←2010-03-03 2010-03-04 2010-03-05→ ↑2010 ↑all
00:00:00 <MissPiggy> this basically disproved time travel
00:00:16 <alise> [23:58] MissPiggy: but it would just be duplicating me, and destroying the original
00:00:16 <alise> all the cells in your body are replaced etc
00:00:17 <alise> alternatively
00:00:18 <alise> samething
00:00:30 <alise> also, no it did not disprove time travel, physics did
00:00:50 <MissPiggy> anyway
00:01:13 <uorygl> The duplicating-and-destroying argument has absolutely nothing to do with disproving something that appears to be time travel.
00:01:25 <Gregor> Our current understanding of physics does not predict the physical possibility of time travel ... that is not the same as disproving it.
00:02:13 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
00:03:36 <pikhq> The way to disprove time travel is to conclusively show that a) our knowledge of physics precludes all forms of time travel b) our knowledge of physics is entirely perfect.
00:04:00 <Gregor> The "b" part is the nonsense part :)
00:04:07 <uorygl> Well, part b) is the easy part.
00:04:19 <pikhq> ... No.
00:04:22 <uorygl> Derive all our knowledge of chemistry from our knowledge of physics.
00:04:27 <pikhq> Part b is impossible.
00:04:30 <uorygl> Boom! You've proved our knowledge of physics correct.
00:04:42 <uorygl> Part b) is about as impossible as proving that Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
00:04:43 <alise> Not /all/ of it.
00:04:44 <Gregor> uorygl: No, you've proved our knowledge of physics consistent with our knowledge of chemistry.
00:04:51 <cpressey> Or that our knowledge of chemistry is flawed
00:05:23 <pikhq> You need to demonstrate that our knowledge of physics is consistent with the universe.
00:06:02 <uorygl> Suppose we have a small set of rules that predicts a huge set of results.
00:06:03 <pikhq> In its entirety.
00:06:14 <Gregor> Which means you need to enumerate all infinity physical possibilities and bring them to pass. You need to destroy the universe by every means that the universe can be destroyed, and oh wait hm that last one was a problem.
00:06:20 <pikhq> Then it can predict those results.
00:06:25 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
00:06:44 <pikhq> And we will be happy to use them to predict others. However, we have not proven those other results.
00:06:51 <pikhq> We merely assume them.
00:06:52 <uorygl> Um, let my try again.
00:08:59 <uorygl> Suppose that we have a complete theory of physics, and a huge body of data about chemistry. The body of data about chemistry is much, much larger than the theory of physics. And the complete theory of physics completely predicts that huge body of data. As long as you can be confident that no other complete theory of physics also predicts this body of data, you can be confident that the theory of physics is correct.
00:09:16 <MissPiggy> ut the data hand't been correleated in all possible ways yet
00:09:23 <MissPiggy> and eternity passed..
00:09:30 <uorygl> Why would we want to do this?
00:09:41 <uorygl> We don't care about absolute proof.
00:09:44 <MissPiggy> And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.
00:09:48 -!- FireyFly has joined.
00:09:54 <uorygl> We care about very, very strong proof.
00:10:00 -!- FireyFly has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
00:10:10 <pikhq> That's not a proof.
00:10:32 <pikhq> You have either proven something or disproven something. There are no degrees.
00:10:33 <Gregor> We care about very, very strong evidence.
00:10:41 <oerjan> uorygl: chemistry involves mainly things composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. these are composed of less than a third of the elementary particles already known to physics (electron, up and down quark)
00:10:45 <uorygl> Yes, we care about very, very strong evidence.
00:10:56 <pikhq> And it is certainly possible to have very strong evidence that something cannot happen.
00:11:04 <pikhq> This is entirely different from "proving it cannot happen".
00:11:10 <cpressey> Never mind that the physics required to explain chemical reactions bears little resemblance to the physics required to explain orbits of planets.
00:11:27 <oerjan> so chemistry only tests a small part of the fundamental theory
00:11:36 <Gregor> I, personally, feel that we have little enough evidence against time travel that even a colloquial use of the term "disprove" is wildly overzealous.
00:12:02 <coppro> we do not have any evidence against time travel generally
00:12:06 <MissPiggy> She uses the word “algebra” broadly, defining it as a “method of solving problems by honest confession of one’s ignorance”.
00:12:10 <pikhq> Gregor: Indeed.
00:12:12 <uorygl> I might argue that chemical properties are an extremely sensitive function of physical constants.
00:12:15 <uorygl> But maybe they're not.
00:12:19 <coppro> however we lack any good theory of time travel that current models would allow
00:12:20 <pikhq> We actually just plain don't know enough to rule it out.
00:12:38 <pikhq> coppro: We also lack comprehensive models.
00:12:44 <uorygl> I sort of wonder what a "proof" is if it's not just very, very strong evidence.
00:12:48 <oerjan> uorygl: it would be like claiming you knew everything about C++ from just knowing the subset in common with C
00:12:49 <coppro> of course we do
00:13:03 <coppro> if we had a comprehensive model, physics would be boring
00:13:07 <cpressey> MissPiggy: Where are you getting this from? Sounds like lit-crit mumbo-jumbo
00:13:30 <uorygl> oerjan: yes, I understand what you're saying. One of my conditions was "as long as you can be confident that no other complete theory of physics also predicts this body of data".
00:13:34 <pikhq> uorygl: See mathematical proofs.
00:13:52 <MissPiggy> cpressey, it's about the book philosophy and fun of algebra
00:13:58 <cpressey> I am confident that no other program computes THIS algorithm!
00:14:02 <uorygl> And when I say "no other complete theory of physics", I mean "no other complete theory of physics that's nearly as simple".
00:14:16 -!- alise has quit (Quit: alise).
00:14:17 <uorygl> And by "other", I mean "different", as in "predicting different things".
00:14:21 <Gregor> uorygl: "Proof" is meaningful only when something can be comprehensively reduced to something else. That is, proof is contextual. It may be possible to prove that our understanding of chemistry is consistent with our understanding of physics, but this proof gives us little, as its utility is dependent on the proof of physics, which we have nothing to reduce to.
00:14:31 <uorygl> pikhq: so are "proof" and "mathematical proof" the same thing?
00:14:41 <pikhq> If he's not back in $soon, I'll worry.
00:14:51 <cpressey> No, but Hume a few bars and I'll fake it!
00:14:56 <cpressey> /rimshot
00:15:02 <Gregor> Colloquially, "proof" just means "very strong evidence" of course, but we're talking about theoretical physics, this is not a colloquial conversation.
00:15:35 <pikhq> uorygl: In any sane formal context, yes.
00:16:11 <cpressey> Prove that the sun will come up tomorrow.
00:16:15 <pikhq> And as we all know, you can't actually prove anything about reality with math. Just something about a nice formal system.
00:16:24 <cpressey> Alternately, make yourself sick worrying that it won't.
00:16:30 <uorygl> cpressey: easy.
00:16:35 <Gregor> cpressey: I sincerely hope it won't, the physical ramifications of the sun moving in such a fashion are horrifying.
00:16:44 <coppro> no physical theory is proven
00:17:02 <uorygl> cpressey: it has come up every day for the past 1,000,000,000,000 days. We have no good reason to expect that it won't come up tomorrow. Therefore, it will come up tomorrow.
00:17:04 <Gregor> cpressey: Now, if you mean that the Earth will rotate such that from my perspective the sun's position on the horizon rises, that's a different request.
00:17:12 <MissPiggy> what about elecrtroonics
00:17:12 <pikhq> uorygl: Failure.
00:17:27 <coppro> Gregor: I argue that it does, in fact, rise
00:17:29 <Gregor> uorygl: You've been around for a trillion days? Impressive.
00:17:33 <MissPiggy> uorygl that is such a fail argument
00:17:47 <Gregor> (I'm merely poking the most obvious of holes in that argument :P )
00:17:49 <coppro> and the other planets rotate the sun as it rotates Earth
00:17:49 <pikhq> uorygl: A lack of a proof against is not a proof for.
00:17:51 <MissPiggy> induction just doesn't work that way
00:18:00 <cpressey> Well, every bird I've ever seen has been black. Therefore, all birds are black.
00:18:05 <uorygl> What do you mean, induction doesn't work that way? That's precisely how induction works.
00:18:06 <Gregor> coppro: There is no global definition of "up"
00:18:12 <MissPiggy> you build an explanation of something which doesn't have variables
00:18:12 <pikhq> uorygl: No it's not.
00:18:15 <uorygl> cpressey: you've seen 1,000,000,000,000 birds?
00:18:20 <MissPiggy> if it fits wear is
00:18:20 <uorygl> pikhq: how do you think it works, then?
00:18:22 <Gregor> coppro: Erm, "global" is a bad term to use ...
00:18:22 <MissPiggy> it*
00:18:23 <coppro> Gregor: nothing is defined globally
00:18:27 <cpressey> uorygl: You've seen 1,000,000,000,000 sunrises?
00:18:35 <coppro> one of the great things of physics
00:18:44 <cpressey> Even better: birds have two wings. Therefore, if a bird loses a wing, it's no longer a bird.
00:19:14 <MissPiggy> what *is* a bird ?
00:19:18 <cpressey> Well, it;'s not the bird it used to be, anyway.
00:19:19 <Gregor> How much of a sapiens' brain do I have to scoop out before it's no longer a sapiens? :)
00:19:27 <uorygl> Okay, here's a better argument.
00:19:33 <MissPiggy> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfvEgWINUFc <-- tries to answer that question
00:19:47 <coppro> nah, the old one is fine
00:19:54 <pikhq> uorygl: I think it works by showing that some statement x in an infinite sequence is true, and that *if any statement in that infinite sequence is true*, then so is the next one.
00:19:54 <uorygl> The Sun has come up every day for the past 1,000,000 days. We have no good reason to expect it won't come up tomorrow. Therefore, it will come up tomorrow.
00:20:06 <uorygl> pikhq: that's an entirely different type of induction.
00:20:11 <MissPiggy> uorygl stop :(((((
00:20:16 <coppro> it's a perfectly valid physical theory
00:20:18 <MissPiggy> uorygl, these kind of arguments make me die inside
00:20:19 <pikhq> Oh, you mean inductive reasoning.
00:20:20 <Gregor> uorygl: You are providing a very compelling /argument/ that the sun will come up. You are NOT proving that it will.
00:20:20 <uorygl> Mathematical induction and inductive logic are not the same thing.
00:20:28 <pikhq> Which is proves nothing.
00:20:30 <MissPiggy> and calling it "induction" is just as bad
00:20:34 <coppro> no theory proves anything
00:20:42 <uorygl> MissPiggy: well, please stop dying so much.
00:20:48 <pikhq> Inductive reasoning produces a scientific theory.
00:20:52 <uorygl> Gregor: sure, define "proof" that way. I don't like that definition.
00:20:54 <coppro> the theory is consistent with observations and makes a prediction
00:20:57 <pikhq> It is not a proof by induction.
00:20:57 <MissPiggy> uorygl, it should be called the principle of probable monotony
00:21:03 <coppro> therefore is valid
00:21:03 <MissPiggy> heuristic principle of probable monotony
00:21:05 <uorygl> MissPiggy: then call it that.
00:21:06 <MissPiggy> ***
00:21:15 <oerjan> Gregor: general relativity allows you to treat any object as stationary, including the earth. see also http://xkcd.com/123/
00:21:29 <oerjan> *any one
00:21:50 <MissPiggy> uorygl, I have a distaste for the heuristic principle of probable monotony because it is a very flawed to conflate this argument with an explanation -- which leads to much deliberation an quibbling on trivial matters
00:22:13 <MissPiggy> truly it is just a suggestion that one might look for a deeper explanation
00:22:32 <coppro> oerjan: xkcd #123 doesn't actually use general relativity
00:22:34 <MissPiggy> it should not be confused with extrapolation either
00:22:36 <uorygl> Anyway, I think it's best to define proof as very, very strong evidence. There's really no practical difference between very, very strong evidence and absolute proof.
00:22:43 <coppro> which is only valid when the frame of reference is not accelerating
00:22:56 <oerjan> coppro: no, that's _special_ relativity
00:23:18 <uorygl> MissPiggy: the fact that you have a distaste for it and it leads to much quibbling over trivial matters has no bearing whatsoever on whether it forms a strong argument or not.
00:23:26 <oerjan> general relativity is all about acceleration (and its equivalent, gravity)
00:23:36 <coppro> oh wait, you're right
00:23:38 <coppro> never mind me
00:23:38 <MissPiggy> uorygl I thuoght it did
00:23:50 -!- alise_ has joined.
00:23:53 <pikhq> uorygl: "Strong argument" has a completely different notion in math and in science.
00:24:07 <pikhq> A "strong argument" in math is a proof.
00:24:23 <pikhq> A "strong argument" in science is noting that every single time you do something, the same thing happens.
00:24:28 <uorygl> MissPiggy: well, it doesn't.
00:24:44 <MissPiggy> ufhG!
00:24:50 <MissPiggy> I must defeat this argument
00:25:57 <pikhq> uorygl: In conclusion: do not invoke the word "proof" unless you are discussing formal reasoning. It is wrong.
00:26:15 <cpressey> Or hard liquor.
00:26:18 <MissPiggy> it has been shown many times that an even which seems periodic or caused by some effect must not be assumed so simply on the evidence of data but if we can build a simple theory to explain this data
00:26:27 <uorygl> pikhq: so what word am I supposed to use for very, very strong evidence that's practically identical to a proof?
00:26:30 <MissPiggy> an event*
00:26:38 <pikhq> Evidence.
00:26:54 <uorygl> "Evidence" and "very, very strong evidence that's practically identical to a proof" are not synonyms.
00:27:19 <uorygl> "Since there is evidence that you are guilty, I hereby sentence you to life in prison." Doesn't sound right.
