←2010-02-09 2010-02-10 2010-02-11→ ↑2010 ↑all
00:00:33 <cpressey> oerjan: If a TM that ignores its input is "computationally trivial", are all lambda terms "computationally trivial" as well?
00:01:04 <oerjan> cpressey: to be honest i don't know that i've ever seen a clear and unambiguous definition of turing-completeness once you go beyond languages of strings. the wikipedia article is certainly not one.
00:01:43 <pikhq> oerjan: Turing-equivalent with a Turing machine?
00:01:48 <oerjan> but based on other subjects i've read, i.e. complexity theory, my intuition says it is all about _reductions_ from one notion of computation to another
00:01:49 <cpressey> oerjan: The Wikipedia page on Turing degrees is a bit better.
00:02:19 <pikhq> (P and Q are said to be Turing-equivalent if one can simulate P with Q and Q with P.)
00:02:56 <oerjan> pikhq: but that sentence completely ignores the very I/O question which in my view is the reason for the confusing discussion i and cpressey are now having
00:03:14 <oerjan> it is not a _mathematical_ definition
00:03:16 <cpressey> oerjan: I quite agree. But the literature on reductions doesn't seem to say what to do with input. I'm sure I can map every TM to (some L program, some input). I'm equally sure I can't map every TM to (some L program).
00:03:46 <pikhq> oerjan: Clearly one can simply consider input and output as two one-way tapes. Help at all?
00:04:40 <cpressey> s/map/find a TM which maps/ (Turing-reduction)
00:04:43 <oerjan> cpressey: the thing is that most things you are reducing, such as NP-complete problems, don't have a program part. you are reducing input to input
00:05:04 <oerjan> e.g. a graph to a boolean expression
00:07:01 <oerjan> (for hamiltonian circuit -> SAT, e.g.)
00:07:11 <cpressey> Yes, but from what I know, the "-complete" in "NP-complete" was adapted from the "-complete" in "Turing-complete" (polytime reductions instead of Turing reductions.)
00:07:25 <cpressey> Anyway -- for the sake of argument say L is Turing-complete
00:07:43 <cpressey> Then the original question you answered is put into context
00:07:46 <oerjan> cpressey: and the RE theory simplifies everything to the bone by only using sets of _integers_
00:08:03 <cpressey> oerjan: <cpressey> ais523: Then what would you call the property "I can map any Turing-machine to a (meaningfully different) program in this language"?
00:08:35 -!- coppro has joined.
00:08:39 <cpressey> oerjan: Again, I don't care too much about encoding -- unless you think there's something critical about it
00:09:46 <oerjan> cpressey: well it's critical for quines, which is where my first comment took inspiration. but ok, as long as program and input are encoded separately it doesn't matter for this discussion.
00:09:58 <cpressey> That property is a property L doesn't have, and isn't necessary for TC (if L is TC), but a lot of languages DO have. And it doesn't seem to have a name, beyond it's working title "property 2"
00:10:47 <oerjan> cpressey: ah i just remembered. look at the wiki's Narcissist page.
00:10:55 <oklopol> what does meaningfully different mean?
00:11:03 <oerjan> it's a notion dual to quine, with input instead
00:11:26 <oklopol> oerjan: accepts only itself?
00:11:32 <cpressey> oklopol: Well, different beyond simply renaming variable names or something trivial like that. Not a very well defined condition, I agree.
00:12:00 <oklopol> yeah still just a matter of cardinalities, in mathematical terms
00:12:26 <oerjan> cpressey: and then i can ask you, is your property essential for the _existence_ of narcissists, like the "output-complete" idea is for the existence of quines?
00:12:56 <cpressey> oerjan: Hm.
00:12:59 <oerjan> (guaranteed existence from fundamental concepts, that is)
00:13:02 -!- madbr has joined.
00:13:20 <cpressey> oerjan: I have no idea right now.
00:13:44 <oklopol> this is too complicated, let's talk about flowers
00:13:54 <oklopol> oh wait i know even less about those
00:14:16 <lament> my favourite is Cauliflower.
00:14:57 <oklopol> if you flow, are you a flower?
00:15:06 <oerjan> lament: did you know that is the same species as brussels sprouts?
00:15:12 * oerjan ducks
00:15:35 <oklopol> they are both called "kaali" in finnish
00:15:36 <lament> did you know that ducks were the same species as geese?
00:16:06 <cpressey> oerjan: In my head, fluttering half-memories of the "every TC language has a quine" proof... are you suggesting "Every property 2 [sigh] language has a narcissist" as a kind of dual to it?
00:17:49 <oerjan> yeah.
00:18:05 <cpressey> yeah, it sounds likely.
00:18:13 <oerjan> not that i've thought much about it, it was just a spur of the moment idea
00:18:24 <cpressey> Brain... melting...
00:18:57 <oerjan> note that "every TC language has a quine" is not precisely correct, which is why we invented the notion of output-completeness in that discussion.
00:19:12 <cpressey> Right.
00:20:02 <cpressey> But there is that fixpoint thing going on. There would be a fixpoint "the other way". Since all TMs can be mapped to this language, there must be one program that maps to a Narcissist. Something like that.
00:21:23 <oerjan> mind you it's not very different from a quine in practice, come to think of it. you just slap an == input instead of a print on your program self-construction string.
00:22:03 <oerjan> but of course this if you are in a language which has both sensible input and output
00:22:53 <oerjan> s/instead of a/inside of the/
00:23:39 <cpressey> Yeah.
00:24:28 * oerjan rereads the article - oh it was your idea
00:26:00 <cpressey> I see there's something called a "selfinterp" on Madore's page, but it looks to be a slightly different concept.
00:27:55 <cpressey> Anyway, I have to be off, with head spinning.
00:28:00 <oerjan> link?
00:28:10 <cpressey> http://www.madore.org/~david/computers/quine.html
00:28:18 <oerjan> ah.
00:28:35 <cpressey> http://www.madore.org/~david/computers/quine.html#sec_selfint
00:29:54 <cpressey> ugggh
00:30:01 <cpressey> :)
00:30:04 <cpressey> Later, folks.
00:30:07 <oerjan> bye
00:30:12 -!- cpressey has left (?).
00:38:58 <lament> so who's good at math
00:39:02 <lament> i've a math question
00:39:10 <madbr> what sort of math
00:39:13 <lament> silly math
00:39:36 <lament> suppose you have a bunch of opponents
00:39:47 <lament> one of them has probability P of winning against a random other opponent
00:39:51 <lament> another one has probability Q
00:40:03 <lament> make a guess about how they would do against each other!
00:40:17 <MissPiggy> is that like untransitive dice?
00:40:31 <lament> sure
00:40:56 <lament> it makes sense that if P == Q, then the guess ought to be 0.5
00:41:05 <lament> (since we have no other information)
00:41:15 <lament> and if P > Q, then the guess should be > 0.5
00:41:26 <lament> and if P == 1 then the guess should of course be 1
00:41:39 <lament> and if P and Q are both 1 then we're kinda screwed
00:41:44 <lament> (but that cannot happen)
00:42:42 <oklopol> i would bet on the one that has a bigger probability for winning against a random opponent.
00:42:58 <MissPiggy> hmmm
00:43:11 <lament> oklopol: right, me too
00:43:17 <MissPiggy> so the question is that there's say a set of people {P}u{Q}uEveryoneElse,
00:43:21 <lament> but can you quantify your guess, other than just 1 or 0?
00:43:46 <MissPiggy> and there's the probabilities for P winning against {Q}uEveryoneElse, (and similiar for Q)
00:43:50 <lament> if P is 0 or if Q is 1, the guess is 0
00:43:54 <oerjan> oh wait this is a famous annoying problem, isn't it
00:43:56 <lament> if P is 1 or Q is 0, the guess is 1
00:44:08 <lament> if P == Q, the guess is 0.5
00:44:14 * oerjan just got this deja vu feeling
00:44:22 <lament> what if P is like 1/4 and Q is like 3/4 ?
00:44:37 <lament> oerjan: really? I'd like to know
00:44:41 <MissPiggy> lament well I don't think there is an answer ?
