42 it looks nothing like those static pictures 13:52:44 * oerjan is not terribly interested 13:53:14 oerjan, missile does sound plausible *shrug* 13:54:06 and if it is high enough up in the atmosphere it could easily be illuminated by the sun 13:54:09 might check out the thread on the reddit front page. if you can read _that_ 13:54:38 * oerjan hasn't reached that yet though 13:55:59 well yeah... much of that region probably has no sunlight this time of year 13:58:52 oh dear god not over here as well 13:59:03 SimonRC: what? 13:59:23 that lights in Norway 14:00:03 boo! 14:00:47 nah, I don't mind really 14:07:37 might check out the thread on the reddit front page. if you can read _that_ <-- which one on there 14:08:04 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has joined. 14:09:12 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 14:09:13 http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/actjs/mystery_as_spiral_blue_light_display_hovers_above/ 14:09:23 is the one i see on the front page 14:09:38 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:09:44 oh wait duh 14:09:57 http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/acp3d/strange_spiral_phenomenon_appearing_on_the_sky_in/ is much larger 14:10:03 * oerjan needs glasses 14:10:45 "Definitely a rocket gone awry" 14:12:23 ok when i suggested the reddit thread it was in case there were further video links there, maybe i should have mentioned that 14:12:49 the actual discussion can be ... variable ... 14:13:05 and i still haven't looked at it myself, mind you 14:19:57 hm 255 points, first I wondered why reddit was using unsigned char for the vote 14:20:05 before I realized it probably wasn't max 14:20:06 XD 14:23:00 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:26:07 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 15:31:50 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 15:36:08 -!- coppro has joined. 16:39:29 * SimonRC goes 16:42:18 -!- oerjan has joined. 16:50:43 -!- coppro has quit ("I am leaving. You are about to explode."). 17:01:03 My guess is a semi-failed fireworks experiment. :) 17:03:58 failed?? peopel around the world saw it! 17:04:07 it's a semi-win if nothing :P 17:11:54 -!- quantumEd has quit ("* I'm too lame to read BitchX.doc *"). 17:12:16 -!- coppro has joined. 17:32:26 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Remote closed the connection). 17:42:02 -!- Fuco has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). 17:42:33 -!- poiuy_qwert has joined. 18:11:05 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has changed nick to bsmntbombdood. 18:24:40 -!- jpc has quit ("Leaving."). 18:24:48 -!- jpc has joined. 18:26:54 -!- jpc has quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)). 18:27:02 -!- jpc has joined. 18:44:33 -!- OxE6 has quit. 19:20:10 -!- oklokok has joined. 19:22:53 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 19:22:53 -!- oklofok has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 19:22:53 -!- Deewiant has quit (farmer.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 19:23:45 -!- Deewiant has joined. 19:23:59 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 19:23:59 -!- oklofok has joined. 19:25:11 -!- OxE6 has joined. 19:26:36 -!- augur has joined. 19:35:11 -!- oerjan has quit ("Good night"). 19:49:16 -!- oklofok has quit (Success). 19:50:27 -!- OxE6 has quit (Nick collision from services.). 19:50:28 -!- OxE6| has joined. 19:50:36 -!- OxE6| has changed nick to OxE6. 19:53:58 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 19:54:23 -!- augur has joined. 20:36:10 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 21:06:25 -!- Pthing has joined. 21:16:45 -!- coppro has quit (Remote closed the connection). 21:17:33 -!- coppro has joined. 21:23:36 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 21:29:27 -!- OxE6 has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 21:47:28 -!- Guest67800 has joined. 21:47:50 -!- augur has joined. 21:48:17 hey guys 21:51:01 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote closed the connection). 21:51:38 -!- Guest67800 has quit (Client Quit). 22:16:50 -!- jpc has quit ("Leaving."). 22:37:52 -!- FireFly has quit ("Leaving"). 23:33:14 hello augur 23:33:31 hey 23:37:55 the following is legal C++0x: struct foo { long inline int explicit unsigned volatile virtual long const f(); }; fun 23:38:05 err 23:38:28 replace f with operator long const int volatile long unsigned 23:39:00 oh wait, no it's not 23:39:02 darn 23:39:14 * coppro wonders what the longest chain of nonredundant keywords possible is 23:54:54 -!- kar8nga has joined.