00:27:40 * cpressey invents the word "Gwandocu" for uorygl's use.
00:27:44 <uorygl> Thank you.
00:27:59 <MissPiggy> yes!
00:28:17 <pikhq> The reasoning is "Since there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty", BTW.
00:28:36 <uorygl> So, if we had a complete theory of physics, it wouldn't necessarily be difficult to come up with gwandocu that it's correct.
00:28:58 <pikhq> "Complete theory"... Could you define that term?
00:29:20 <pikhq> (I presume you mean "theory that explains all observations", but just wish to confirm)
00:29:29 <uorygl> A complete theory is a full mathematical description of everything that happens.
00:29:30 <cpressey> But you could always find people who would not be persuaded, no matter how geemorgul the gwandocu.
00:29:33 <uorygl> So yeah, that.
00:29:52 <uorygl> cpressey: indeed; we call those people irrational, and we try to make them rational so that they believe.
00:29:55 <pikhq> Okay, then. I agree with that statement.
00:30:06 <pikhq> And note that scientific discussion needs the word "gwandocu".
00:30:11 <cpressey> O jeh, o naw, o naw, o naw, o naw.
00:30:49 -!- pikhq has set topic: "Gwandocu (n): Extremely strong evidence, far beyond a reasonable doubt." | alise sighting counter currently out of order | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
00:33:48 <oerjan> clearly an ancient welsh concept
00:34:13 <pikhq> Has too many vowels.
00:34:28 <pikhq> Would need to be "Gwndycu".
00:34:55 <uorygl> You managed to not turn the easiest-to-turn-into-a-consonant vowel into a consonant.
00:35:26 <pikhq> So I was being consistent with Welsh phonology.
00:35:39 -!- alise_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
00:36:48 -!- augur has joined.
00:36:56 <cpressey> If I had more time, I might ask if anyone thinks it's possible to get a complete mathematical description of everything that happens without being omniscient.
00:37:18 <uorygl> I think it's probably possible.
00:37:33 <cpressey> I have no idea what's happening in the Zeta Reticuli system right now.
00:37:50 <uorygl> I have some idea of what's happening in the Zeta Reticuli system right now.
00:37:56 <cpressey> First-hand?
00:38:03 <uorygl> No.
00:38:03 <cpressey> Can I borrow your saucer?
00:38:06 <cpressey> Drat.
00:38:16 <cpressey> So, you have a guess as to what's happening there, then.
00:38:24 <uorygl> Yes, but it's a very good guess.
00:38:32 <cpressey> Well, that's hard to know.
00:38:41 <cpressey> Without a saucer and all.
00:39:33 <augur> oh man ive got some many awesome ideas for my game :D :D :D
00:39:40 <uorygl> I wonder if there's any way of verifying that at least some of our laws of physics apply to Zeta Reticuli.
00:39:56 <augur> uorygl: ofcourse there are.
00:40:23 <uorygl> I guess we can look at the spectra emitted by the stars and see that they look like black body emission spectra.
00:40:40 <uorygl> And... we really have a lot of data on them.
00:40:40 -!- alise has joined.
00:40:55 <augur> we look at Z Reticuli and can observe that the star's size matches what we'd expect from its mass, that this correlates from the expected composition which we can find from its spectra
00:41:04 <oerjan> cpressey: i think if something like wolfram's theory that the universe is generated by a small program is true, then we might eventually find it (or an equivalent program), although we would never be able to prove that it was completely accurate
00:41:29 <augur> we can find that it's shape/oblation fits its rotational period
00:41:54 <oerjan> because we could never be sure that we have measured every phenomenon to perfect precision
00:41:55 <augur> we can see that it has the same gravitational effects on surrounding stars as its mass would dictate, and that it is affected by the background gravity accordingly
00:41:57 <augur> etc etc
00:43:38 <uorygl> Of course, we might be able to find gwandocu that it's completely accurate!
00:43:51 <augur> gwandocu?
00:43:54 <cpressey> oerjan: I'll bet it's "Hello, world!"
00:44:02 <cpressey> Later, folks.
00:44:09 -!- cpressey has left (?).
00:44:18 <uorygl> Gwandocu is extremely strong evidence, far beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:44:19 <oerjan> cpressey: that seems to lack a certain necessary complexity
00:44:44 -!- FireFly has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
00:44:53 <uorygl> "Hello, world!" isn't a computer program.
00:44:57 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
00:45:23 <augur> uorygl: it is in some languages!
00:45:29 <augur> also, what language is gwandocu :|
00:45:50 <uorygl> English.
00:45:58 <pikhq> #esoteric Vernacular English.
00:46:01 <augur> oic
00:46:27 <pikhq> Etymology: pronouncable series of letters, chosen on a whim.
00:46:40 <augur> ;)
00:47:44 <oerjan> i still say it's welsh
00:48:04 <pikhq> In Welsh it's Gwndycu.
00:48:28 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
00:49:22 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
00:49:22 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu.
00:49:26 <oerjan> pikhq: gwendolyn is a welsh name you know. it's not that far off.
00:52:47 <augur> gun-dick-oo
00:53:00 <pikhq> Yeah.
00:56:01 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
00:56:08 -!- sebbu has joined.
00:56:14 <Gregor> <oerjan> Gregor: general relativity allows you to treat any object as stationary, including the earth. see also http://xkcd.com/123/
00:56:41 <Gregor> oerjan: Well, not quite, Earth is in an accelerated frame of reference, but anyway, even so the sun most certainly does not come "up", up would be away from the Earth.
00:58:11 <augur> Gregor: the sad thing is that he gets it backwards :(
00:58:15 <oerjan> general relativity allows you to treat an accelerated frame as stationary ;D
00:58:18 <oerjan> (it
00:58:25 <oerjan> 's just a coordinate choice)
00:58:27 <augur> construct newtons laws in a rotating frame and you see there is no centrifugal force
00:58:51 <oerjan> augur: um, no?
00:58:58 <augur> oerjan: um, yes?
00:59:02 <Gregor> Yeah, I'm gonna go with "um, no" on this.
01:00:37 <Gregor> oerjan: I think that everything is definable in a reference frame, but not consistent with the behavior of a stationary frame: From an accelerated frame, all other objects appear to be accelerating conversely, but with no force acting upon them. That's inconsistent.
01:00:45 <augur> unless what you mean by "get a centrifugal force" is if you calculate something based off of where the revolving object would've gone were it not kept in a circular path by a centripetal force.
01:01:22 <augur> but thats inventing a force based on what WOULD have been not what is. there is no centrifugal force that emerges from newtons laws in a rotating reference frame.
01:01:23 <oerjan> Gregor: general relativity treats that as a gravity field caused by the metric of spacetime
01:01:43 <augur> there is only a centripetal force and momentum.
01:01:55 <oerjan> augur: do you understand what "in a rotating (coordinate) frame" means?
01:02:08 <augur> yes, i do.
01:02:18 <Gregor> oerjan: Oh wait ... this is one of the properties of /general/ relativity that distinguishes it from /special/ relativity, innit? My general rel. isn't up to snuff :P
01:02:35 <oerjan> Gregor: yeah.
01:03:13 <oerjan> don't worry, mine isn't up to much more than that either. i certainly cannot calculate spacetime tensors...
01:03:41 <augur> you cant calculate kinematic vectors, nevermind spacetime tensors, apparently.
01:03:59 * oerjan swats augur -----###
01:04:08 -!- dev_squid has joined.
01:04:17 <augur> it doesnt help you that im a masochist. :P
01:05:27 <Gregor> oerjan: He's telling you to swat him again.
01:06:02 <oerjan> augur: if you turn on a centrifuge, and then describe everything happening inside from the viewpoint of a coordinate system moving _with_ the centrifuge, then clearly in that coordinate system there is an acceleration of things
01:06:16 <augur> no, there isnt.
01:07:41 -!- ruhtranayr has joined.
01:07:55 <augur> an object moving at zero velocity outside of the rotating frame will trace a circular path in the rotating frame, which is acceleration
01:08:23 <oerjan> um, yes. that's "yes, there is.", by the way
01:08:25 <augur> an object revolving at the same rate as the frame does not move in the frame, maintaining the same coordinates, thus not accelerating
01:08:56 <augur> centrifugal force is not the acceleration of the externally stable object.
01:09:05 <oerjan> augur: sheesh, we are talking about describing _ordinary_ physics from the viewpoint of a rotating frame
01:09:16 <augur> afk
01:10:01 <augur> actually, brb
01:14:09 -!- MissPiggy has quit (Quit: Lost terminal).
01:14:13 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
01:24:38 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds).
01:33:49 -!- dev_squid has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
01:35:26 <pikhq> I wrote a BF interpreter in C. Why did I write a BF interpreter in C?
01:35:48 * pikhq tries to trace back to the start of the reasoning...
01:36:02 -!- dev_squid has joined.
01:36:22 <pikhq> Oh, right. I had tried in the past (ages ago) and failed horribly. Somehow I went from there to "I should write one."
01:36:52 <pikhq> http://sprunge.us/LBeW
01:36:57 <pikhq> Least useful program I've written in ages.
01:40:13 <pikhq> Also probably the cleanest C I've written this year. :P
01:51:51 <alise> Meanwhile, I present the ugliest car ever created: http://www.carsweb.cz/hatt/novinky/golba/golba_1.jpg
01:56:18 -!- SimonRC has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
01:56:32 <pikhq> Dear God. It is ugly.
01:59:03 <Gregor> I'm not sure what to say.
01:59:20 <Gregor> Depending on your perspective, it either has tits or testicles.
02:05:53 -!- SimonRC has joined.
02:07:03 <alise> :D
02:07:11 <Gregor> I was going for alliteration there, but in retrospect, "boobs or balls" would have worked better.
02:13:23 -!- jcp has joined.
02:17:04 -!- Sgeo_ has changed nick to Sgeo.
02:26:26 <alise> "The result was speedy no consensus." —Articles for Deletion
02:27:22 <oerjan> who says wikipedia isn't efficient
02:36:13 <Gregor> alise: lol
02:36:21 <Gregor> That ... what?
02:36:34 <alise> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm_(2nd_nomination)
02:36:43 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
02:36:47 <dev_squid> Guys/
02:36:49 <dev_squid> *Guys.
02:36:52 <dev_squid> Hello.
02:39:26 <dev_squid> Are there any programs out there that would let be experiment with computer circuitry and logic gates and stuff like that?
02:39:54 -!- coppro has joined.
02:40:08 -!- alise has quit (Quit: alise).
02:40:28 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
02:41:15 -!- sebbu has joined.
02:43:22 <oerjan> dev_squid: scarf is the expert on that stuff here i believe
02:44:17 <oerjan> as in, he actually does research with it
02:45:33 <oerjan> vhdl is a keyword to look for
02:48:00 <dev_squid> I see.
02:48:21 <dev_squid> Would a Von Neumann Automaton simulator fit my needs? o.o
02:49:36 <oerjan> the cellular automaton thing? that seems a bit different from real circuits
02:50:20 <dev_squid> I think so.
02:50:25 <dev_squid> Yeah, I assumed as much.
02:50:25 <Gregor> ... a Von Neumann Automaton is presumably, based on the name, not a cellular automaton or even anything particularly similar to a cellular automaton ...
02:51:05 <oerjan> Gregor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_cellular_automaton
02:51:23 <Gregor> Oh, interesting :P
02:51:29 <dev_squid> It falls under the category of an automaton, but it can be used to construct CPU models.
02:52:05 <oerjan> dev_squid: note that "automaton" includes more types than cellular ones
02:52:21 <dev_squid> Oh.
02:52:38 <dev_squid> Absolutely.
02:52:43 <oerjan> turing machines, for example
02:52:56 <oerjan> (although those are easy to simulate with cellular ones)
02:53:09 <dev_squid> You know what'd be cool? An esolang based on the Von Neumann Automaton. :)
02:54:25 <dev_squid> Hahah! This looks PERFECT! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireworld)
02:54:56 <Gregor> Wireworld is good fun.
02:55:36 <coppro> epic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Golly_Constructor_layout.gif
02:57:37 <dev_squid> Oh, you think THAT's epic?! Look at this one...
02:58:08 <dev_squid> See the ticker GIF at the top of (http://golly.sourceforge.net/)?
02:58:37 -!- adu has joined.
02:58:45 <coppro> heh, nice
02:58:54 <dev_squid> That's an actual configuration which I BELIEVE is in Game of Life, but I can't tell.
02:58:57 <coppro> it is
02:59:10 <coppro> those are LWSS guns, I believe
02:59:11 <dev_squid> It's one demo configuration in Golly.
02:59:21 <dev_squid> That's sort of unbelievable. :)
02:59:34 <coppro> actually, I don't know the specific term for those
02:59:45 <coppro> since they're guns, but only trigger when a glider comes by and reflect the glider
03:03:31 <dev_squid> I haven't even looked into Life enough to even know what you're talking about. :)
03:04:18 <coppro> a spaceship is an element that moves on its own without leaving debris or anything; gliders are the basic spaceships that move diagonally
03:04:29 <dev_squid> I see. :)
03:04:32 <coppro> a gun is a pattern that generates spaceships
03:04:44 <dev_squid> Cool.
03:04:46 <coppro> in the right, you can see gliders going back and forth between reflectors
03:05:22 <coppro> and when they get reflected on the middle reflectors, they generate horizontal spaceships
03:05:24 <coppro> which make the pattern
03:06:32 <dev_squid> I read in an article once that you could take a turing-complete automaton like Life and build a working program and that it would be the ultimate form of data compression. :)
03:07:12 <coppro> huh?
03:07:22 <coppro> why?
03:07:50 <pikhq> dev_squid: Doubtful.
03:08:00 <pikhq> Life takes quite a lot of memory.
03:08:32 <dev_squid> Just what I read.
03:08:45 <dev_squid> Hey...