00:44:54 <lament> MissPiggy: there isn't an answer, but you can definitely make a guess!
00:44:58 <oerjan> maybe it's just a slight resemblance. i cannot remember what it was anyhow.
00:45:10 <Ilari> AFAIK, the probabilites can't be calculated based on info given... I think its possible that P > Q, but when they go against each other, the one with prob Q wins more than loses...
00:45:18 <lament> no, probabilities can't be calculated.
00:45:22 <lament> that's why i keep saying guess.
00:45:50 <lament> i suppose the way to formalize is would be by trying to minimize the differences between our guesses over all opponents, compared to the real probabilities
00:46:24 <lament> and the only condition for the guess is that it can't use any other information than the values P and Q
00:46:26 <oerjan> indeed, you could have a bunch of people playing rock/paper/scissors somehow always choosing the same thing
00:46:26 <Ilari> Best guess estimate: P / (P + Q) for that with prob P, Q / (P + Q) for that with prob Q.
00:46:42 <oerjan> and still have just about any set of probabilities for the group
00:46:57 <oerjan> (er, for two members of the group)
00:47:29 <MissPiggy> probability is really confusing
00:47:32 <lament> Ilari: hm, maybe that's it
00:47:50 <lament> but doesn't look right
00:47:56 <lament> e.g
00:47:57 <oerjan> at least it adds to 1 :D
00:48:01 <lament> if P = 0.2, Q = 0.8
00:48:12 <lament> then P/(P+Q) is 0.2
00:48:30 <lament> but you'd expect it to be less
00:49:09 <lament> i guess one way to approach this is to assume that probabilities actually are transitive.
00:49:18 <MissPiggy> yeah but that's not a true
00:49:47 <lament> but i don't even know how to assume that :(
00:50:20 <oklopol> if we make all possible orderings for a set of length n, and for each ordering calculate (the ways for someone who wins p of the matches to win someone who wins q of the matches) / (all such pairs), take average and let n --> infinity
00:50:22 <oerjan> hm the average of all probabilities has to be 0.5 i think
00:50:36 <oklopol> then why wouldn't the probability be well-defined?
00:51:40 <oklopol> i mean you can clearly feel, using your heart, that the limit exists
00:52:13 <lament> maybe it makes sense to model it like this:
00:52:14 <oerjan> oklopol: the probability could depend greatly on the game played
00:52:20 <lament> our 'random opponent' is the number 1
00:52:46 <oerjan> say, each player's favorite strategy could have really complicated behavior when paired against others
00:52:49 <lament> our known opponents are random numbers chosen from an interval (0,x) such that the probability of the number being larger than 1 is P
00:53:02 <oklopol> oerjan: but if we assume the orderings are random
00:53:13 <lament> (so that x = 1/p)
00:53:38 <lament> then the guess is that a random number from (0,1/p) is greather than the one from (0,1/q)
00:53:47 <lament> *greater
00:53:51 <oerjan> oklopol: the thing is, for a start, two players' chance of winning against each other could be nonlinear in some "skill"
00:53:54 <lament> i think that makes sense
00:54:36 <MissPiggy> what's the point anyway, if yo uhave a probability doesn't even tell you what's going to happen
00:54:46 <oerjan> and i suspect you could get a lot of different functions of p and q dependent on this
00:54:51 * MissPiggy existential crisis'
00:54:56 <lament> MissPiggy: it's a best guess. It's a prior.
00:54:58 <oklopol> oerjan: i assume complete nonlinearity, i assume that for all pairs, it's completely random who wins.
00:55:05 <MissPiggy> it's a prior?
00:55:06 <Ilari> And if there is such skill, one would have to model it...
00:55:12 <MissPiggy> I thought it came from priors
00:55:40 <oerjan> oklopol: oh then it's 0.5 for each pair? but then all the p's and q's are 0.5 too, sorry.
00:55:57 <lament> i think he meant the probability is random for each pair
00:56:05 <oklopol> what? i'm assuming a finite universe
00:56:09 <oklopol> n players
00:56:21 <oerjan> oh wait you are saying p and q are the actual number of games won
00:56:26 <oklopol> sure
00:56:37 <oerjan> oklopol: ok you are interpreting p and q completely different from me then
00:56:39 <oklopol> the amount of players they win out of the number of all players
00:56:46 <oerjan> um P and Q
00:56:53 <oklopol> i see
00:56:54 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving).
00:57:02 <oklopol> i prefer finite things
00:57:04 <lament> it's a game of chance
00:57:08 <lament> take two players
00:57:13 <lament> it's not known who wins
00:57:23 <lament> but the probability of one of them winning is known
00:57:40 <lament> if you take one player and the probability of him winning against a randomly chosen opponent - that's p
00:58:27 <oerjan> oklopol: i am assuming as a mental model that for each pair of players there is a given chance of each player winning (summing to 1 of course)
00:58:45 <oklopol> yeah
00:58:51 <oerjan> and P for a player is simply the average of the chances of winning against each of the others
00:58:51 <oklopol> i see
00:59:11 <oklopol> is that actually different from mine?
00:59:28 <oklopol> hmm
00:59:29 <oklopol> yes
00:59:36 <oklopol> or...
00:59:37 <lament> i agree with oerjan.
00:59:40 <oerjan> " i assume that for all
00:59:42 <oerjan> pairs, it's completely random who wins"
00:59:42 -!- MissPiggy has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
00:59:53 <oerjan> i interpreted that as 0.5 for all pairs
01:00:04 <oklopol> yeah, but once you know they win pn of the matches
01:00:18 <oklopol> couldn't you just think of it as them winning with prob p
01:00:24 <oerjan> but that means there is no underlying skill difference
01:00:44 <oerjan> and so any P and Q has no predictive power
01:01:54 <oerjan> there has to be an underlying probability varying between pairs if there is to be any predictive estimate
01:02:09 <oklopol> i don't see a fundamental difference, but if there is one, obviously yours is better
01:02:10 <oerjan> of course the underlying function is unknown, hm
01:02:10 <lament> er
01:02:15 <lament> of course p and q have predictive power
01:02:58 <oklopol> in my model, of course p and q have predictive power, because if q is large, then you know that dude is prolly not one of the p dudes player 1 wins
01:03:17 <oklopol> and so on
01:03:22 <oerjan> actually my way is too simple
01:04:04 * Sgeo_ mindboggles at FC++
01:05:59 <oerjan> i predict this is extremely complicated to do properly, and will not give a fixed result. although it's probably bayesian thinking which i've never properly understood anyhow
01:06:02 <lament> oerjan: of course p and q have predictive power
01:06:06 <lament> if you want to bet on who wins
01:06:13 <lament> and you know p and q
01:06:19 <lament> you should bet on whichever's larger
01:06:24 <lament> on average, you will be ahead
01:06:29 <oerjan> well yeah
01:07:07 <oerjan> lament: i was deducing from oklopol's assumption that all pairs were random (i.e. 0.5)
01:07:28 <lament> i think by "random" he meant random values for probabilities
01:07:28 <oerjan> i.e. the actual player pairs
01:07:39 <oerjan> hm
01:07:55 <oklopol> but what the fuck does it matter if the pairs were random if you are actually considering some actual game with, for each pair, a predefined result for the winner
01:07:55 <oerjan> ah
01:08:21 <oklopol> they are not random in a given game
01:08:32 <oerjan> it's not _completely_ predefined, it's still a probability for each pair
01:08:33 <oklopol> all the probabilities are 1 or 0 there
01:08:45 <oklopol> no, in mine, you have probability 1 or 0 for each pair.
01:08:46 <oerjan> they don't necessarily win every time
01:08:48 <oerjan> ok
01:09:47 <oerjan> hm every actual probability distribution is a linear combination of yours...
01:10:27 <oerjan> probably that won't help any
01:10:42 <oklopol> nothing helps, someone start a simulation.
01:11:37 <lament> i like how you guys are still talking about this
01:11:45 * oerjan is stopping now
01:11:57 <lament> i made my guess 20 min ago, i think it's correct
01:12:14 <lament> though i'm not even sure how to quantify correct yet
01:12:23 <oklopol> lament: have you seen what happens if you put "c" and "not tc" within 10 words of each other on this chan?