03:09:30 <dev_squid> So Wireworld is probably what I'm looking for?
03:10:56 * coppro wonders if someone has implemented FSG in Golly
03:16:34 <coppro> you know, I sort of like this channel without alise being here all the time
03:18:05 <dev_squid> What's wrong with alise?
03:19:20 <dev_squid> Looks like I'm gonna be addicteed to this thing.
03:22:11 <pikhq> Just some random crap personal stuff.
03:25:33 -!- jcp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
03:26:13 <coppro> dev_squid: alise has a habit of loudly attacking anything he doesn't like
03:26:36 <coppro> which is sometimes nice, sometimes not
03:27:22 -!- jcp has joined.
03:32:05 -!- jcp1 has joined.
03:32:08 -!- jcp has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
03:39:01 <dev_squid> Ah.
03:39:04 -!- jcp1 has changed nick to jcp.
03:52:13 -!- ruhtranayr has quit (Quit: Leaving).
03:56:34 <Sgeo> ....oooohhhkay
03:56:46 <Sgeo> I just had deja vu, except it included stuff that did not happen.
04:01:17 -!- lament has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
04:02:15 -!- augur has joined.
04:02:25 <augur> oerjan: hello.
04:02:30 <augur> so to continue the previous discussion
04:02:34 <oerjan> noooooo
04:02:53 * oerjan beats augur with the saucepan to induce amnesia ===\__/
04:03:13 <augur> an object that is experiencing the so called "centrifugal" force is an object revolving around some centerpoint
04:03:21 <augur> the force being away from that centerpoint
04:03:54 <augur> but in the rotating reference frame, the object is not moving at all, and thus is, relative to that frame of reference, not experiencing any forces
04:04:16 <augur> and thus there is no centrifugal force on it in the rotating frame of reference
04:05:00 <augur> now certainly its true that in the rotating f.o.r. an object stationary in the non-rotating f.o.r. will appear to move in a circle and therefore will appear to be affected by some force
04:05:06 <augur> but this force is centripetal
04:05:13 <oerjan> not moving at all isn't the same as not experiencing any forces - it just means the forces cancel out
04:05:29 <augur> ok, sure, but then the NET force is zero.
04:06:09 <augur> sure you could invent some imaginary centrifugal force that is perfectly counterbalanced by some other centripetal force, in this rotating f.o.r.
04:06:10 <oerjan> note that the object is pushed inward by the walls of the centrifuge
04:06:29 <augur> well yes, the object IS pushed inward by the wals of the centrifuge
04:06:33 -!- lament has joined.
04:06:34 <augur> but thats a centriPETAL force
04:06:40 <augur> not a centrifugal force.
04:07:10 <oerjan> augur: yes, but in the _rotating_ frame that is canceled _by_ the centrifugal force, precisely to allow the net force to be zero
04:07:36 <augur> oh i see what you're saying
04:07:42 <oerjan> wow
04:07:46 <oerjan> progress :D
04:08:39 <augur> e.g. if you had a mass on a spring, if you calculated the forces acting on the force, you would get that the mass is not experiencing non-zero "gross" force
04:09:10 <augur> for instance. im using a spring because the visual reasoning is easier in such a case
04:09:37 <oerjan> um is this spring inside the centrifuge, or is this completely unrelated?
04:09:40 <augur> yes, ok, definitely. in the rotating frame there would indeed be a centrifugal force.
04:09:48 <oerjan> yay
04:09:58 <augur> object on a spring, revolving around the spring's opposite end
04:10:18 <augur> so that the spring is stretched beyond it's normal length
04:11:12 <augur> but isnt changing, then if you rotated the f.o.r. with the spring, the spring's tensile properties wouldnt change, so the force must be changing
04:11:46 <augur> yes, thats interesting. good point.
04:13:16 <augur> i think the xkcd comic should have worded it more carefully.
04:14:08 <augur> because when i initially read it, i wasnt thinking in these terms, but rather in terms of just constructing the equations for circular motion in a non-rotating reference frame
04:15:59 <oerjan> mhm
04:17:29 <augur> but i think there is good argument that any such derivation of a force is genuinely illegitimate by arguing that rotating frames of reference aren't on the same footing as non-rotating frames of reference
04:18:34 <augur> e.g. from a rotating f.o.r. you would have to have some sort of "5th force"
04:19:39 <oerjan> see general relativity - you get something indistinguishable from a gravitation field
04:19:57 <augur> not gravitational in natural, but rather different, because it has no source, propogates infinitely fast, radiates in only two dimensions, and has a falloff such that all objects, regardless of mass, have precisely the same revolution rate
04:20:36 <oerjan> oh all objects moving the same regardless of mass _is_ a gravitational feature
04:20:46 <coppro> aye
04:20:54 <augur> sorry no what i meant is distance, not mass.
04:21:15 <coppro> they have same revolution rate but varying speeds of revolution
04:21:19 <augur> true
04:21:27 <augur> but this is NOT true of gravity
04:21:39 <oerjan> yeah, that probably has something to do with absence of (nonzero) spacetime curvature
04:21:44 <augur> infact, with a rotating frame, things can move faster than light.
04:22:03 <oerjan> yeah
04:22:19 <augur> the force seems to be really rather different than gravity
04:22:31 <augur> maybe its not, but it seems on its outward appearances to be quite different
04:22:53 <coppro> sure
04:22:57 <coppro> so is any force
04:23:11 <coppro> (except, of course, for gravity)
04:23:16 <coppro> but they are all indistinguishable from gravity in their effectrs
04:23:36 <coppro> s/r[^r]+$//
04:24:17 <augur> right, but what im saying then is that accepting rotating reference frames as on equal footing with non-rotating references frames necessitates the existence of some sort of 5th force
04:24:29 <augur> maybe thats a moot point, right
04:24:44 <augur> maybe there is this fifth force, and it is generated by objects rotating
04:24:50 <augur> and it really does have these properties
04:25:28 <oerjan> oh food ->
04:25:44 <augur> iinm, people have analyzed magnetism as just an illusory relativistic version of the electrostatic force
04:27:08 <augur> but i think really the fact that this 5th force is so radically different, has no force carrier particles, is undetectable except by people in the rotating reference frame, etc. suggests that its not genuine.
04:27:29 <Sgeo> Hm
04:27:43 <augur> i mean, maybe in some sense you could detect the frame dragging of the rotating object, but that would take non-zero time to detect from a non-zero distance
04:27:44 <Sgeo> I should probably do something like retaking an online test I scored poorly on soonish
04:27:56 <augur> whereas the rotating frame would see this force as propogating instantly
04:28:06 <Sgeo> Will be unable to in about half an hour
04:30:29 <augur> also, if we assume that rotating reference frames are genuinely as valid as other reference frames, you have a world in which things can accelerate and decelerate at rates that have no correlation with their mass, the and gain and loose energy on a whim for no apparent reason, but everything in the universe experiences these things simultaneously by necessity
04:31:00 <oerjan> augur: btw don't be so sure about no force carrier particles. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect
04:31:49 <augur> let me continue :P
04:31:56 <oerjan> although i guess that could be taken as a way to detect which frames were "really" non-accelerating
04:32:29 <augur> i mean, the point is, oerjan, accelerating frames of reference are not equivalent to non-accelerating frames of reference
04:32:51 <augur> the laws of physics as observed in them change. this is not true of a constant motion frame of reference
04:33:41 <oerjan> augur: i guess in general relativity it's actually _free-falling_ frames (which are not global btw) which are special, if any
04:33:57 <augur> he energy content of the universe would INCREASE
04:34:05 <augur> violating the laws of thermodynamics.
04:34:14 -!- Gracenotes has joined.
04:34:19 <augur> theres a conclusive reason to take accelerating frames as generally not valid.
04:35:10 <oerjan> augur: ah but you're forgetting gravitational potential. without that, energy is not preserved even in inertial frames i think
04:35:36 <augur> im not sure what gravitational potential iss
04:35:46 <coppro> the sum total of all energy in the Universe is 0
04:35:56 <oerjan> the potential energy due to height differences, say
04:36:14 <augur> ah, well, in that case i think it would move above 0 for this sort of thing
04:36:22 <augur> unless the fictional force was taken into account maybe
04:37:06 <augur> but are you sure it's zero? because a universe of just EM radiation has energy but no gravity
04:37:13 <oerjan> also, the way general relativity really handles this is by saying the coordinate system doesn't actually matter, only the tensors (which change between systems)
04:37:14 <augur> so the total energy of the universe cant be zero
04:37:29 <oerjan> augur: there is a theory that the total energy is zero
04:37:34 <augur> oh, well.
04:37:49 <oerjan> and that this is how matter/energy could be created in the big bang
04:38:03 <augur> the hypothesized zerolity of the universal energy content should not be considered in this discussion ;P
04:38:18 <oerjan> by being offset by negative energy of the space expansion, iiuc
04:38:48 <oerjan> (during the so-called inflation stage)
04:41:34 <oerjan> oh and one more thing, not all solutions to general relativity equations _have_ a meaningful total energy, so a rotating coordinate system may indeed violate that (i don't know)
04:41:59 <augur> im not saying its not a potential idea, right
04:42:13 <augur> i mean, look, you could say that yes, the laws of the universe are different when viewed in an inertial frame
04:42:16 <augur> er
04:42:19 <augur> in an accelerating frame
04:42:25 <augur> and yes they are just as valid in that frame as well
04:42:29 <augur> despite being very different
04:42:39 <augur> yet they STILL produce the same universe, isnt that interesting and totally cool
04:42:49 <augur> and i'd be on board with that as a queer perspective
04:43:23 <augur> but there would still be a little part of me that would want to say "but is it as simple as the non-accelerating frame? because if not, then its probably not real..."
04:44:55 <oerjan> did you look at that unruh article btw?
04:51:34 <augur> a little bit.
04:51:53 <augur> given that noones actually DETECTED this hypothesized effect...
04:55:56 <oerjan> mhm. it also seems related to hawking radiation, which has the same problem.
04:56:14 <augur> how so?
04:56:22 <augur> you mean energy content of the universe sorts of problems?
04:56:36 <oerjan> not being detected problem :D
04:56:43 <augur> oh
04:56:49 * Sgeo disables tapping on his trackpad
04:56:53 <Sgeo> Or whatever it's called
04:56:55 <augur> hawking radiation has been detected i think
04:57:04 <augur> or maybe its so faint it cant be detected currently
04:57:05 <augur> hm
04:57:12 <oerjan> far too faint
04:58:02 <oerjan> it would take a very small black hole to detect
04:58:47 <oerjan> so maybe if the lhc makes some...
04:59:00 <oerjan> (which is very hypothetical afaiu)
04:59:02 <augur> also, if the unruh effect IS observable, it seems to only be the emission of photons
04:59:05 <augur> not some special force carrier
04:59:36 <augur> which makes the unruh effect unlikely to be justifiably said to be the magic force undergirding the force viewed in an accelerating f.o.r.
04:59:39 <oerjan> well the force carrier would be the same as for gravity, since it's the same mathematics...
04:59:57 <augur> but the behavior wouldnt look like gravity at all
05:00:34 <oerjan> oh well
05:01:22 <augur> all im saying is that i think the rotating frame is arguably not a valid frame of reference.
05:02:10 <augur> and that a reasonable observer viewing a video of the universe filmed on a rotating camera would not conclude that the universe had such and such laws
05:02:23 <augur> but would instead conclude that the camera was spinning.
05:02:31 <augur> and that the universe has the laws we see.
05:03:36 <coppro> watchmaker
05:03:44 <augur> ey?
05:04:06 <coppro> your argument is like the watchmaker argument
05:04:17 <coppro> it relies on an assumption of human intuition
05:04:24 <coppro> which is not valid scientifically
05:08:13 <augur> ok, let me rephrase that
05:08:44 <augur> i think that in the full space of theories, the simplest one, in all possible formal representations possible, would be the one in which the camera is rotating and the universe is not.
05:13:46 <coppro> but there are some differences between rotating and non-rotatin unvierses
05:14:00 <augur> uh?
05:14:03 <coppro> so if the universe is rotating, having it not rotate is not a valid interpretation
05:14:30 <augur> well
05:14:43 <augur> but if the universe IS rotating, then its rotating relative to some non-rotating reference frame
05:14:55 <augur> and the simplest laws should still fall out of the non-rotating reference frame
05:15:06 <augur> the whole point is that you would discover the universe to BE rotating
05:15:18 <augur> whereas with the rotating camera, you dont think the universe is rotating at all
05:15:19 <coppro> no, that's the fun bit
05:15:32 <coppro> the universe can rotate relative to nothing in particular
05:15:36 <augur> you think the universe genuinely is not rotating, but that it has these crazy laws of physics.
05:15:52 <coppro> and this gives different results for some things than if it is not
05:15:54 <augur> coppro: well sure, in some weird way, but you still describe it as rotating
05:16:01 <augur> which is really the point.
05:16:01 <coppro> note 1: I don't know what thos things are
05:16:07 <coppro> note 2: Our universe does not rotate
05:16:07 <augur> the fact that you understand the universe as rotating
05:16:12 <augur> thats the crucial part
05:16:48 <augur> if you accept an actually rotating reference frame as being valid, and say that the rotation is not a feature of the reference frame, its all relative
05:16:56 <augur> in the same way that inertial references frames are all relative
05:17:24 <augur> then you essentiall say that actually no, its acceptable to say the camera isnt rotating, the UNIVERSE is rotating. or the stuff in it is revolving rather.
05:17:27 <coppro> not like that
05:17:31 <augur> which is my point
05:17:45 <augur> you cant take rotation to be relative like you take motion to be relative
05:17:46 <coppro> special relativity would remain valid in a rotating universe
05:17:55 <augur> so inertial equivalencies arent rotational equivalences
05:17:59 <augur> special relativity might
05:18:05 <augur> no, even then it wouldnt
05:18:07 <coppro> yes
05:18:12 <augur> well, in a rotating UNIVERSE, maybe
05:18:15 <coppro> yes
05:18:19 <augur> but im not talking about a rotating universe
05:18:24 <coppro> you aren't?