01:13:00 <lament> hehe
01:13:22 <ais523> C doesn't impose arbitrary limits on the filesystem
01:13:46 <oklopol> oh dear
01:14:49 <lament> by the way, numerically, my guess is P/2Q
01:15:05 <lament> that kinda seems wrong :)
01:15:07 <oklopol> that can be over 1
01:15:10 <oklopol> can't it
01:15:17 <lament> sure, it can
01:15:21 <lament> it's not a very good guess
01:15:36 <lament> ok i need to fix this
01:15:57 * lament sucks at probs
01:16:18 <oklopol> what if we have n people, each making a guess about this problem, and we take two of them, P and Q, ...
01:29:20 -!- coppro has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds).
01:34:18 -!- comexbot has changed nick to comex.
01:38:15 -!- coppro has joined.
01:46:09 <uorygl> C isn't a programming language; it's a computer processor control language. You use it to control a computer processor.
01:46:49 <oerjan> i profess to process
02:03:13 <Sgeo_> Given C# knowledge, how easy/difficult will it be to tutor someone in Java?
02:03:50 <ais523> Sgeo_: not too hard; learn the syntax differences, and the standard library
02:03:57 <ais523> not all of it, but the bits you want to teach
02:04:12 <ais523> there isn't much of an attitude difference, except that java sometimes takes correctness over the top
02:04:27 <Sgeo_> Well, presumably this person is taking a class, so they'd have notes..
02:04:46 <ais523> Sgeo_: teaching Java's my day job, btw
02:04:46 <pikhq> Ultimately, your benefit will be from knowing *programming*, not from knowing Java specifically.
02:04:55 <ais523> pikhq: agreed
02:05:04 <ais523> although knowing the OO attitude helps a lot too for Java
02:05:14 <Sgeo_> After the 10 hours of Java tutoring is over, I plan on forgetting everything again
02:05:36 <pikhq> Knowing a specific language only is needed if it's something that's a bit "out there" compared with what you're used to.
02:05:48 <pikhq> (going from imperative-land to Lisp or Haskell, for instance)
02:06:07 <pikhq> And even that's more "knowing the general paradigm".
02:28:36 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
02:29:29 -!- coppro has joined.
03:36:17 -!- coppro has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
04:06:53 <Gregor> http://filebin.ca/hvmcpf/candyfloss.mp4 Enjoy some MST3K
04:09:32 -!- coppro has joined.
04:10:12 <pikhq> I love me some illegal downloads!
04:10:59 <bsmntbombdood> me too
04:11:14 <Gregor> As illegal downloads go, that's not very illegal, it's just a short clip :P
04:13:14 <oerjan> JUST A SHORT PRISON STAY, THEN
04:16:55 <pikhq> Gregor: Just as illegal.
04:17:19 <Gregor> Oh stop complaining and watch the fekking clip :P
04:17:29 <pikhq> I did.
04:17:33 <pikhq> They are agents of Satan!
04:37:20 <bsmntbombdood> i have terabytes of illegal downloads
04:38:10 <oerjan> how terable
04:38:36 <Sgeo_> One person in my UNIX class was convinced that they wouldn't go after him for illegal BitTorrent stuff if, as soon as it went to 100%, he stopped it.
04:39:06 <coppro> pikhq: Which Haskell graphical library should I use? Also, when coding complex programs, does one normally worry about the IO/normal code separation too much?
04:39:46 <bsmntbombdood> Sgeo_: somewhat true
04:40:48 <Gregor> If by "somewhat"
04:40:51 <Gregor> You mean "not"
04:43:09 <pikhq> coppro: "I don't, but you may want to try wxHaskell" and "Normally? It's just natural, pretty much always."
04:43:32 <pikhq> bsmntbombdood: I just like commenting that it's illegal.
04:43:37 <Sgeo_> s/wouldn't/less likely to/
04:43:39 <coppro> ok, thanks
04:43:47 <pikhq> Just to note the ridiculousness of it being illegal.
04:44:12 <coppro> I just need to watch that I don't just create and discard an IO object, right?
04:44:32 <pikhq> coppro: ...
04:44:38 <coppro> :P
04:44:55 <pikhq> Why are you using unsafePerformIO, and can you make it stop?
04:44:59 <pikhq> :P
04:47:13 <coppro> I didn't know what that is. Now I do. Now I feel dirty.
04:49:21 <pikhq> That's the appropriate reaction.
04:53:34 <oerjan> coppro: i _think_ pikhq was hinting at the idea that it is unlikely you'll manage to create and discard an IO object unless you are using that.
04:54:37 <coppro> oerjan: f x y = x
04:54:51 <oerjan> although it's not impossible...
04:54:52 <coppro> f 1 getLine
04:55:04 <oerjan> yeah but why would you do that?
04:55:21 <coppro> I don't know why; I'm just making sure that does what I expect (namely, nothing, since it didn't come through main)
04:55:35 <oerjan> yeah
04:55:39 <oerjan> f = const btw
04:57:29 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
04:57:47 <pikhq> coppro: Yeah, that does absolutely nothing, and does it well.
04:58:20 <coppro> why is it called const?
04:58:27 <oerjan> constant function
05:00:21 <coppro> I dun get it :(
05:00:45 <oerjan> a constant function is a function that takes the same value at all points
05:00:54 <pikhq> And const creates such a function.
05:00:58 <oerjan> so const 1, say, is a constant function
05:00:58 <coppro> ah
05:01:01 -!- gm|lap has quit (Quit: 2 hour UPS expired. Shutting down laptop.).
05:01:19 <pikhq> Also, the typical non-Haskell name for \x y -> x is "K".
05:01:53 <oerjan> K combinator
05:02:10 <pikhq> Well of course it's a combinator.
05:02:11 <pikhq> :P
05:08:17 <oerjan> xkcd :D
05:09:17 <pikhq> :D
05:19:48 -!- Asztal has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
05:21:57 -!- Asztal has joined.
05:24:56 <Sgeo_> oerjan, I don't quite get it
05:25:43 <oerjan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Face
05:26:04 <Sgeo_> ty
05:28:19 <Sgeo_> I thought it might be a reference to "it puts the lotion on its skin" even though I don't know waht that means
05:28:45 <oerjan> well neither do i
05:30:42 * Sgeo_ reads a wikipedia article
05:30:44 <Sgeo_> And nearly vomits
05:30:56 <oerjan> ?
05:31:34 <Sgeo_> Let's just say that the character [in Silence of the Lambs] is not a nice person
05:31:39 <Sgeo_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jame_Gumb
05:32:26 <oerjan> ic (or rather i'll try not to)
05:40:57 * oerjan finds randall munroe's bug reports - unusual
05:41:04 <oerjan> (see blag)
05:45:32 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
05:56:13 -!- coppro has joined.
06:06:57 -!- mycroftiv has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
06:08:58 -!- ais523 has changed nick to scarf.
06:09:15 -!- mycroftiv has joined.
06:11:08 -!- scarf has changed nick to ais523.
06:30:15 -!- jcp has joined.
06:59:27 -!- Pthing has joined.
06:59:30 -!- tombom has joined.
07:06:42 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Good night).
07:14:10 -!- zeotrope has joined.
07:16:31 -!- madbr has quit (Quit: Radiateur).
07:22:17 -!- augur has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
07:22:24 -!- augur has joined.
07:30:39 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
07:44:37 -!- jcp has quit (Quit: I will do anything (almost) for a new router.).
07:49:46 -!- tombom has quit (Quit: Leaving).
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:02:45 -!- FireFly has joined.
08:12:46 -!- oklopol has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
08:13:19 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving).
08:28:49 -!- kar8nga has joined.
09:16:32 -!- SimonRC has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
09:28:56 -!- SimonRC has joined.
09:36:00 -!- oklopol has joined.
09:37:56 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
09:50:13 -!- oklopol has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
11:05:46 -!- cheater has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
11:20:45 -!- cal153 has quit.