05:18:26 <augur> im talking about a universe in which the stuff in it is rotating
05:18:34 <coppro> oh
05:18:40 <coppro> well, you could have said so
05:18:40 <augur> take a camera, spin it. you're not saying a "rotating universe"
05:18:55 <coppro> well, either perspective is valid
05:19:03 <augur> you're seeing a universe that isnt rotating, but in which the objects in it all seem to orbit the camera's viewing axis
05:19:11 <coppro> but yes, having the camera rotate is much easier
05:19:18 <augur> and my point is that i think the second perspective is NOT as valid
05:19:50 <augur> because in the grand scheme of things, that hypothesize about the nature of the pictured universe is more complicated than the rotating-camera version
05:20:09 <coppro> they are both valid
05:20:14 <coppro> this is general relativity in a nutshell
05:20:20 <augur> in the same way that sure, you can say that the sun orbits the earth, and everything else orbits the earth too, only in crazy epicycles at infinitum
05:20:42 <augur> sure, thats "equally valid" but its not "equally real" i think.
05:20:51 <augur> also, i dont think thats what general relativity says at all.
05:21:08 <augur> im willing to bet that general relativity addresses the point in a much finer grained way
05:21:09 <coppro> define "real"
05:21:14 <coppro> well, yes
05:21:25 <coppro> but any and every point of reference is valid
05:21:44 <augur> i think the general relativity view would match up with what i mean by valid.
05:22:11 <augur> in fact, im CERTAIN it does, because im just mirroring general relativity.
05:22:32 <augur> the passage of time is "real" on the accelerating object, hence why the twin paradox exists
05:22:34 <coppro> can you perform all calculations assuming that everything in the universe is orbiting around a fixed point? yes. Is it useful? no
05:22:48 <augur> no no but coppro
05:22:50 <augur> thats the thing ok
05:23:07 <augur> in general relativity, i think the point is that the UNIVERSE rotating is equally valid
05:23:19 <augur> but the UNIVERSE rotating is not the same thing as the stuff IN IT rotating
05:23:22 <coppro> the twin paradox exists due to the difference in perspective relative to the rest of the universe
05:23:27 <augur> right
05:23:30 <augur> but thats the point!
05:23:44 <augur> the REST universe is not merely the "rest" universe, as in the one not moving
05:23:48 <augur> but rather, the one NOT ACCELERATING
05:24:10 <augur> the twin paradox ceases to exist if both twins set off in rockets at different times
05:24:27 <coppro> the twin paradox also ceases to exist if the only two things in the Universe are the two twins
05:24:29 <augur> it crucially depends on precisely ONE of them experiencing more acceleration than the other.
05:24:39 <augur> no it doesnt cease toe xist
05:25:10 <coppro> yes, because there is nothing against which to reference the acceleration
05:25:28 <augur> ok let me prove to you in a galileian way how you're wrong
05:25:36 <augur> suppose that one twin is a pig
05:25:40 <augur> as in, loves to eat
05:25:52 <augur> he eats SO MUCH that he eats everything in the universe, except his brother
05:26:18 <augur> now there are just two things in the universe
05:26:19 <augur> the twins
05:26:24 <augur> one of which is really _Really_ fat
05:26:39 <augur> but according to you, the twin paradox should vanish now
05:27:11 <augur> but the relative motions of the masses of the universe is identical
05:27:26 <augur> one twin, the thin one, is moving away from the other twin, accelerating at such and such a rate
05:27:43 <augur> but this twin being so piggish is merely academic.
05:27:57 <augur> we could tie the mass to that twin and the effect would be the same
05:28:12 <augur> infact, why bother with the rope, since the masses arent moving relative to one another, we can cut the rope too
05:28:16 <augur> and now we're back at the universe as it is
05:28:17 <coppro> but because there is nothing else to refer to, you can equally say that the other twin is accelerating away
05:28:23 <augur> no you cant!
05:28:27 <augur> thats the POINT of the twin paradox!
05:28:32 <augur> that is NOT what GR says
05:28:44 <coppro> which breaks down when there is nothing else in the universe
05:28:52 <augur> no it doesnt
05:29:00 <coppro> example: If there is only one particle in the universe, it experiences no force if accelerated
05:29:20 <augur> if there is only one particle in the universe, it cant accelerate.
05:29:27 <augur> because there would be no forces acting upon it.
05:29:35 <augur> modulo quantum weirdness.
05:29:46 <augur> a prior theres no forces acting on it
05:29:54 <augur> because to have a force acting on it, you need a force carrier particle
05:29:59 <augur> thus at least two particles
05:30:20 <augur> the only case where the twin paradox can "vanish" is in a case where it cant even happen!
05:30:41 <augur> by necessity there is ALWAYS other matter in the universe
05:32:10 <coppro> you're missing the point
05:32:16 <augur> no, _you're_ missing the point
05:32:33 <augur> which is that reality doesnt work like you say it does
05:32:36 <augur> demonstrably.
05:32:40 <augur> as was just demonstrabled.
05:32:47 <coppro> you never demonstrated it
05:32:51 <augur> i just did.
05:33:00 <coppro> you provided a thought experiment with incorrect conclusions
05:33:07 <augur> there is no possible way to accelerate a particle if its the only particle in the universe.
05:33:16 <coppro> precisely the point
05:33:18 <augur> and since the 1-particle-universe is the only one in which you're correct
05:33:28 <augur> or rather
05:33:34 <augur> the only one in which you could even POSSIBLY be correct
05:33:51 <augur> and since we know that in THAT universe, theres no actual way for you to be correct
05:33:54 <augur> you must not be correct.
05:34:00 <coppro> I'd find you a paper, except the book I have which cites it is upstairs and I don't feel like paging through it
05:34:15 <augur> you'd find me a paper and i would show you why the paper agrees with me ;)
05:35:34 <augur> maybe you're right in some imaginary not-real universe in which force and thus acceleration isnt transmitted by force carriers
05:35:36 <augur> maybe you're right
05:35:47 <augur> but thats a universe that doesn't exist.
05:36:11 <augur> the real universe is one in which the non-accelerating frame is the true frame of reference.
05:38:05 <coppro> I shall conclude this argument with a brief quote from Wikipedia
05:38:07 <coppro> "As part of the general theory, all reference frames are equivalent, even rotating frames. "
05:38:40 <augur> yes, but like i said, i think the GR notion of "equivalence" is different than what we're using here.
05:40:56 <augur> i think the GR notion of equivalence is closer to "has a consistent physical analysis that can describe the same physical phenomena"
05:41:06 <augur> e.g. a symmetry
05:41:51 <augur> and i think that is entirely true. im willing to BET that rotating reference frames, like the rotating camera, DEMAND general relativity in order to describe them correctly.
05:42:43 <augur> that is, if physicists from another dimension saw a video taken on a rotating camera, they'd have to invent general relativity to fully describe the physical laws they saw, if they were assuming that the camera wasn't rotating but that the rest of the universe's objects were revolving around some point.
05:42:48 <augur> i would BET that that is true.
05:42:52 -!- jcp has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
05:43:07 <coppro> quite possibly
05:43:43 <coppro> but surely they'd have to invent it anyways, as it is a required part of describing all phenomena in a non-rotating universe as well?
05:44:49 <augur> well, not necessarily. i mean, maybe its true that a priori the laws of physics make this so, regardless of the laws of physics
05:45:17 <augur> but maybe not. it could entirely be that what we're calling general relativity is just an artifact of our incorrect assumptions about the nature of the universe
05:45:29 <augur> and that its merely an illusion
05:45:31 <coppro> for instance, newtonian gravity would be insufficient
05:45:41 <augur> sure, but you'd have this 5th force remember
05:45:45 <augur> plus god knows what else
05:45:53 <augur> newtonian gravity couldnt even be conceived of
05:46:17 <augur> the entire set of laws would be different
05:46:25 <coppro> I mean in a non-rotating frame of reference
05:46:29 <augur> oh, sure
05:49:07 <coppro> so either way they'd have to construct the same laws in the end
05:49:17 -!- jcp has joined.
05:49:46 <augur> well, laws that would, i really really suspect, but relatable VIA general relativity
05:51:21 <coppro> huh?
05:52:04 <augur> i think it would be general relativity that would relate the two different versions of physics. that GR provides the isomorphism, hence why it IS true that rotating frames are "equivalent"
05:52:45 <augur> but thats a hunch, i dont know.
05:53:12 <augur> but i think that GR is necessary to describe our universe precisely because you need to be able to do that kind of isomorphism
05:53:21 <augur> or whatever kind of morphism it'd be
05:54:24 <coppro> I'm sort of confused now
05:54:44 <augur> nevermind :p
05:54:53 <coppro> ok
06:00:42 -!- lament has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
06:02:16 -!- lament has joined.
06:03:16 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Good night).
06:06:34 <augur> coppro: ok, heres my explanation of what i meant
06:06:42 <augur> i think that if you tried to describe the cameraverse
06:06:58 <augur> you would read a point where you would invent the _exact_ same GR equations
06:07:21 <augur> and in doing so, camera einstein would draw the same conclusions about rotating reference frames
06:07:35 <augur> because in cameraverse, a rotating reference frame makes the universe look like realverse
06:08:37 <augur> not merely that you would have to invent some sort of equivalent of GR, but that the equations of GR are the same regardless of the starting point, because they're equations that relate different models of physical law
06:08:46 <augur> rather than equations that merely describe a new kind of physical law
06:10:29 <coppro> Okay, I agree
06:10:43 <augur> thats my suspicion
06:10:50 <coppro> now explain how you didn't just prove the equivalence of a universe with nothing rotating and with everything rotating?
06:11:13 <augur> well, i think thats the _GR_ notion of equivalence
06:11:31 <coppro> your argument is that you would make the exact same equations
06:11:36 <coppro> therefore they are not equivalent?
06:11:40 <augur> but thats not the notion of equivalence that i was using in this discussion. actually, i tried to stick to "equally valid" but whatever
06:11:50 <augur> theyre GR equivalent, yes.
06:11:56 <augur> but i dont think they're equally _valid_
06:12:06 <coppro> what do you define as equally valid?
06:12:32 <augur> more real, in a deutchean sense of real
06:12:41 <augur> deutschean**
06:12:56 <coppro> I don't quite follow
06:13:06 <augur> that is, if you have two models, one of which is simpler, and the other is just a coy rephrasing of the one, by playing some complication tricks
06:13:10 <coppro> namely because I don't know that word
06:13:25 <augur> then the simpler one is more valid as a view on what reality is like
06:13:37 <coppro> I disagree
06:13:39 <augur> e.g. sure, epicycles can model the solarsystem perfectly well
06:13:48 -!- jcp has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
06:14:20 <augur> but the heliocentric solar system is simpler, the epicyclic model merely looks like a convoluted attempt to describe a heliocentric model as if it were geocentric
06:14:29 <coppro> complexity is not, in my mind, the reason that the geocentric system is incorrect
06:14:33 <augur> so the heliocentric model is more valid as a guess as to what reality is like.
06:14:54 <augur> well, but coppro, you can certainly construct some insane physical theory in which the universe _IS_ geocentric
06:15:10 <coppro> augur: Sure, but the planets would still rotate the sun
06:15:17 <augur> well no thats my point
06:15:18 <coppro> (the other planets, that is)
06:15:26 <augur> you could construct a version where the planets DONT revolve around the sun
06:15:28 <augur> they just APPEAR to
06:15:46 <coppro> only superficially
06:15:53 <augur> ah but what is superficial?
06:15:58 <augur> this is just reference frame stuff
06:16:04 <coppro> Superficial in the sense that it would only function so far
06:16:11 <augur> no i dont think so
06:16:30 <augur> i think it would be completely possible to have a model of physics in which the entire thing is consistent with known facts AND is geocentric
06:16:35 <coppro> you would have to invent relativity and quantum mechanics at some point
06:16:59 <augur> well, at that point we're not talking about solar-system centricity anymore
06:17:05 <coppro> but we are
06:17:09 <augur> no
06:17:10 <coppro> the universe needs to be taken as a whole
06:17:19 <augur> yes, but thats what im saying
06:17:54 <augur> if you believe the universe is geocentric, which is to say that it revolves around the earth, as opposed to its center of mass (if one exists), i think the laws could still work out
06:17:59 <augur> but they'd be complicated as hell
06:18:17 <augur> or maybe they'd just be some sort of vector translation over current laws, who knows
06:18:38 <coppro> this is why, for instance, Newtonian mechanics failed at describing the precession of Mercury accurately
06:19:03 <augur> sure, but that doesnt mean you cant embellish the theory further and further
06:19:16 <augur> i think it would be entirely possible to embellish
06:19:31 <augur> i just think the embellishments would be some sort of coy recoding of heliocentricity
06:19:41 <coppro> You can
06:19:45 <augur> and thats my point
06:19:58 <augur> you have this intuition that coy recoding is not a valid translation of reference frames
06:20:08 <coppro> If you embellished it enough, you would result at a theory as accurate as general relativity that was far more complex but equally valid
06:20:09 <augur> and i think that the GR-rotating-frame thing is merely a coy recoding.
06:20:21 <coppro> I do not have such an intuition
06:20:36 <augur> you apparently have this belief that heliocentrism is more valid than geocentrism
06:20:38 <augur> therefore you do.
06:21:05 <augur> unless you're changing your mind and saying that yeah what the heck, the solar system is geocentric and the different embellished physics is just as valid.
06:21:32 <coppro> I have a belief that no one has yet come up with any geocentric theory as accurate as our heliocentric ones
06:22:01 <augur> true, but who's been trying for the last 500 years.
06:22:06 <coppro> A geocentric theory, if embellished to the point of agreeing precisely with our best heliocentric theories, will be accurate
06:22:08 <coppro> and thus valid
06:22:11 <augur> and why bother? itll be a horrendous theory
06:22:29 <augur> the heliocentric solarsystem is simpler, makes more sense, etc.
06:22:38 <augur> its just better
06:22:57 <augur> and i would say a more valid model of what the universe is REALLY like
06:23:08 <coppro> Oh, I completely agree
06:23:15 <coppro> the heliocentric model would be much cleaner and nicer
06:23:17 <coppro> but no more valid
06:23:22 <augur> im just taking david deutscher's line here, btw.
06:23:33 <coppro> do note that you must include the other criterion of theoretical validity though
06:23:35 <augur> er, deutsch**
06:23:42 <coppro> which is the amount of prediction a theory makes
06:23:55 <augur> well, im considering equally accurate models.
06:24:17 <coppro> if your geocentric theory cannot accomodate a brand new object placed somewhere between here and the sun without manually finangling with it, the theory is less valid, since our heliocentric theory can
06:24:28 <augur> i mean, this is verging on metaphysics here, ill be honest, ok
06:24:49 <augur> two completely extensionally equivalent models can, i think, differ in how valid they are as models of reality
06:24:52 <coppro> simplicity is not, in and of itself, a test of validity
06:24:57 <coppro> in my opinion
06:25:06 <augur> i dont care about your opinion. this is obvious. :P
06:25:11 <coppro> no, it's intuitive
06:25:20 <coppro> which is different from correct
06:25:22 <augur> i think reality is simple.
06:25:25 <coppro> see: Paley's watchmaker argument
06:25:31 <coppro> fact: reality is not simple
06:25:37 <augur> his watchmaker argument is unrelated to this.
06:25:41 <coppro> not at all
06:25:44 <augur> yes, it is.
06:25:50 <coppro> your falling prey to the exact same fallacy
06:25:54 <augur> no, i'm not.
06:26:02 <augur> because his argument is in FAVOR of simplicity.
06:26:27 <augur> well, the argument against his argument, rather.
06:26:38 <augur> evolutionary biology is simpler than God.
06:26:42 <augur> this is why paley is wrong.
06:26:54 <coppro> that's not why Paley is wrong
06:27:03 <augur> i just believe occam's razor wholeheartedly
06:27:15 <coppro> Paley is wrong because his argument starts with the assumption that the watch is too complex to be natural
06:27:19 <augur> i dont think occam's razor is a methodological tool, i think its a fact about reality.
06:27:36 <coppro> augur: do you know anything about quantum physics? How the fuck is that simple?
06:27:51 <coppro> augur
06:28:01 <augur> quantum mechanics is probability in 3 dimensions, or something along those lines.
06:28:16 <coppro> *augur: Think about math. There is a set-theoretical definition of the integers that is just as valid as the version that just uses numerals
06:28:22 <augur> its actually quite beautifully simple when you work it out from a non-historigenic perspective.
06:28:34 <coppro> the fact that it is more complex does not make it incorrect
06:29:04 <augur> you can derive the core weirdness of QM almost entirely from taking normal probability and augmenting it with like one extra dimension for degrees of freedom, or something like that.
06:29:26 <augur> coppro: i didnt say incorrect
06:29:28 <augur> you're not listening
06:29:34 <augur> i said less real.
06:30:17 <coppro> you said less valid
06:30:27 <augur> yes, valid, as a model of whats real.
06:30:40 <Gregor> This conversation becomes a billion times funnier if I replace "non-historigenic" by "non-hystorigenic"
06:30:52 <augur> which is to say, how close it is to looking like the way the thing actually is
06:30:52 <coppro> valid only has one meaning with regards to theories
06:30:57 <coppro> as I've explained
06:31:08 <coppro> #1: Does it match all observations
06:31:12 <coppro> #2: Does it make predictions
06:31:15 <augur> well luckily the original context of its use in this discussion wasnt in regards to theories!
06:31:25 <coppro> Sure it was
06:31:29 <augur> but rather in regards to frames of reference
06:31:34 <augur> a frame of reference is not a theory
06:31:35 <coppro> All physical laws are theories
06:31:44 <augur> yes but a frame of reference isnt a physical law.
06:31:55 <coppro> In the context in which you are using it, it is
06:32:02 <augur> we've drifted over into the physical law territory at this point
06:32:03 <augur> yes this is true
06:32:38 <augur> but we started with frames of reference, and i assumed that an intelligent person like you would be smart enough to understand that the word was being used to mean the same thing, despite the conventionally different usage when applied to theories
06:32:52 <coppro> now, as I said, a theory could be considered more valid because it makes more predictions
06:33:07 <augur> as i said coppro, you're wrong.
06:33:12 <coppro> why?
06:33:27 <augur> because the sense of valid i have been using throughout the conversation is the one i started with
06:33:36 <augur> which happens to have been used in a context of frames of reference, not theories
06:33:43 <coppro> I disagree that there is any significant difference
06:33:53 <augur> and i dont give a shit
06:33:57 <augur> because there IS a difference.
06:34:02 <augur> a frame of reference is not a theory.
06:34:17 <augur> therefore your idea of validity for theories is irrelevant.
06:34:20 <coppro> There is a theory of which frame of reference is correct
06:34:29 <augur> if you disagree with this, then were merely arguing over the lexical semantics of the word "valid"
06:34:40 <augur> in which case this isnt an argument at all
06:34:44 <augur> but rather a miscommunication
06:34:57 <coppro> it may be a miscommunication, but the fundamental argument is still there
06:35:02 <augur> but its not
06:35:10 <augur> because a frame of reference is simply not a theory
06:35:36 <coppro> as I do not believe that there is any particular reason why a rotating frame against a static universe is any more real or valid than a static frame against a rotating universe
06:35:54 <coppro> which is your fundamental point
06:36:14 <augur> yes, but as ive already said, i believe that there is.
06:36:20 <augur> whether you AGREE with that or not is not relevant.
06:37:28 <augur> what it comes down to is in many ways theory-related in nature tho, this is definitely true, but again, as ive said even so far as theories are concerned, i believe that two equally accurate theories can differ in how similar the theory-qua-intension reflects the actual structure of reality
06:37:37 <coppro> Right, and I do not agree
06:37:40 <coppro> which is the point of this argumen
06:37:42 <coppro> *argument
06:37:47 <coppro> we are arguing over the point I just described
06:37:50 <adu> how many types of types are there?
06:37:55 <augur> adu: infinitely many.
06:38:08 <adu> wow
06:38:41 <augur> coppro: since there is no actual way to resolve this dispute, as i have said multiple times: your disagreement with what i think doesn't matter.
06:38:56 <adu> there's gotta be a way to simplify that, like maybe oo/2 or something
06:39:08 <augur> its even worse, adu
06:39:18 <coppro> augur: so now you are not only telling me that I am wrong, but that my opinion does not matter; welcome to /ignore
06:39:26 <augur> there are as many types as the largest kind of infinity
06:39:34 <augur> and since there is no largest infinity, you're fucked D:
06:39:57 <augur> coppro: im saying that it doesnt matter because its not something that we can argue over and come to a conclusion.
06:40:17 <adu> what about constructive type theory, like X is a type, and F is a function type, so F X is a type
06:40:36 <adu> then there would be 2 types of type
06:40:38 <augur> that probably doesnt change anything.
06:41:03 <augur> because you can define horizontal types of arbitrary number
06:41:15 <adu> horizontal?!?
06:41:20 <augur> yes
06:41:34 <adu> do you mean different names?
06:41:37 <augur> within type theory you can view types as existing in two-ish dimensions
06:41:49 <augur> so consider the following types:
06:41:53 <augur> Integer, String, Boolean
06:42:02 <adu> k
06:42:09 <augur> now consider Integer -> Boolean, Boolean -> Boolean -> Boolean, etc.
06:42:14 * adu considers
06:42:23 <augur> the latter two are dependent upon the existence of the previous three, right?
06:42:28 <augur> theyre built out of them, in some sense
06:42:41 <adu> yes
06:42:48 <augur> we could describe this relation as a horizontal type distinction
06:43:07 <augur> the differences between Integer, String, and Boolean, however, are not the same
06:43:12 <augur> they're horizontally related
06:43:21 <augur> You could imagine a type system with only horizontal types
06:43:29 <augur> e.g. a language in which you dont have function ty
06:43:30 <augur> types
06:43:44 <augur> at least, you dont have function types in any salient sense
06:44:14 <augur> e.g. C, in which sure maybe you have function types associated with functions, but function types arent of the same ontological status in the type system as value types are
06:44:54 <augur> you cannot, for instance, do higher order functions, so function types in C arent really things that you can talk about like you can with value types
06:45:05 <augur> you could, however, have the reverse -- a system with only function types
06:45:21 <augur> and one "horizontal" type, in some sense
06:45:34 <pikhq> My C compiler offers first-class functions.
06:45:44 <augur> a system in which non-functions are of type Value, and everything else is a function type of some sort
06:45:57 <augur> pikhq: C99+yaddayadda whatever it is that they use at apple now?
06:46:08 <pikhq> Clang.
06:46:18 <pikhq> I don't have an Apple system.
06:46:19 <augur> the newest versions of C, as forked by apple i think, have higher order functions, which necessitates real function types. which is pretty cool.
06:46:39 <augur> but the point is understandable i think.
06:46:54 <augur> function types and value types really different in some sense conceptually
06:47:01 <coppro> no, it does not offer first-class functions
06:47:05 <coppro> it offers blocks
06:47:20 <augur> coppro: well, the versions ive seen have first class functions.
06:47:42 <augur> which may be called blocks, but in-language they're indistinguishable from functions, as far as i can tell.
06:48:27 <augur> and are distinct from blocks in the normal sense of the word in programming where the clauses of an if statement are blocks.
06:49:05 <pikhq> coppro: "Blocks" are a first-class function type.
06:49:14 <pikhq> Which happen to be distinct form normal functions.
06:49:31 <pikhq> Erm. From.
06:49:55 <coppro> Technically correct, though misleading in the context of C
06:50:16 <pikhq> But they're functions and they're first-class values.
06:50:37 <pikhq> What more do you want, aside from being able to implicitly cast from function pointers to block pointers?
06:50:57 <pikhq> (and vice versa)
06:53:16 <augur> coppro: again, given that the C was used merely as an example to intelligent people capable of understanding the nature of the nit picky details in terminology, it should be relatively clear that your pedantic distinctions are pointless, because we already knew everything you're saying, or would be fully capable of understanding the trivial distinctions being made.
06:53:51 <augur> you seem to have significant problems carrying on normal discourses.
06:56:39 <augur> this is one of the problems with me being a linguist. ive actually done research on what constitutes successful conversations, and can identify failures, and yet am powerless to correct them.
06:58:22 -!- FireFly has joined.
06:59:04 -!- kar8nga has joined.
07:01:30 -!- tombom has joined.
07:11:00 <augur> http://trololololololololololo.com/
07:11:03 <pikhq> augur: Ouch.
07:11:09 <augur> ey?
07:14:49 -!- jcp has joined.
07:15:31 <Gregor> augur: He's a good ... "singer"? Although I'm not convinced that he's human.
07:16:04 <augur> Gregor: well, he IS russian. so.
07:16:08 <Gregor> I'm also not sure what the point of this web site is ... I assumed at some point he'd start going "lol lol lol" and it would just loop him like that forever,.
07:16:12 <augur> not even russian, he's SOVIET
07:16:32 <augur> this is an actual video from the soviet union
07:16:43 <augur> so i dont think there needs to be such a thing as you described
07:16:53 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
07:19:11 <Gregor> Well yeah, it's weird, I just don't get why this web page exists :P
07:20:20 <augur> gregor
07:20:33 <Gregor> Yeah, that's me.
07:20:36 <augur> youve been on the web HOW long and still havent realized that webpages dont need reasons?
07:20:40 <Gregor> :P
07:20:43 <Gregor> Touché, sir.
07:20:49 <Gregor> I bought onero.us and sibeli.us today :P
07:21:12 <Gregor> That I /really/ don't get.
07:27:27 -!- adu has quit (Quit: adu).
07:53:36 -!- tombom has quit (Quit: Leaving).
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
09:06:25 -!- lereah_ has joined.
09:09:03 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
09:28:40 -!- lifthrasiir has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
09:32:06 -!- jcp has quit (Quit: I will do anything (almost) for a new router.).
09:35:26 -!- lifthrasiir has joined.
09:52:46 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
10:34:15 -!- dev_squid has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
10:44:42 -!- Slereah has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
10:49:14 -!- Slereah has joined.
11:08:13 <AnMaster> argh
11:08:43 <AnMaster> horrible music interrupted by "you now have place number 5 in the queue"
11:19:05 <AnMaster> (what happened? Well, had to call IBM/Lenvo telephone support, then get told the reseller didn't register with them when the computer was sold, so had to call *their* telephone support as well)
11:19:11 <AnMaster> (the latter had the horrible music)
11:20:43 <AnMaster> (not even the usual simply bad music... Much worse, rap music...)
11:28:37 <fizzie> Telephone support systems tend to have the oddest audible experiences.
11:29:44 <fizzie> Compounded by the fact that the codecs used in GSM/3G networks do a really horrible job on any sort of music, they're so heavily speech-optimized.
11:41:25 -!- cheater has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
11:45:11 -!- cheater has joined.
11:59:15 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
11:59:18 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Changing host).
11:59:19 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
12:15:38 <AnMaster> <fizzie> Compounded by the fact that the codecs used in GSM/3G networks do a really horrible job on any sort of music, they're so heavily speech-optimized. <-- hm?
12:15:51 <AnMaster> fizzie, I doubt that applies when I used a non-cell phone
12:15:53 <AnMaster> as in, land line
12:15:59 <fizzie> Yes, I was sort of assuming a cell phone there.