11:22:22 -!- cheater has joined.
11:58:23 -!- Pthing has joined.
12:27:33 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
12:30:57 -!- MizardX has joined.
13:25:24 -!- kar8nga has joined.
14:10:12 -!- ineiros has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
14:15:30 -!- MissPiggy has joined.
14:47:25 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
14:57:03 -!- coppro has quit (Quit: I am leaving. You are about to explode.).
15:30:11 -!- cpressey has joined.
15:36:49 <cpressey> So, I think I'm going to give up using the term "Turing-complete", since it is woefully ill-defined (except in recursive function theory, where it means something slightly different from "universal".)
15:37:11 <MissPiggy> yay!!
15:37:28 <MissPiggy> I tend to call things mu-recursive instead of turing complete, because I'm usually talking about functions
15:39:47 <cpressey> There's a whole space inside the intuitive notion of "Turing-complete" that *could* be formalized, but hardly anyone's doing it, and I have no idea why.
15:39:51 <cpressey> (a) Encoding (b) Input composition (c) Halting (d) Initial tape configuration
15:41:19 -!- FireFly has joined.
15:44:01 <MissPiggy> tell me about (c)?
15:44:28 <MissPiggy> also I think ais has done a little bit in terms of (a) and (d) hasn't he? with the 110 stuff
15:45:17 <fizzie> (aaway elsewherr
15:45:21 <fizzie> Graa.
15:45:25 <fizzie> I cannot type.
15:45:58 <Gregor> ais has caused holy wars over (d) :P
15:48:10 -!- oerjan has joined.
15:49:16 <MissPiggy> hehe
15:54:38 -!- ineiros has joined.
15:54:42 -!- ineiros has quit (Client Quit).
15:54:57 -!- ineiros has joined.
16:01:20 <cpressey> MissPiggy: short version about (c): Turing machines halt, Cellular automata don't, so for a CA to simulate a TC you need some way to recognize when it has reached a particular state and you can declare it's halted.
16:01:29 <cpressey> s/TC/TM/
16:01:46 <MissPiggy> turing machines halt ??
16:01:56 <cpressey> MissPiggy: Traditionally, yes. It's how they decide things!
16:01:57 <pikhq> Yes, Turing machines can halt.
16:02:22 <pikhq> Cellular automata don't, but can be said to "halt" when they come to a stable position.
16:03:24 <Gregor> Generally TMs halt by a designated "halt" state. The same is true of CA, but their halt state may take nonconstant time to recognize.
16:03:36 <cpressey> pikhq: Still, you need to be able to recognize that stable position, so from a complexity point of view, you need some sort of predicate that says "has this CA halted?" and I think the complexity of that predicate has to be taken into account when you start making claims about one system being "simpler" than another.
16:03:55 <Gregor> Erm, the same is true of CA when you're using them to calculate something: They go to a designated "halt" state. It just so happens that they continue on, because that designation is purely human :P
16:03:59 <MissPiggy> yeah inputing encoding for CAs is usually O(n) or worse too
16:04:16 <cpressey> Gregor: Right, equivalently, the "halted?" predicate is trivial for TMs.
16:04:23 <Gregor> Yup
16:04:47 <cpressey> Like the "what should the symbol on the next new cell of tape I use be?" function is also trivial for TMs, not so trivial for CAs that rely on pretty patterns throughout space.
16:05:25 <Gregor> However, the statement "Turing-complete" makes no argument about time complexity. So long as it takes non-infinite time to encode and recognize, it's still Turing complete. Or is that exactly what you're complaining about?
16:05:57 <cpressey> Gregor: No, I'm taking issue with certain mathematician's claims that their system is "simpler" here :)
16:06:04 <Gregor> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
16:06:30 <MissPiggy> aha
16:06:31 <cpressey> And trying, idly, to formalize all this machinery within the Wonderful World of TC
16:06:33 <Gregor> "Certain mathematicians" who shall remain nameless but obvious :P
16:06:39 <MissPiggy> so in summary: simpler shmimpler
16:07:12 <MissPiggy> locally nameless :D
16:07:36 <oerjan> para-nameless
16:08:23 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
16:09:40 <cpressey> And for the record, yesterday's exciting language L was raising the question about (b).
16:10:16 <MissPiggy> L was a real language??
16:10:22 <MissPiggy> I thuoght it was arbitrary
16:10:34 <pikhq> It was a language for the purpose of discussion.
16:10:58 <cpressey> Well, I was calling it L. But I just looked it up and there are apparently at least 3 "real" languages named L.
16:11:02 <cpressey> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_programming_language
16:11:13 -!- kar8nga has joined.
16:11:42 <cpressey> (my) L would be a good example of a pathological example of a language
16:11:52 <MissPiggy> what is your L?
16:11:57 <MissPiggy> sorry but I missed it yesterday
16:12:21 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
16:12:33 <pikhq> A language limited to implementing a Kibble interpreter.
16:12:35 <cpressey> L is a language in which all programs are illegal except one: an interpreter for <<insert your favourite Turing-complete language here>>.
16:13:13 -!- Gregor has set topic: RIP sun.com | 4 days since last ehird sighting | 2 days since last alise sighting | 203 days since last graue sighting | 14 days since last calamari sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
16:13:59 <MissPiggy> cpressey oooh hehe that's cool
16:14:24 -!- pikhq has set topic: RIP sun.com | 5 days since last ehird sighting | 3 days since last alise sighting | 204 days since last graue sighting | 15 days since last calamari sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
16:15:33 <cpressey> MissPiggy: Whether it's "TC" or not seems to depend on what you think about the role of input in determining that.
16:15:48 -!- oklopol has joined.
16:16:21 <cpressey> For every TM, I can come up with (some L program, some input) that simulates that TM. But I can't come up with just (some L program) that simulates the TM.
16:16:25 <Gregor> Too bad wget doesn't have an --ignore-robots.txt option :P
16:16:41 -!- zeotrope has quit (Quit: Lost terminal).
16:16:44 <pikhq> Gregor: Grab the source and add it. ;)
16:18:57 <Gregor> I can't mirror the logs :(
16:19:08 <pikhq> :(
16:19:12 <Gregor> I mean, I have my own logs, but that relies on my unreliable connection.
16:23:50 -!- oklopol has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
16:25:34 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Later).
16:45:48 <MissPiggy> yrh
16:46:05 -!- cheater has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
16:46:33 -!- cheater has joined.
16:46:37 <Ilari> Gregor: If filenames are predictable, call wget in loop?
16:47:22 <Gregor> Ilari: Bleh :P
16:49:28 <pikhq> Ilari: Dates are pretty predictable. ;)
16:55:43 <cpressey> I wonder if P != NP could be proved with a space complexity result, like: NP potentially generates more intermediate data than can possibly be processed in P.
16:55:50 -!- tombom has joined.
16:56:17 -!- cheater has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
16:56:32 <cpressey> But, oh god. Here I am complaining about the vagaries of "Turing-completeness", I completely forgot what hell with models of computation they have in complexity theory.
16:56:35 * cpressey shudders
16:56:47 -!- cheater has joined.
17:06:39 <Ilari> But then, how one proves lower bound for intermediate data generated?
17:07:13 <AnMaster> cpressey, did you reach any conclusion about the issue with L?
17:07:50 <AnMaster> I saw it discussed in scrollback but the it was quite far too long to read, and intermixed with other discussions
17:08:01 * AnMaster goes studying for a test
17:09:43 <cpressey> AnMaster: Whether L is "Turing-complete" or not seems to depend on what you think about the role of input in determining that. or every TM, I can come up with (some L program, some input) that simulates that TM. But I can't come up with just (some L program) that simulates the TM. I went looking and reached the conclusion that the term "Turing-complete" relies too much on intuition, so I'm going to try to avoid using
17:09:53 <cpressey> s/or/For/
17:10:06 <AnMaster> cpressey, but not all TC languages have input separate from the program itselfd
17:10:08 <AnMaster> itself*
17:10:15 <AnMaster> for example, that one ais proved
17:10:31 <cpressey> AnMaster: depend on how you define TC :)
17:10:35 <AnMaster> won some price from wolfram for it
17:10:38 <AnMaster> forgot what it was called
17:10:59 <AnMaster> ah yes:
17:11:04 <AnMaster> http://www.wolframscience.com/prizes/tm23/
17:11:38 <cpressey> AnMaster: I could say such languages are not Turing complete, because their programs don't define functions.
17:11:51 <cpressey> I'm not sure I *would*, but I *could* :)
17:11:52 <AnMaster> cpressey, but neither do UTMs!
17:11:53 <Gregor> Now fetching logs!
17:11:56 <Gregor> Muahahahaha
17:12:08 <cpressey> AnMaster: ? a UTM defines a function
17:12:13 <AnMaster> hm
17:12:30 <AnMaster> cpressey, depends on what exactly you mean by a function here
17:12:37 <AnMaster> cpressey, also, wasn't GOL proved TC?
17:12:45 <cpressey> AnMaster: maps some set of inputs to some set of outputs
17:12:54 <AnMaster> cpressey, well, what about game of life
17:13:00 <AnMaster> it is well established to be tc
17:13:24 <cpressey> AnMaster: Please understand, since I just decided that the term "Turing-complete" is not well-defined, I don't think that languages can be proved to be it or not.
17:13:53 <AnMaster> cpressey, then what exactly do we prove when when implement brainfuck or whatever in a given language
17:14:16 <AnMaster> (bf with infinite tape of course)
17:14:25 <Gregor> Maybe I'll stick the logs in hg, if it's not too big.
17:14:28 <cpressey> AnMaster: I don't know anymore :) We prove that brainfuck can be implemented in it, at least...
17:14:30 <Gregor> Which it will be :P
17:14:47 <AnMaster> cpressey, and a host of other languages, if those can be implemented in brainfuck
17:15:37 <AnMaster> like: a bignum-space befunge98 is able to implement a brainfuck interpreter with infinite tape
17:15:47 <cpressey> AnMaster: I'm sure it would be possible to prove it was TC if we could get a definition of TC that wasn't mostly intuitive. It would have to address several things, which I listed previously (encoding, halting, input composition, initial tape contents, maybe others)
17:16:28 <cpressey> Like: I think the term TC can be formalized, but I don't think it has been yet. I think there would probably be multiple formalizations, too.
17:16:40 <AnMaster> cpressey, able to implement an UTM in. And yes L is TC then. So we need a TC-not-bloody-silly one for practical purposes
17:16:54 <MissPiggy> hehe
17:17:05 * Gregor reappears mid-conversation.
17:17:08 <cpressey> AnMaster: right, or TC needs to be "split up" into a bunch of different properties (some of which imply others)
17:17:16 <Gregor> Is the problem with L's reduction that it results in a huge time complexity?
17:17:23 <AnMaster> Gregor, what?
17:17:43 <AnMaster> Gregor, L is scheme but with restrictions added so it can *only* implement an interpreter for another tc language
17:17:43 <cpressey> Gregor: No, no complexity or encoding issues that I'm aware of.
17:17:47 <AnMaster> a specific one
17:17:55 <cpressey> Gregor: It's an input issue.
17:18:00 <Gregor> Ah
17:18:01 <AnMaster> Gregor, thus, is L itself TC?
17:19:18 <cpressey> I should maybe put this all on the wiki at some point.
17:20:57 <AnMaster> cpressey, might be a good idea
17:21:17 <AnMaster> anyway, formalising TC might be stuff for a thesis
17:22:05 <cpressey> AnMaster: Sure, but what advisor in their right mind would let their student work on it? :)
17:23:31 <AnMaster> cpressey, none
17:28:22 -!- cal153 has joined.
17:38:10 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
17:43:07 <cpressey> <Ilari> But then, how one proves lower bound for intermediate data generated? <-- If I could answer that, I would be a million dollars richer :) But maybe you could prove all your nondeterministic "threads" would all be working on data that differs a lot from each other's... so much so that you can't compress it into a space that could be processed in P.
17:43:59 <cpressey> But they told me that these sorts of counting proofs don't work because they don't relativize.
17:47:17 <cpressey> Don't mind me, just going slightly nuts with boredom on my current "real" task.
17:49:35 <lament> NP=NP?
17:49:39 <AnMaster> cpressey, trying to prove P!=NP?
17:49:47 <cpressey> lament: That's what you think! :)
17:50:00 <cpressey> AnMaster: Not seriously.
17:50:09 <AnMaster> I didn't expect so
17:51:26 <AnMaster> cpressey, while you are at it, please prove or disprove the Riemann hypothesis
17:52:06 <lament> Done.
17:52:21 <lament> sorry, i'm not cpressey, but i won't show my proof so he has a chance at it, too
17:54:48 <AnMaster> XD
18:18:00 -!- kar8nga has joined.
18:38:34 <cpressey> Also going unnamed today shall be certain researchers who think Literate Programming was invented to enable separate compilation...
18:43:22 -!- cheater2 has joined.
18:50:30 <AnMaster> cpressey, huh? What is that even supposed to mean
18:55:01 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving).
18:55:35 -!- FireFly has joined.
18:56:25 <cpressey> AnMaster: Nothing, really.
18:57:35 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Quit: co'o rodo).
18:58:06 <cpressey> As an alternative, I could have said "Hm, this Python code shows you can program Perl in any language"
19:04:12 <cpressey> I'm starting to wonder if I wouldn't prefer "deep magic" that is at least *documented*, over "light magic" that is purely ad-hoc
19:10:15 -!- FireFly has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
19:10:45 -!- FireFly has joined.
19:13:16 <AnMaster> cpressey, is that perl or python criticism?
19:13:53 <cpressey> AnMaster: Python criticism, I guess.
19:14:03 <AnMaster> cpressey, what specific python thing?
19:14:07 <cpressey> Or criticism about how it's being used.
19:15:31 <cpressey> Despite the fact that the language offers you fairly decent classes and objects -- the data is a bunch of values, stuck in dicts, sometimes stuck into other dicts, sometimes with computed keys.
19:15:52 <AnMaster> cpressey, what about that __slots__ thing?
19:16:12 <AnMaster> of course *that* is very ad-hoc
19:16:38 <cpressey> I know of it's existence, but I've never used it, or even seen it used, yet.
19:16:47 <AnMaster> cpressey, I have seen it used, and I have used it
19:17:42 <AnMaster> cpressey, on the other hand I have both seen __attribute((regparms)) (or whatever the spelling was, maybe singular?), and used it
19:18:30 <AnMaster> it makes a difference on x86 for cfunge. From something like 0.054 seconds (wall clock with time) to 0.041 seconds.
19:19:05 <AnMaster> (average over 30 runs each, first run for each removed for caching handling)
19:19:21 <AnMaster> that was on mycology, forgot to mention that
19:19:42 <AnMaster> and it was run on a sempron 3300+ (at 2 GHz), with 1.5 GB RAM
19:20:00 <AnMaster> it goes faster on my thinkpad (which has core 2 duo at 2.66 GHz)
19:24:46 <Gregor> Bleh, the .hg directory for the logs is 37MB.
19:24:58 <Gregor> So, I won't be providing a hg-able #esoteric log :P
19:25:38 <cpressey> Damn. There goes my business plan.
19:27:59 -!- Gregor has set topic: RIP sun.com | 5 days since last ehird sighting | 3 days since last alise sighting | 204 days since last graue sighting | 15 days since last calamari sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | 2224 days since last sleon|tuX sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
19:29:46 <Gregor> lawl, did whoever join as sexygirl153 on 2010-01-20 do that after reading the logs from 2004-01-09? :P
19:30:20 <cal153> that's just my alt name
19:31:56 <Gregor> But was it on 2004-01-09, before you ever came here? :P
19:32:42 <cal153> yup
19:33:17 <cal153> i'm still the same person
19:33:30 <Gregor> That means you have the greatest longevity of anybody on this channel excluding lament, so long as you consider longevity to be latest_time - earliest_time
19:33:34 <lament> 2004, so long ago
19:33:48 <lament> ah, to be young again
19:33:52 <Gregor> lol
19:33:56 <cal153> was on the mailing list long before that :)
19:34:23 -!- tombom_ has joined.