12:16:07 <AnMaster> why?
12:16:12 <fizzie> It's 2010, man!
12:16:18 <AnMaster> that would be more expensive than using the land line to call
12:16:42 <AnMaster> fizzie, but it was a wireless land line phone at least
12:16:55 <AnMaster> I could have used the non-wireless one in the next room instead
12:16:56 <fizzie> Anyway, the current land-line digital networks are a bit speech-optimized too, though not as badly by far.
12:16:59 <AnMaster> would have been somewhat more awkward
12:19:44 <fizzie> I guess the worst part about landline telephone music is that they only transfer frequencies in the [200, 3400] Hz range.
12:20:06 <AnMaster> fizzie, GSM/EDGE/3G transfers more?
12:20:15 <fizzie> No, they're equally horrible.
12:20:19 <AnMaster> ah
12:20:40 <AnMaster> hm
12:20:52 <fizzie> Except 3G's AMR-WB wideband codec, which goes up to something like 7 kHz, but from what I hear, no operator (except some really strange never-heard country) has actually enabled that in their networks.
12:21:03 -!- MizardX has joined.
12:21:19 <AnMaster> fizzie, what about low freqs?
12:22:06 <fizzie> It might have gone a bit lower there too, though I don't really recall.
12:23:10 <AnMaster> fizzie, I'm able to hit some low notes with my voice (I suck at hitting a specific one _reliably_ though ;))
12:23:57 <AnMaster> (I can read below 200 Hz pretty easily unless I misremember. But not in everyday speech I guess)
12:24:01 <fizzie> Humans are pretty good at picking up the "real" pitch from the harmonics even if the transport channel actually filters it, physically speaking.
12:24:09 <AnMaster> s/read/hit/
12:24:20 <AnMaster> (weird typo, was trying to to two things at once)
12:24:42 <AnMaster> fizzie, hm interesting. From overtones I guess?
12:25:00 <fizzie> Case in point: a usual fundamental frequency for normal male speech is around 100 Hz, yet no-one notices that much even though telephone systems generally have a huge attenuation at that low frequencies.
12:25:20 -!- alise has joined.
12:25:28 <AnMaster> fizzie, I can hit just above the lowest C on a standard piano with my voice though
12:26:14 <fizzie> I don't really know very much on the biology side of how auditory perception works, except that the ear is a strange thing, and what goes on after the ear is even less simple.
12:26:35 <AnMaster> I don't quite reach it. Of course it doesn't actually sound good at the lowest bit. For something I actually could *speak* in it would be maybe one octave higher I guesstimate
12:29:36 <fizzie> Well, the "middle C" is around 260 Hz, and I assume that "middle" on the piano; is the lowest C three octaves downward?
12:29:51 <fizzie> If it is, that'd be something like 32 Hz.
12:30:03 <AnMaster> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies
12:30:19 <AnMaster> fizzie, around 32 Hz yes
12:30:58 <fizzie> Right. That's pretty low.
12:31:30 <AnMaster> fizzie, I can go past the D just above it, but not quite reach the C or C#. Of course I couldn't actually say anything at this level. Trying to modulate the sound around there to speech just doesn't work.
12:31:52 <AnMaster> a bit above it does work for that.
12:32:24 <AnMaster> fizzie, so I hit somewhere between 34 and 36 Hz I guess (since I can't quite reach that C# either)
12:33:49 <AnMaster> fizzie, ever tried making a noise at the same frequency as the car engine while traveling in car?
12:34:12 <fizzie> Can't say I have.
12:34:14 <AnMaster> it feels strange when you hit the same tone.
12:36:13 <alise> 19:16:34 <coppro> you know, I sort of like this channel without alise being here all the time
12:36:13 <alise> I do logread, you know
12:37:34 <AnMaster> alise, so now you have your mac running I see :)
12:37:53 <alise> Uh, yes, on top of an ironing board. Very sturdy surface. But I had it running last night.
12:37:58 <AnMaster> ah
12:38:12 <alise> Shit's got terribly, terribly real with my situation so... so, I don't even know what I was going to put here.
12:42:12 -!- cheater has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
12:42:36 <AnMaster> yay, a 5 on the exam on the first sub-course in the electricity and electronics course
12:42:37 <AnMaster> :)
12:42:42 * AnMaster just got the result
12:43:12 <AnMaster> (the possible values are U, 3, 4, 5, where U is "not passed")
12:43:15 <alise> 21:25:36 <augur> suppose that one twin is a pig
12:43:16 <alise> 21:25:40 <augur> as in, loves to eat
12:43:16 <alise> 21:25:52 <augur> he eats SO MUCH that he eats everything in the universe, except his brother
12:43:16 <alise> plausible
12:43:38 <AnMaster> alise, why did augur need to suppose that?
12:43:49 <alise> argument about relativity, twin paradox
12:43:50 <alise> http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/10.03.03
12:43:53 <AnMaster> alise, also that would include himself
12:43:57 <alise> no
12:43:59 <alise> you can't eat yourself.
12:44:16 <AnMaster> alise, surely you can eat your own leg for example?
12:44:23 <AnMaster> of course, other parts may be harder
12:44:55 <alise> oh shush :P
12:46:07 -!- cheater has joined.
12:46:18 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
12:46:36 <alise> 22:12:06 <coppro> what do you define as equally valid?
12:46:36 <alise> augur seems to just be appealing to a sort of ontological notion of "truth beyond truth"
12:46:52 <alise> i.e., one truth being /more/ truthy than other truths by way of being more "inherently objective" to the situation
12:46:56 <alise> that's just my hunch from reading it though
12:49:34 <alise> I don't believe there is an inherent link of simplicity and correctness; that's just a heuristic we use for estimating probability and reasoning and doing science
12:50:48 <alise> 22:27:19 <augur> i dont think occam's razor is a methodological tool, i think its a fact about reality.
12:50:48 <alise> delusional
12:51:43 <AnMaster> didn't Occam himself use occam's razor for "proving" the existence of god iirc?
12:52:01 <alise> 22:30:52 <augur> which is to say, how close it is to looking like the way the thing actually is
12:52:01 <alise> You can only measure this with metaphysics
12:52:10 <AnMaster> alise, ^
12:52:16 <alise> Things "actually are" a theory if it predicts them perfectly
12:52:34 <alise> Any other distinction is human intuition, and we can select equivalently valid theories based on how much we like them (e.g. simplicity for working with)
12:52:35 <alise> That's all.
12:53:13 <alise> 22:37:50 <adu> how many types of types are there?
12:53:14 <alise> Set : Set1
12:53:16 <alise> Set1 : Set2
12:53:17 <alise> and so on
12:53:31 <alise> :P
12:53:41 <AnMaster> alise, countably infinite then?
12:53:50 <AnMaster> oh wait, no
12:53:50 <alise> 22:38:41 <augur> coppro: since there is no actual way to resolve this dispute, as i have said multiple times: your disagreement with what i think doesn't matter.
12:53:51 <alise> I can defeat your position with your position.
12:54:30 <alise> augur: It is simpler to assume that all theories that are equally valid-as-predictors are equally valid, than to introduce an entire notion of metaphysics where some theory is more correct than another simply because it is simpler.
12:54:40 <alise> Since the former is simpler, it is true; therefore theories are not more valid just because they are simpler.
12:54:44 <alise> Contradiction, bitchnizzle!
12:55:47 <AnMaster> alise, nice one
12:57:06 <alise> 22:56:39 <augur> this is one of the problems with me being a linguist. ive actually done research on what constitutes successful conversations, and can identify failures, and yet am powerless to correct them.
12:57:06 <alise> Woe that the world is so much dumber than I!
12:57:12 <alise> Go slit your wrists or something
12:57:14 <alise> :P
13:00:54 <AnMaster> ooh nice google holiday logo
13:21:56 <cheater> hello sweeties
13:33:35 * alise attempts to find an ULV laptop
14:16:29 -!- alise has quit (Quit: alise).
14:38:48 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving).
15:36:01 <Deewiant> AnMaster: I think I've found two (closely related) bugs in cfunge's y-with-positive-argument
15:37:33 <Deewiant> 1) It skips over the terminating null of the environment variables (i.e. the additional one which terminates them all)
15:39:27 <Deewiant> 2) It pushes some nonsense value instead of that null, I think
15:39:46 <Deewiant> In which case I'd actually call it one bug, I changed my mind a bit there between 1) and 2)
15:40:13 <Deewiant> No, wait, I was right the first time
15:41:08 <Deewiant> 2) It seems to push an incorrect value if asked for the topmost value on the stack (i.e. argument = number of cells it pushes (+-1?))
15:43:04 -!- cpressey has joined.
15:43:26 <AnMaster> Deewiant, hm
15:43:54 <AnMaster> Deewiant, test cases for these?
15:43:54 <Deewiant> You can test with the following (warning: infinite-looping, use head -n{number of cells it pushes} to terminate it): 1> #;:.:y#@.a#@,1+#;<
15:44:06 <AnMaster> hm
15:44:15 <AnMaster> Deewiant, what do you mean with the second one
15:44:23 <AnMaster> "<Deewiant> 2) It seems to push an incorrect value if asked for the topmost value on the stack (i.e. argument = number of cells it pushes (+-1?))"
15:44:39 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
15:44:40 <Deewiant> I mean y used as a pick instruction to pick the topmost value on the stack
15:44:47 <AnMaster> hm
15:44:50 <Deewiant> That test program basically runs Xy for every X, looping forever
15:44:56 <Deewiant> X greater than 0
15:44:57 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
15:45:31 <Deewiant> On my machine, cfunge prints there "2751 56" "2752 0" "2753 32785" and then an infinite number of zeroes
15:46:00 <Deewiant> For 2), that should be "2753 2753"
15:46:35 <Deewiant> And for 1), there should be another zero in between those two nonzero values
15:47:14 <Deewiant> CCBI2 prints "2749 56" "2750 0" "2751 0" "2752 2752" and I think it's right. :-P
15:47:30 <Deewiant> (Off-by-one because args[0] is "ccbi" not "cfunge")
15:47:33 <AnMaster> hm
15:47:45 <AnMaster> Deewiant, I get this before the inf zeros:
15:47:46 <Deewiant> Hmm, actually it should be off-by-two
15:47:52 <AnMaster> 2536 105
15:47:53 <AnMaster> 2537 100
15:47:53 <AnMaster> 2538 0
15:47:53 <AnMaster> 2539 32785
15:47:58 <Deewiant> Right
15:48:00 <AnMaster> indeed weird
15:48:44 <AnMaster> Deewiant, and long live valgrind
15:49:34 <Deewiant> Oh right, it's off-by-one and not two because cfunge only prints one zero >_<
15:49:58 <AnMaster> Deewiant, hm?
15:50:20 <Deewiant> AnMaster: Just confusing myself, not important :-P
15:50:29 -!- MizardX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
15:50:43 -!- MizardX has joined.
15:50:57 <AnMaster> Deewiant, so what are the bugs then? That it gets a invalid read somewhere there?
15:51:08 <AnMaster> Is the other bug caused by it or not?
15:51:09 <Deewiant> What I said
15:51:11 <Deewiant> You're missing a zero
15:51:17 <Deewiant> And you're printing 32785 instead of 2539
15:51:21 <Deewiant> Er, pushing
15:51:23 <Deewiant> Same difference
15:51:48 <AnMaster> Deewiant, I am pushing an extra zero it seems when looking at things
15:52:09 <AnMaster> I begin with pushing a zero, then all the env vars?
15:52:31 <Deewiant> You're supposed to push that zero, it's the one that terminates the list of env vars
15:52:46 <AnMaster> Deewiant, yes, I said it is being done there as far as I can tell
15:53:08 <Deewiant> That program should be printing two zeroes before 2539 (32785)
15:53:18 <Deewiant> The first zero terminates the last env var
15:53:22 <Deewiant> The second terminates the list of env vars
15:53:30 <AnMaster> Deewiant, do you have a good/bad test case for this? I'm not completely sure what exactly the expected result is, and since env variables differ...
15:53:31 <Deewiant> Under cfunge, it's only printing one zero
15:53:47 <Deewiant> AnMaster: Two zeroes. Regardless of env variables (except if you have none at all)
15:54:13 <Deewiant> AnMaster: Since the stack is supposed to look like "<arg to y> 0 0gnirts 0gnirts ..."
15:54:26 <AnMaster> Deewiant, well the 32785 looks like it is out of range value
15:54:44 <Deewiant> Quite possibly
15:54:49 <AnMaster> Attaching to program: /proc/16804/fd/1014, process 16804
15:54:49 <AnMaster> 0x000000000040e351 in stack_get_index (stack=0x6008520, index=0) at /home/arvid/src/own/cfunge/trunk/src/stack.c:181
15:54:49 <AnMaster> 181 return stack->entries[index - 1];
15:54:49 <AnMaster> (gdb) print index
15:54:49 <AnMaster> $1 = 0
15:54:52 <AnMaster> yeah right...
15:54:54 <Deewiant> :-)
15:55:17 <Deewiant> Maybe if you fix that the other problem will fix itself...
15:55:33 <Deewiant> AnMaster: Also, is there a replacement for rage.kuonet.org?