19:34:43 <lament> it's too bad the mailing list died
19:36:15 <cal153> yeah :(
19:36:46 <SimonRC> oh man
19:37:16 <SimonRC> msysgit (Git for Windows) comes with about half of unix
19:37:28 <Gregor> Presumably msys :P
19:38:35 -!- tombom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
19:41:12 <AnMaster> what Gregor said yeah
19:44:17 <SimonRC> I've used Cygwin, but I'd never heard of msys before
19:44:37 <olsner> if msys is half of unix, cygwin is an entire unix
19:45:27 <lament> msysgit also has a huge bug in it where 'git status' doesn't work properly
19:45:42 <lament> it reports files as being different when their timestamps are different
19:45:53 <olsner> lament: set core.filemode to false?
19:46:18 <olsner> msysgit can't set the executable bit on files, so it reads them back and sees "oh, different mode!"
19:46:38 <lament> why does it need the executable bit?
19:46:49 <olsner> but you can set the flag to make it ignore file mode differences
19:47:32 <pikhq> olsner: Cygwin essentially is an entire UNIX, y'know.
19:47:34 <lament> i don't think this is about file mode
19:47:39 <pikhq> A very odd one, but hey.
19:47:47 <lament> i think it actually reports them as being different based on timestamp alone
19:47:47 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
19:49:56 <olsner> pikhq: yah, that's what I said :P
19:51:27 <fizzie> The logs in the topic don't exactly start from when the channel does.
19:52:06 <fizzie> My #esoteric logs start at 2002-12-14, for example.
19:53:46 <lament> yeah at some point whatshisname came in and offered to log us
19:53:51 <lament> whatshisname
19:54:04 <lament> if i actually mention his name, he'll probably get notified about it
19:54:09 <lament> but i don't remember it anyway
19:54:14 <fizzie> He who shall not be named.
19:54:19 <Gregor> fizzie: I don't suppose you can send me some pre-2004 logs? ^^
19:54:43 <fizzie> I don't see why not, I gave those to ehird too.
19:54:51 <fizzie> Let's see if I have them somewhere downloadable already.
19:55:12 <lament> his name isn't bef, what is it?
19:55:14 <lament> cnf?
19:55:42 <fizzie> I'm not sure where I have the pre-2002-12-14 logs; these start from when I got irssi running on a sparc box.
19:58:22 <fizzie> There's some 2003 logs from http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/old/
19:58:44 <fizzie> lament: [2003-01-18 02:49:02] < hcf> lament: would you like clog to log #esoteric?
19:59:48 <fizzie> That's about when the "old logs" there start; I only have a few days worth of logs saved before that. I wonder where the even older ones would be.
20:00:59 <Gregor> Oh, looka there, didn't know those were there.
20:01:10 <fizzie> The link's on top of the new-logs dir.
20:01:28 <Gregor> Boy, I sure do ignore stuff :P
20:02:11 <lament> oh, hcf
20:02:18 <AnMaster> <olsner> pikhq: yah, that's what I said :P <-- it sounded like you were disputing that msys was half of unix by using cygwin as a parallel
20:02:37 <fizzie> Oh, there's my pre 2002-12-14 ones... but that didn't help much, since I seem to have joined the channel on Mon Dec 09 07:24:10 2002. At least lament and dbc were already on-channel at that time.
20:02:59 <AnMaster> <lament> yeah at some point whatshisname came in and offered to log us <-- the one behind tunes?
20:03:02 <lament> it would be pretty odd if i weren't on the channel
20:03:04 <lament> AnMaster: yes
20:03:13 <lament> well, i dunno what their relationship is
20:03:19 <Gregor> lament: I don't suppose you have the logs from the beginning? :P
20:03:24 <lament> no
20:03:35 <lament> i think i even used mIRC then :)
20:03:39 <Gregor> D-8
20:03:53 <lament> and didn't own a computer
20:04:20 <AnMaster> Gregor, putting up those logs would be cool however. If not by hg at least as a browsable dir (maybe plaintext searchable too?)
20:04:36 <AnMaster> especially for the older logs
20:04:53 <olsner> AnMaster: oh, right... I meant what pikhq said
20:04:58 <AnMaster> I only have logs since 2006 (with a gap too, due to a rm gone bad)
20:05:01 -!- Gregor has set topic: RIP sun.com | 5 days since last ehird sighting | 3 days since last alise sighting | 204 days since last graue sighting | 15 days since last calamari sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | 2224 days since last sleon|tuX sighting | 2581 days since last hcf sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
20:05:30 -!- AnMaster has set topic: RIP sun.com | 0 day since last topic change | 5 days since last ehird sighting | 3 days since last alise sighting | 204 days since last graue sighting | 15 days since last calamari sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | 2224 days since last sleon|tuX sighting | 2581 days since last hcf sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
20:05:35 -!- AnMaster has set topic: RIP sun.com | 0 days since last topic change | 5 days since last ehird sighting | 3 days since last alise sighting | 204 days since last graue sighting | 15 days since last calamari sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | 2224 days since last sleon|tuX sighting | 2581 days since last hcf sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
20:05:37 <AnMaster> even
20:05:37 <olsner> but forgot to point out that cygwin was a study in unix teratology
20:05:43 <AnMaster> also
20:05:51 <AnMaster> that can only be correct for 0 days
20:06:06 <olsner> depends on rounding
20:06:07 <AnMaster> whenever it is to be updated it would be to 0 days immediately
20:07:15 -!- MissPiggy has set topic: RIP sun.com | 0 days since last topic change | 3 days since last alise sighting | 5 days since last ehird sighting | 15 days since last calamari sighting | 204 days since last graue sighting | 1158 days since last kipple sighting | 2224 days since last sleon|tuX sighting | 2581 days since last hcf sighting | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
20:07:46 <AnMaster> MissPiggy, what was the change?
20:08:05 <MissPiggy> sorting
20:08:07 <AnMaster> ah
20:08:15 <lament> in reverse psychological order?
20:08:20 <AnMaster> who is alise btw?
20:08:23 <Gregor> Now pushing the #esoteric logs to a publicly-accessible repo.
20:08:27 <Gregor> AnMaster: alise = ehird
20:08:31 <AnMaster> ah
20:08:51 <AnMaster> why different ones for that alias and ehird
20:09:04 <Gregor> https://codu.org/projects/esotericlogs/hg/ will have the logs eventually.
20:09:05 <fizzie> It's always so confusing with multiple-named people; it took me so long to even grok the scarf-ais identity.
20:09:07 <lament> how many days since last dbc fractal sighting
20:09:39 <AnMaster> fizzie, same
20:09:40 <lament> how many since last aardappel sighting?
20:09:53 <AnMaster> fizzie, at least some of them you know change nick all the time
20:10:11 <AnMaster> impomatic wasn't it?
20:10:16 <AnMaster> whatever his current nick is
20:10:17 <fizzie> lament: My logs have some interruptions in them, but the latest dbc fractal in them seems to be from 2005-03-04.
20:10:32 <AnMaster> fizzie, dbc fractal?
20:11:12 <fizzie> AnMaster: See http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/05.03.04
20:11:47 <AnMaster> heh
20:12:09 <fizzie> I'm missing the whole of January-March 2008, though; I got disconnected for some reason and forgot to rejoin.
20:12:11 <AnMaster> Gregor, btw, ever heard about "Heitor Villa-Lobos"? Composer. Some very good music (IMO).
20:12:19 <fizzie> Also April 2006.
20:12:38 <fizzie> Might've been more recent dbc fractals during those times.
20:13:18 <AnMaster> Gregor, worth checking out on youtube (I assume it is there, I have it on CD...): "Bachianas Brasilerias No. 1: I. Introdução (Embolada)"
20:13:29 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
20:16:32 <Gregor> I've heard of Villa-Lobos, yes.
20:16:38 <AnMaster> Gregor, okay
20:17:47 <AnMaster> as usual the cds are missing from musicbrainz, meaning I get no track titles in vlc
20:27:50 <cpressey> That's my fault. I stole them. (I like shiny things.)