15:55:50 <AnMaster> so 1 should be first element it seems hstack_get_indexm
15:55:51 <AnMaster> hm*
15:55:52 <Deewiant> I.e. a homepagey-type thing
15:56:00 * AnMaster kicks synergy's copy paste failure
15:56:08 <Deewiant> Or should I just pull from launchpad these days
15:56:08 <AnMaster> Deewiant, I don't have one no
15:56:13 <AnMaster> Deewiant, launchpad yes
15:56:26 <AnMaster> also I'm trying to figure out what stack_get_index() is supposed to do
15:56:33 <Deewiant> :-D
15:57:03 <AnMaster> Deewiant, well actually it seems to do the right thing. But the caller is not
15:57:33 <AnMaster> element 1 is supposed to be the first element from base (yes it is one-based, not zero-based, for technical reasons iirc)
15:58:06 <AnMaster> Deewiant, doesn't mycology test y as pick though
15:58:26 <Deewiant> Not that much :_P
15:58:28 <Deewiant> :-P*
15:58:48 <Deewiant> It tests basically picking the 10th cell from the top or something
15:59:02 <Deewiant> Can't remember exactly
15:59:42 <AnMaster> well my fix broke mycology's check for it
15:59:45 <AnMaster> hm
16:00:21 <Deewiant> The check probably isn't incorrect since CCBI2 passes that as well
16:01:16 <AnMaster> Deewiant, would be useful if you could make a GOOD/BAD test for this.
16:01:47 <Deewiant> For the 32785 thing it's relatively easy, for the other one it's a bit of a pain
16:02:00 <AnMaster> Deewiant, well, they are definitely related
16:02:06 <AnMaster> same underlying cause I think
16:02:15 <AnMaster> Deewiant, does 0y push the double zero?
16:03:04 <Deewiant> It should.
16:03:11 <Deewiant> You can obviously test for that yourself.
16:04:59 -!- MissPiggy has joined.
16:05:15 <AnMaster> hm that works correctly as far as I can tell
16:05:28 <AnMaster> stack is at bottom 0 0 100
16:07:09 <AnMaster> Deewiant, does mycology test FRTH?
16:07:16 <Deewiant> Yes
16:07:18 <AnMaster> good
16:07:30 <AnMaster> then I can just run one program and grep for BAD
16:08:34 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
16:10:23 -!- asiekierka has joined.
16:11:48 <augur> alise talks too much.
16:12:06 <lereah_> I hear she talks to Bob a lot
16:12:24 <augur> Microsoft Bob?
16:12:34 <lereah_> Just plain old Bob
16:12:38 <asiekierka> No, Microsoft Bob Beta 1
16:12:43 <asiekierka> because RTMs are boring
16:12:45 <augur> o god
16:12:49 <asiekierka> Or Microsoft Sam, maybe
16:12:55 <asiekierka> though i think I'd prefer Bob
16:12:59 <asiekierka> honestly, at least he has craphics
16:14:57 <AnMaster> Deewiant, did you say 2538 was correct value?
16:15:14 <Deewiant> It should be the same as the index
16:15:21 <AnMaster> hm okay
16:16:01 <AnMaster> Deewiant, still it doesn't explain the missing zero
16:16:21 <Deewiant> Then you have to figure out what does explain it :-P
16:18:08 <AnMaster> Deewiant, hm, can you tell me if the values around index 23-26 seems correct in the cfunge output?
16:18:38 <AnMaster> specifically 23, 24 and 25
16:18:53 <Deewiant> The diff cfunge->ccbi2 shows only differences as: handprint, version, cell size, time, argv[0], and those bugs
16:19:41 <AnMaster> so you get 23->1 24->46 25->46 ?
16:20:18 <Deewiant> 23->1 24->97 actually but yeah
16:20:31 <AnMaster> Deewiant, 25 is also 97?
16:21:15 <Deewiant> Why should it be?
16:21:27 <AnMaster> Deewiant, what exactly is indexes 24 and 25 hm..
16:21:37 <Deewiant> That's the first funge argument
16:21:39 <Deewiant> I.e. the name of the file
16:21:45 <AnMaster> ah
16:21:52 <Deewiant> It's "arst.b98" here so 24 is 97 (a) and 25 is 114 (r)
16:22:01 <AnMaster> ../tests/y-test.b98
16:22:03 <AnMaster> so yeah
16:22:28 <AnMaster> so that explanation didn't work then
16:22:29 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds).
16:24:29 <AnMaster> hm it seems mycology is still broken from this
16:25:10 <AnMaster> Deewiant, argv format, how many zero bytes should there be between that the the env vars?
16:25:14 -!- Gracenotes has joined.
16:25:28 <Deewiant> 19. a series of sequences of characters (strings), each terminated by a null, the series terminated by an additional double null, containing the command-line arguments. (env)
16:25:34 <Deewiant> 20. a series of strings, each terminated by a null, the series terminated by an additional null, containing the environment variables. (env)
16:25:55 <AnMaster> Deewiant, so 3 zeros in total between env and argv?
16:26:53 <AnMaster> Deewiant, no?
16:27:01 <Deewiant> Well, two zeroes in addition to the one which terminates the last arg, yes
16:27:06 <AnMaster> right
16:27:20 <AnMaster> and only one extra zero below the env vars
16:27:24 <AnMaster> hm
16:30:02 <Deewiant> That makes a certain twisted kind of sense in that the double null is to allow (isolated) empty arguments, but it's impossible on most if not all OSs to have an empty environment variable
16:30:37 <AnMaster> Deewiant, is it?
16:30:46 <AnMaster> Deewiant, ./cfunge foo.b98 "" "" ""
16:30:46 <Deewiant> What would it even mean?
16:30:54 <AnMaster> I think that should do it?
16:31:02 <Deewiant> Do what?
16:31:32 <AnMaster> oh I thought you said "impossible [...] to have an empty argument"
16:32:40 <AnMaster> Deewiant, and yeah, I can't imagine how you can get anything shorter than "X=", where X is any letter
16:33:13 <Deewiant> Yep
16:35:53 -!- kar8nga has joined.
16:39:13 <AnMaster> Deewiant, I have a fix for both, however since this changed some things that FRTH and y are the only users of I need to carefully test FRTH with edge case arguments
16:39:19 <AnMaster> before I can push this
16:39:38 * AnMaster tries to remember the semanics for FRTH P
16:41:17 <AnMaster> Deewiant, http://rcfunge98.com/rcsfingers.html#FRTH doesn't say if P should start indexing at top or bottom
16:42:52 <fizzie> Well, it *is* called "*Forth* pick command".
16:43:12 <AnMaster> fizzie, and I don't know forth, I remember checking some forth manual for these when I implemented it
16:43:20 <fizzie> 6.2.2030 PICK
16:43:20 <fizzie> CORE EXT
16:43:20 <fizzie> ( xu ... x1 x0 u -- xu ... x1 x0 xu )
16:43:20 <fizzie> Remove u. Copy the xu to the top of the stack. An ambiguous condition exists if there are less than u+2 items on the stack before PICK is executed.
16:43:20 <AnMaster> but I don't remember what the actual semantics were
16:43:43 <fizzie> Where right side is the top.
16:43:50 <AnMaster> fizzie, so 0 is top item? then 1 is the one below?
16:44:09 <AnMaster> well, after popping the count
16:44:14 <fizzie> Yes. "0 pick" does the same as "dup".
16:49:04 <AnMaster> also I saw a way to optimise y as pick to be faster after first run. will probably implement that later
16:49:19 <AnMaster> (except no one uses that...)
16:50:23 <Deewiant> What way's that
16:51:54 <AnMaster> Deewiant, caching size of env and arguments. Then add a fixed constant + number of stacks on stack-stack + cached value to get where picking would begon
16:51:56 <AnMaster> begin*
16:53:30 <AnMaster> fizzie, what is forth -roll btw?
16:53:44 <Deewiant> I thought you already did something like that?
16:53:49 -!- lereah_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
16:53:50 <AnMaster> Deewiant, not quite
16:55:24 <AnMaster> btw it seems http://rcfunge98.com/rcsfingers.html#FRTH was retconned to mean that negative arguments to L should not reflect
16:55:32 <AnMaster> if he at least could provide a change log
16:56:04 <AnMaster> (not that I'm going to change things here...)
16:56:31 -!- augur has joined.
16:58:09 <fizzie> AnMaster: Intuitively I would expect "-roll" to be the same thing as "roll" except rotating to the other direction, but I can't actually find it in the standard.
16:58:29 <AnMaster> aha
16:59:21 <Deewiant> fizzie: I think it was an extension, I found it in some manual.
16:59:28 <AnMaster> I should then make it error out I guess, unless you can call undefined forth functions in forth. And thus reflecting is the correct thing to do
16:59:32 -!- tombom has joined.
16:59:35 <AnMaster> :)
17:00:37 <AnMaster> Deewiant, btw I found a bug in FRTH: when the stack size is greater than range of funge_cell (cfunge always allow stack to grow to size_t-1 in theory
17:00:48 <AnMaster> (err, that is max value of size_t)
17:02:16 <fizzie> Deewiant: It could be. Gforth has as an extension "-rot" which is "rot except the other direction", so it's not a completely unexpected extension.
17:02:17 <AnMaster> (but if you have a stack larger than 2 GB, I think you have other issues than that)
17:02:48 <Deewiant> The stack can easily be larger than 2 GB on a 64-bit system.
17:03:10 <AnMaster> Deewiant, pushed fixes
17:03:23 <AnMaster> and I was unable to detect any issues with FRTH apart from the above mentioned
17:03:34 <AnMaster> Deewiant, sure, but then my answer is: use 64-bit cells
17:03:59 -!- cheater99 has joined.
17:04:00 <AnMaster> Deewiant, in which case it now needs to be larger than a signed 64-bit value, but fit in an unsigned one
17:04:15 <Deewiant> My point was that you can't say "this doesn't matter that much because you're in other problems at that point anyway"
17:04:32 <AnMaster> Deewiant, well, now FRTH will work anyway
17:04:42 -!- jcp has joined.
17:05:05 <AnMaster> Deewiant, also yes you have other problems at that point. More than 2 GB RAM isn't still common for the "ships with this much as standard"
17:05:14 <AnMaster> s/still/yet
17:05:17 <AnMaster> /
17:05:25 <Deewiant> If you have enough RAM you have no problems at all
17:05:39 -!- cheater has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
17:07:30 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds).
17:07:53 <fizzie> L( .. n -- .. n)Forth Roll command -- that stack usage description there is a bit strange, because the Forth ROLL word definitely won't leave the n value there afterwards.
17:08:01 <AnMaster> Deewiant, is there any system with ~9223.372 petabytes or RAM?
17:08:28 <AnMaster> s/or/of/
17:08:37 <Deewiant> AnMaster: 32-bit size_t, not 64-bit
17:09:07 <Deewiant> If a 32-bit interpreter is running into size_t limits that's very easily not a problem on a modern 64-bit system (except for the interpreter itself)
17:09:23 <AnMaster> Deewiant, um...
17:09:41 <AnMaster> Deewiant, you address space will be 4 GB if you have a 32-bit size_t
17:10:01 -!- scarf has joined.
17:10:47 <AnMaster> Deewiant, some of that will be taken by kernel mappings iirc. And libraries. Yes you could probably manage more than 2 GB stack if you could malloc() such a huge continuous chunk
17:11:15 <AnMaster> actually wait
17:11:21 <AnMaster> no you couldn't grow the stack that much
17:11:30 <AnMaster> since you need to multiply it by 4 for cell size
17:11:37 <Deewiant> AnMaster: If I'm running a chroot or whatever or I'm running cfunge in 32-bit mode I am completely problemless
17:11:41 <AnMaster> (or 8 for 64-bit funge cells)
17:12:33 <AnMaster> Deewiant, but you see, 4*(2^31-1) is more than you can fit in 2^32 unless I'm completely mistaken
17:12:44 <Deewiant> I never said it wasn't
17:13:21 <AnMaster> Deewiant, and due to that, it will actually not be possible to get a stack on a 32-bit funge with 32-bit size_t where the stack size doesn't fit in a single funge cell
17:13:22 <Deewiant> I said that if you have 2 GB of stack on a 64-bit system you are in no problems at all
17:13:51 <AnMaster> Deewiant, indeed. And if you have that then I suggest you get 64-bit funge cells, or accept that y can't give you proper stack size
17:14:19 <Deewiant> At that point it still can, but yes, I accept that; of course I do
17:14:24 -!- MizardX- has joined.
17:15:05 <AnMaster> Deewiant, well, 2 gibi-funge-cells I mean
17:15:57 <AnMaster> which means 8 gigabytes doesn't it? for 32-bit cells
17:16:15 <Deewiant> 2G funge cells is not what I meant.
17:16:30 <AnMaster> Deewiant, that is what I meant all along I think
17:16:42 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
17:16:52 -!- MizardX- has changed nick to MizardX.
17:16:55 -!- dev_squid has joined.
17:17:09 <AnMaster> basically, the "issue" is that you can perhaps grow a stack larger than what fits in a funge-cell
17:17:41 <Deewiant> Yes, you can, at which point it's expected (by me) that y will push a negative value
17:18:33 -!- augur has joined.
17:18:39 <scarf> integers tend to do 2's-complement signed overflow in Befunge, don't they?
17:22:33 <AnMaster> Deewiant, hm since n*(2^(8n-1)-1) > (2^(8n)) for any integer n > 2; we can't run into the issue if we use funge cells of the same size as the native pointer size.
17:22:46 <AnMaster> since for befunge n must be at least 4
17:33:06 <fizzie> scarf: Isn't that what (signed) integers tend to do anywhere nowadays?
17:33:18 <scarf> yes, I suppose it is
17:34:33 <MissPiggy> augurithm
17:35:45 <pikhq> Hmm. count = 1; count++;count++;(according to GDB)$8 = 4196080
17:35:55 <pikhq> ... 3 = 4196080.
17:36:00 * pikhq hates C.
17:36:13 <MissPiggy> you don't hate C :P
17:38:10 <scarf> !c printf("%x",4196080);
17:38:22 <EgoBot> 4006f0
17:38:28 <scarf> hmm
17:38:38 <scarf> that looks like a pointer value to me
17:38:39 <MissPiggy> !c printf("%d",0x4196080);
17:38:40 <EgoBot> 68771968
17:39:39 <fizzie> Yes, being aligned like that and near 0x400000, it looks really rather pointery.