20:29:50 <Sgeo_> I just got my Google Buzz thingy, and 3 people are already following me
20:30:25 <Sgeo_> Two of whom I'm already following, despite not having chosen to do so
20:31:29 <AnMaster> google buzz?
20:31:32 <Sgeo_> How do I hide a .. thingy?
20:31:33 <AnMaster> what the heck is that?
20:31:43 -!- MizardX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
20:31:46 <Sgeo_> http://www.google.com/buzz
20:31:48 <AnMaster> Sgeo_, put it under something that is large enough to cover it?
20:32:10 <AnMaster> okay, twitter on stereoids. And in beta.
20:32:20 <AnMaster> steroids*
20:32:38 <Sgeo_> I'm going to watch SG-1 now
20:33:05 <AnMaster> Sgeo_, did my hint for hiding things help?
20:33:13 <Sgeo_> no
20:33:18 <Gregor> hg push of 37MB = no fun :P
20:33:31 <AnMaster> Sgeo_, strange. Try putting it in the attic then?
20:33:56 <AnMaster> Gregor, depends
20:33:58 * cpressey starts writing an Attic plugin for mercurial
20:34:00 <AnMaster> what sort of connection?
20:34:09 <AnMaster> cpressey, heh?
20:34:15 <cpressey> AnMaster: CVS joke!
20:34:21 <AnMaster> cpressey, oh ffs
20:34:23 <Gregor> AnMaster: Cable, while simultaneously torrenting :P
20:34:30 <AnMaster> I had almost successfully managed to forget cvs
20:34:32 <AnMaster> :/
20:34:45 <Gregor> I use only SCCS.
20:34:54 <AnMaster> what one is that now again?
20:34:58 <AnMaster> some weird one isn't it?
20:35:04 <AnMaster> at least it isn't monotone
20:35:08 <Gregor> The first
20:35:29 <AnMaster> Gregor, so: sccs -> rcs -> cvs?
20:35:39 <AnMaster> or is that timeline way off?
20:36:14 <Gregor> AnMaster: 's about right.
20:36:32 <AnMaster> Gregor, interesting. Don't you need a noun before "'s"?
20:37:06 <Gregor> I speak ... COLLOQUIALLY!
20:42:19 <AnMaster> Gregor, what? I thought it was for OS X only? ;P
20:42:27 -!- MizardX has joined.
20:53:18 -!- tombom_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
20:53:32 -!- tombom_ has joined.
20:55:38 <Gregor> I wish hg {push,pull} had some kind of status reporting.
20:56:03 <Gregor> I should've used scp to get the first version pushed.
20:56:36 <Deewiant> Use git
20:56:53 <AnMaster> Gregor, like bzr does?
20:56:58 <AnMaster> bzr shows a progress bar
20:57:01 <AnMaster> :)
20:57:24 <AnMaster> Deewiant, I don't remember git showing a progress bar
20:57:25 <Gregor> Must be nice. Now if only everything ELSE about bzr wasn't so utterly confusing as to be insufferable.
20:57:36 <Gregor> Neither do I :P
20:57:38 <Deewiant> Progress bars are pointless
20:57:47 <AnMaster> Deewiant, why? because git doesn't have them?
20:57:47 <Deewiant> git shows the status numerically
20:57:54 <Deewiant> Because they don't tell me anything
20:58:05 <AnMaster> you git fanboys are even worse than mac fanboys
20:58:08 <Gregor> Well, showing status at all is the point.
20:58:12 <Sgeo_> What about darcs?
20:58:18 <AnMaster> Deewiant, there is also numerical info
20:58:19 <Deewiant> Too often the most time is spent at the last 5% of the progress bar
20:58:22 <AnMaster> next to that progress bar
20:58:49 <AnMaster> Gregor, anyway, just use tcpdump to check what it is doing
20:58:53 <AnMaster> ;P
20:59:02 <Gregor> AnMaster: So helpful :P
20:59:17 <AnMaster> Gregor, presumably it is tunnelled through ssl or ssh?
20:59:21 <AnMaster> so yeah, very helpful
20:59:32 <Gregor> SSL, yes.
20:59:46 <AnMaster> bzr you generally tunnel though ssh
20:59:52 <Gregor> Aha!
20:59:57 <Gregor> 's done
21:00:02 <AnMaster> as in, the bzr+ssh protocol
21:00:15 <Gregor> https://codu.org/projects/esotericlogs/hg/ If you hg clone this, I /will/ kill you :P
21:00:15 <AnMaster> (that is the way you give the "url" to bzr)
21:00:47 <AnMaster> Gregor, what about fizzie's old logs? were they merged into there?
21:00:53 <Gregor> He never gave 'em to me.
21:01:03 <AnMaster> fizzie, *prod*
21:01:19 <AnMaster> Gregor, are they merged into a common log file format or such?
21:01:29 <Gregor> All of these are straight off tunes.org
21:01:37 <FireFly> All right, I'll be nice and won't clone it
21:01:45 <AnMaster> Gregor, we wouldn't want dupes
21:01:51 <Gregor> <FireFly> I'll just hg init and hg pull!
21:02:01 <FireFly> :P
21:02:12 <Gregor> AnMaster: If somebody wants to write a clever log merger, I'll be glad to merge logs into my repo :P
21:02:12 <FireFly> But I'll snatch the fetch script
21:02:18 <AnMaster> Gregor, what is dpm() for in that shell script in there?
21:02:25 <Gregor> Days Per Month
21:02:25 <AnMaster> Gregor, maybe
21:02:27 <AnMaster> ah
21:02:37 <Gregor> Which I wrote stupidly :)
21:02:45 <AnMaster> Gregor, what about leap years?
21:02:53 <AnMaster> you are missing out on log files there
21:03:01 <AnMaster> oh wait
21:03:02 <Gregor> Look at what dpm returns for February.
21:03:04 <AnMaster> you always try 29
21:03:06 <AnMaster> heh
21:03:53 <AnMaster> Gregor, btw, about leap years see http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/bldyk2.htm
21:04:05 <Gregor> That fetch script, btw, is intended to be run straight out of cron, at least once a week.
21:04:21 <fizzie> Uh, well, I didn't think it was so important, since my logs have just a couple of weeks of not-very-active talk. But they're at http://zem.fi/~fis/eso/ anyway, if someone wants to understanderate the format.
21:04:26 <pikhq> b
21:04:48 <AnMaster> fizzie, looks similar to xchat's format?
21:05:13 <AnMaster> could be irssi
21:05:14 <fizzie> It should be the irssi default except with YYYY-MM-DD added in the timestamp.
21:05:19 <Gregor> AnMaster: Luckily, #esoteric didn't exist in 1712 Sweden.
21:06:09 <AnMaster> Gregor, yeah
21:06:53 <fizzie> Are you sure that's "luckily" and not "unfortunately"? Think what sort of world-shaking innovations there would be, had this sort of thing been going on since 1712.
21:07:10 <AnMaster> hah
21:07:34 <AnMaster> fizzie, clearly it would have been about esoteric wood carving or something back then
21:07:42 <AnMaster> or maybe iron making
21:08:04 <cpressey> Oh pfft, like this hasn't been the official hobby of the Illuminati since they landed on this planet in ancient Egypt
21:08:23 <AnMaster> hehe
21:12:16 <Gregor> Gee, apparently fizzie was fizzies back then.
21:12:37 <Gregor> Also, calamari predates time more than I'd realized.
21:12:51 <fizzie> The "s" suffix was just a temporary thing for the sparc box.
21:12:56 <Gregor> Oh, dbc is still here too, just never talks.
21:13:27 <cpressey> Much like mtve.
21:13:30 <fizzie> If we go even further back (to 1997 or thereabouts), I used to be "Fizzle", though; and then (briefly) "Fizzie", and then lowercased.
21:13:32 <Gregor> Did absolutely nothing happen from 2002-12-15 to 2003-01-03? :P
21:13:54 <fizzie> Hmm, those parts might be in a different log.
21:15:43 <fizzie> Gregor: See http://zem.fi/~fis/eso/more-days.log -- but you'd have to splice that into the other files in the correct order for optimum performance.
21:17:08 <Gregor> Isn't there a chatterbot newer than MegaHAL that's F/OSS >_>
21:17:28 <AnMaster> fizzie, was that in #esoteric ?
21:17:30 <AnMaster> in 1997?
21:17:38 <AnMaster> did freenode even exist back then?
21:18:58 -!- GreaseMonkey has joined.
21:19:09 <fizzie> No, that was elsewhere.
21:19:17 <AnMaster> fizzie, "optimum performance"?
21:19:24 <AnMaster> fizzie, when was #esoteric founded?
21:19:46 <fizzie> -ChanServ- Registered : Jan 03 01:30:22 2003 (7 years, 5 weeks, 5 days, 19:48:54 ago)
21:20:39 <fizzie> I have a feeling the idea of the channel started from the mailing list talk, but I'm not sure. I think that more-days.log starts from the time I first joined here.
21:23:42 <lament> it was discussed on the mailing list, i think someone even created the channel on efnet, but i suggested moving it to openprojects (which later became freenode)
21:30:43 <Gregor> Now training a megahal from #esoteric logs :P
21:30:56 <Gregor> (Deja vu? Yes, I have done this before)
21:32:04 <MissPiggy> megahal?
21:32:11 <MissPiggy> what abut fungot
21:32:12 <fungot> MissPiggy: i knew it was a joke
21:32:19 <MissPiggy> what's so funny about it?
21:32:26 <MissPiggy> you are being replaced??
21:32:37 <Gregor> No, I'm just having some giggly fun :P
21:32:54 <Gregor> It's choking on dbc's fractals >_<
21:37:51 <MissPiggy> ascii frctals?
21:37:52 -!- kar8nga has joined.
21:39:14 <Gregor> MissPiggy: See http://codu.org/projects/esotericlogs/hg/index.cgi/file/tip/03.01.21
21:41:22 <MissPiggy> very nice
21:50:49 <lament> heh, that log has a rare exarkun sighting
22:12:34 <AnMaster> 55 02:12:04 <fizzie> ah, re befunge, just wrote an interpreter with forth. so our unofficial befunge-interpreters-in-obsolete-but-non-esoteric-languages project now has forth, fortran-77, algol-60, plus few less interesting ones. maybe should do cobol next.
22:12:38 <AnMaster> fizzie, ^ interesting
22:12:42 <AnMaster> have it around still?
22:13:09 <AnMaster> also ehird will kill you when he finds out you called forth for "obsolete"
22:13:22 <AnMaster> and: did you ever do the cobol one?
22:14:09 <fizzie> I didn't do cobol; and I guess "obsolete" was not a good word choice there.
22:14:22 <fizzie> But yes, I think I still have the forth version.
22:14:44 <fizzie> It's not very elegant, though.
22:18:01 <AnMaster> fizzie, 93 or 98?
22:18:26 <fizzie> 93.
22:18:35 <AnMaster> ah
22:18:44 <tombom_> aggh cobol
22:19:04 <tombom_> my first programming language was cobol
22:19:08 <tombom_> it was not a good choicwe
22:19:21 <AnMaster> tombom_, my first one was AppleScript
22:19:47 <AnMaster> then followed by delphi, then C#, then lots of other (and saner) languages, such as bash, C and what not
22:19:55 <AnMaster> erlang and lisp too
22:20:00 <AnMaster> (that came quite a bit later)
22:20:24 <tombom_> i think all these are saner than cobol
22:20:26 <tombom_> maybe not bash
22:20:39 <AnMaster> ...
22:20:42 <AnMaster> bash is quite sane
22:20:45 <AnMaster> I like it
22:20:55 <AnMaster> tombom_, I wrote a modular irc bot in it
22:21:00 <AnMaster> should be connected here currently
22:21:00 <tombom_> why
22:21:02 <AnMaster> as envbot
22:21:06 <tombom_> that's dumb
22:21:09 <AnMaster> ...
22:21:10 <AnMaster> why not
22:21:23 <tombom_> because you could have done it in a more sensible language
22:21:30 <AnMaster> tombom_, ah yes, brainfuck
22:21:35 <AnMaster> or intercal
22:21:37 <tombom_> yeah exactly
22:21:44 <tombom_> is there a networking brainfuck anyway
22:21:55 <AnMaster> well befunge has networking
22:21:56 <AnMaster> ^source
22:21:57 <fungot> http://git.zem.fi/fungot/blob/HEAD:/fungot.b98
22:22:04 <AnMaster> befunge98 that is
22:22:15 <AnMaster> tombom_, you could hook it up to netcat, socat, gnutls-cli or similar
22:22:32 <AnMaster> fizzie, hm, I wonder if I should add a SSL fingerprint, now that freenode supports that
22:22:39 <AnMaster> ssl that is
22:22:46 <tombom_> befunge is more interesting
22:23:08 <AnMaster> tombom_, also, then you might as well call IOCCC stupid
22:23:53 <tombom_> it's not so much that it's stupid, it's just that writing an irc bot in bash is just annoying enough to be painful and just normal enough not to be very interesting
22:23:55 <AnMaster> tombom_, btw are you new here? Or just an idler?
22:23:57 <tombom_> i dunno, maybe just me
22:23:59 <tombom_> idler
22:24:16 <AnMaster> also, it is fun to do it
22:24:45 <AnMaster> it is connecter as envbot as I said. Try /msg envbot -commands
22:24:47 <tombom_> i suppose i'm the stupid one here really
22:24:55 <AnMaster> tombom_, well, didn't say that
22:25:14 <tombom_> no i know i just mean it's a bit silly for me to be criticisng how other people choose to use their time
22:25:25 <AnMaster> tombom_, but, basically no one else have a exactly the same bot
22:25:37 <AnMaster> I mean, eggdrop or supybot? there are loads of them
22:25:41 <AnMaster> this is quite unique
22:25:44 <AnMaster> also it is open source
22:25:50 <AnMaster> so well, someone else *might* use it
22:25:51 <AnMaster> no idea
22:25:58 <AnMaster> not that I know at least
22:26:08 <tombom_> what's unique about it?
22:31:14 <AnMaster> tombom_, compared to?
22:31:22 <AnMaster> well, no one has exactly the same
22:31:32 <tombom_> oh right
22:31:58 <AnMaster> tombom_, also it used to have an interface for searching in the package manager on gentoo. Doesn't work any more since I switched distro
22:32:04 <AnMaster> and I'm not really developing on it any more
22:32:25 <AnMaster> would have to code a new one for arch linux
22:32:58 -!- tombom_ has quit (Quit: Leaving).
22:44:43 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
23:05:34 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving).
23:10:36 -!- coppro has joined.
23:13:35 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
23:21:49 <cpressey> I don't suppose there's any way to just derive a lazy generator for values of an algebraic data type in Haskell?
23:22:09 <cpressey> Like if I have: data Tree = Leaf | Branch Tree Tree
23:22:55 <cpressey> Something that will give me the list: [Leaf, Branch Leaf Leaf, Branch Leaf (Branch Leaf Leaf), Branch (Branch Leaf Leaf) Leaf, Branch (Branch Leaf Leaf) (Branch Leaf Leaf), ...]
23:23:32 <MissPiggy> cpressey yes you can
23:23:35 <MissPiggy> oh wait
23:23:42 <MissPiggy> no there isn't
23:24:04 <cpressey> Drat. Oh well.
23:25:00 <MissPiggy> something like trees = return Leaf ++ Branch <$> trees <*> trees will not work either
23:25:04 <MissPiggy> because the list monad is not fair
23:25:38 <MissPiggy> nicer syntax.. (| Leaf |) ++ (| Branch trees trees |)
23:25:46 <MissPiggy> I might even have the other one wrong
23:27:22 -!- oerjan has joined.
23:38:19 -!- SimonRC has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
23:38:39 -!- SimonRC has joined.
23:54:23 -!- Asztal has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds).
←2010-02-09 2010-02-10 2010-02-11→ ↑2010 ↑all