17:39:45 <pikhq> I think that 0x4006f0 is in libc this week. :/
17:40:00 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
17:40:09 <fizzie> 0x400000 and nearby regions tend to be in the executing program, actually. At least on Linux.
17:40:10 <dev_squid> Damn.
17:40:13 <pikhq> (prelinked system)
17:40:19 <dev_squid> This is just amazing. (http://www.quinapalus.com/wires11.html)
17:40:27 <scarf> six hex digits, most of which are 0, always looks pointery to me
17:40:33 <scarf> unless it looks even more strongly like something else
17:40:41 <AnMaster> <pikhq> Hmm. count = 1; count++;count++;(according to GDB)$8 = 4196080
17:40:41 <AnMaster> <pikhq> ... 3 = 4196080.
17:40:43 <AnMaster> what the heck?
17:40:48 <scarf> dev_squid: is that the WireWorld CPU?
17:40:52 <dev_squid> scarf, yes.
17:41:07 * pikhq dumps the prelink table
17:41:16 <AnMaster> pikhq, is count a pointer?
17:41:22 <dev_squid> scarf, is that not more than enough reason to jizz your pants upon eye contact?
17:41:25 <pikhq> AnMaster: It's an int.
17:41:30 <pikhq> Initialised to 1.
17:41:32 <scarf> dev_squid: it's pretty impressive
17:41:41 <AnMaster> pikhq, so 1+1+1 = 4196080 according to gdb?
17:41:42 <scarf> it would be even nicer if it could somehow be made TC, say by repeating a region
17:41:48 <pikhq> AnMaster: Yes.
17:42:10 <AnMaster> pikhq, does it do something in between those assign and increment?
17:42:12 <AnMaster> the program I mean
17:42:15 <scarf> dev_squid: and the only reason I'm not getting very impressed immediately is that I've seen it before, and things are never quite as impressive the second time
17:42:17 <dev_squid> scarf, I find it simply incredible that one can construct entire computer architectures just from a simple set of rules for a cellular automaton.
17:42:19 <pikhq> AnMaster: Comparisons.
17:42:31 <AnMaster> pikhq, no assigning elsewhere?
17:42:34 <scarf> dev_squid: well, the rules for transistors are pretty simple
17:42:39 <pikhq> None.
17:42:40 <dev_squid> scarf, that's true.
17:42:49 <pikhq> The function is not even left.
17:42:49 <AnMaster> pikhq, then I suggest you put a watch on that value
17:43:08 <dev_squid> scarf, I think one of the biggest challenges, once you have the idea in mind, is getting the pulses timed perfectly.
17:43:18 * pikhq shall poke at it again in a bit.
17:43:24 <scarf> even that isn't too hard with a debugger, you can even do it by trial and error
17:43:29 * scarf remembers his experiences messing with Rubicon
17:43:41 <scarf> the trick is to be able to test a small bit of it at a time
17:43:50 <dev_squid> scarf, you don't even need a debugger. Just a cellular automata simulator. Lawl. :)
17:44:00 <scarf> that effectively is a debugger
17:44:04 <scarf> after all, you can see all the internals
17:44:05 <dev_squid> Troof.
17:44:16 <dev_squid> I can see a lot a trial and error happening.
17:44:32 <scarf> dev_squid: have you seen Rubicon? http://kevan.org/rubicon/
17:44:39 <scarf> it's a computer game based on http://esolangs.org/wiki/RUBE
17:44:45 <dev_squid> It's definitely my favorite configuration for any automaton...next is the turing machine in Life.
17:44:50 <dev_squid> Oh, NICE.
17:45:17 <AnMaster> pikhq, well put a watch on it. And if this is actually C++ I shall kill you
17:46:34 <AnMaster> pikhq, also I suggest valgrind, especially with that -tool=exp-ptrcheck
17:46:40 <pikhq> AnMaster: I'm just futzing with my BF interpreter again while drinking coffee to try and wake up.
17:46:58 <pikhq> I decided to make it not use getdelim (a GNU extension), and am now having issues.
17:47:37 <AnMaster> pikhq, yes count=1; count++; count++ giving count=4196080 is definitely wrong
17:47:38 <dev_squid> scarf, I'm still trying to trace the entire thing.
17:47:48 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
17:47:50 <pikhq> And yes, it's C. It's very rare that I write code in C++.
17:47:56 <AnMaster> pikhq, but why would a bf interpreter need getdelim at all?
17:48:01 <pikhq> (too much agony to be had there)
17:48:20 <pikhq> AnMaster: Read the entire Brainfuck file into memory.
17:48:25 <dev_squid> pikhq, aren't there enough BF interpreters in the world?
17:48:52 <pikhq> dev_squid: Yes. Because they're easy to write, and they can solve boredom for a short period of time.
17:48:55 <AnMaster> pikhq, yes and?
17:49:08 <pikhq> AnMaster: ... And then parse the entire thing from memory.
17:49:31 <AnMaster> pikhq, I mean, you just read/parse char by char ignoring any non-instructions
17:49:41 <pikhq> Yes.
17:49:44 <dev_squid> I wrote my first BF interpreter in x86 Asm...of course, it failed epicly.
17:49:54 <pikhq> There's a reason I'm changing it to *not* use getdelim. ;)
17:49:57 <AnMaster> pikhq, [ ] I handle by making my parser recursive
17:50:11 <AnMaster> pikhq, I can't even think of how getdelim could be *useful at all*
17:50:13 <AnMaster> for this
17:50:21 <pikhq> It's slightly easier.
17:50:25 <AnMaster> pikhq, than?
17:50:42 <pikhq> fgetc.
17:51:13 <AnMaster> pikhq, mmap and for (i=0; i<size_of_file_from_stat; i++) ?
17:51:34 <AnMaster> I think that is what I did in my first bf compiler (which was written in C)
17:51:42 <pikhq> That'd be slightly annoying.
17:51:56 <pikhq> My parser loop is tail recursive. :P
17:52:06 <pikhq> ... As is my interpreter...
17:52:32 <AnMaster> pikhq, well fgetc is not really hard you just do a while(c=fgetc(infile)) { switch ...
17:52:43 <AnMaster> and then switch on EOF, and the valid instructions
17:52:47 <AnMaster> with default doing nothing
17:53:05 <pikhq> Yeah, I'm only having any issues with my +-/>< routines.
17:53:05 <AnMaster> pikhq, as for parser being tail recursive: huh
17:53:07 <pikhq> (they RLE)
17:53:07 <dev_squid> The way I handled [ was pushing the offset in the source and incrementing my number-of-unbalanced-['s-variable, and popping and jumping if ] was hit and the balance flag was nonzero. :)
17:53:20 <dev_squid> It was slightly messy.
17:53:42 <AnMaster> well, you are basically emulating a stack there
17:53:58 <AnMaster> I just thought "why would I do that, I can just call myself recursively"
17:54:05 <AnMaster> then let the C stack do the job
17:54:14 <pikhq> Yes, my handling of loops is non-tailcall recursion.
17:54:14 <dev_squid> Because C is nicer.
17:54:18 <AnMaster> anyway, I put the instructions in a linked list
17:54:23 <AnMaster> with down-links for loops
17:54:24 <AnMaster> iirc
17:54:33 <pikhq> As am I.
17:54:55 <AnMaster> pikhq, oh? didn't you say it was tail call a second ago?
17:55:00 <pikhq> Hand-optimised the "tail call modulo cons" into a normal tail-call.
17:55:16 <dev_squid> You could always construct it in Asm and interface with the C stdlib...what platform are you writing it for?
17:55:16 <pikhq> AnMaster: It is.
17:55:31 <pikhq> AnMaster: Here's an example: bfparse(f, &(*accum)->tail);
17:56:03 <pikhq> static void bfparse(FILE *f, list *accum); // the declaration
17:57:03 -!- tombom_ has joined.
17:59:59 -!- tombom has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
18:00:41 -!- oklopol has joined.
18:00:43 <oklopol> o
18:00:46 <oklopol> o
18:01:48 <scarf> ooko
18:02:09 <oklopol> so what if we assumed an impossible object, then proved some properties of it, think there might be incredibly pretty theorems that just happen to require objects that can't be constructed?
18:03:16 <oklopol> what if some of the proofs that true = false => anything, in some logical systems, actually happened to be really interesting, but we just never looked because that would be ridiculously insane
18:03:29 -!- Gracenotes has joined.
18:03:45 <oklopol> we have to ask these questions ppl
18:08:08 <lament> well actually we don't.
18:08:54 <AnMaster> pikhq, ah... I made mine a while loop and body recursive for [
18:09:11 <oklopol> lament: you're such a THEIST.
18:09:14 <pikhq> AnMaster: Eh, wouldn't be hard to do that.
18:09:27 <pikhq> Just a matter of manually doing the tail call optimisation.
18:09:39 <AnMaster> pikhq, well sure
18:09:47 <MissPiggy> oh this game rubeicon is going to take time :(
18:09:52 <AnMaster> pikhq, but what about tail call for [ ?
18:10:16 <pikhq> ... What tail call?
18:10:19 <oklopol> rubicon? is that a flash game or ascii or what was it?
18:10:29 <AnMaster> MissPiggy, iirc I solved all the included levels in about 15 minutes in total first time I played it
18:10:38 <pikhq> It's not a tail call if you then do something afterwards.
18:10:40 <AnMaster> oklopol, java
18:10:43 <pikhq> That's just a *call*.
18:10:43 <oklopol> okay cool
18:10:55 <oklopol> well the fact you considered it trivial isn't cool
18:10:56 <AnMaster> pikhq, I meant the descending into the loop bodyu
18:10:57 <AnMaster> body*
18:11:02 <oklopol> that sucks
18:11:16 <pikhq> AnMaster: Yes, that's not a tail call.
18:11:23 <cpressey> Implementing Brainfuck in CPS would let you pre-allocate a single continuation (because you know the maximum nesting depth) but at that point it's not very different from using your own stack.
18:11:27 <AnMaster> pikhq, -_- I know that
18:11:38 <AnMaster> pikhq, I just challenged you to make your parser *fully* tail recursive
18:11:42 <MissPiggy> that's a lot faster than me
18:11:42 <pikhq> Then "what about tail call for [" makes no bloody sense.
18:11:43 <AnMaster> even for loop bodies
18:11:46 <pikhq> Ah.
18:11:47 <AnMaster> pikhq, ^
18:12:04 <pikhq> That's a simple matter of manually doing CPS or a stack.
18:12:15 <pikhq> Pointless, but simple.
18:12:22 <AnMaster> bbl
18:13:09 -!- angstrom has left (?).
18:19:11 -!- kar8nga has joined.
18:20:53 <AnMaster> pikhq, found out why the ++ was broken btw?
18:21:03 <pikhq> No, not been looking at it.
18:21:07 <AnMaster> pikhq, a watch out to find exactly where in between it was modified
18:21:19 <AnMaster> I strongly doubt that ++ itself adds more than 1
18:34:41 <MissPiggy> that game pissed me off
18:34:48 <MissPiggy> it doesn't save your plcae
18:39:54 <AnMaster> MissPiggy, can't you skip forward iirc?
18:40:01 <AnMaster> also it is trivial to solve it in one run
18:42:25 <MissPiggy> guys
18:42:26 <MissPiggy> I’ve built a whole science out of studying the universe of possible programs–and have discovered that even very simple ones can generate all sorts of rich and complex behavior.
18:44:59 <cpressey> That sounds like it could very well be a new kind of science.
18:45:05 <MissPiggy> :D
18:49:08 <dev_squid> Alrighty, this is about to drive me up the wall! Someon help...
18:49:08 <MissPiggy> "one of the discoveries of NKS is a phenomenon I call computational irreducibility–which says that many systems that appear complex will have behavior that can never be “reduced” in general to a simpler computation." :S
18:49:35 <MissPiggy> that seems completely trivial result from complexity theory..?
18:51:00 <dev_squid> Is it impossible in Wireworld to make a transistor that halves the flow of a 4-micron current?
18:51:55 <cpressey> MissPiggy: I have no idea what it means, given that he scare-quotes "reduce" but doesn't define it
18:52:05 <dev_squid> I've been trying and it seems that parity doesn't allow it. If I delay the transistor's pulse by one, it's too slow, and if I speed it by one, it's too fast.
18:52:11 <dev_squid> I've tried everything.
18:52:55 -!- cheater99 has quit (Quit: Verlassend).
18:53:18 <cpressey> Most "mathematical philosophy" is garbage because most "mathematical philosophers" have never seriously studied philosophy.
18:53:35 <lament> (or mathematics)
18:54:00 <lament> most "philosophy" is garbage because most "philosophers" have never seriously studied philosophy.
18:54:07 <dev_squid> I think there's just not enough of a gap to make it work. I think the gap might have to be an odd number for a transitstor to work. :|
18:54:12 <lament> see ##philosophy for the dumbest channel on freenode
18:54:13 <dev_squid> :P
18:54:26 <dev_squid> *transistor
18:55:19 <dev_squid> Mathematical philosophy? I've never heard of it, but it sounds ridiculous. Mathematics is precise, but philosophy is abstract and arbitrary.
18:55:35 <lament> dev_squid: philosophy *of* mathematics
18:55:41 <lament> dev_squid: do numbers exist???
18:55:47 <dev_squid> That doesn't make much sense either.
18:55:50 <lament> it's somewhat of a valid question
18:56:18 <MissPiggy> what is a number
18:56:19 <cpressey> dev_squid: Books like "New Kind of Science" and "Goedel, Escher, Bach" qualify as "mathematical philosophy" to me.
18:56:20 <dev_squid> That's a valid question, but it's not profound enough to consider it philosophy.
18:56:35 <cpressey> Not the same as philosophy of mathematics, quite.
18:56:41 <lament> dev_squid: what.
18:56:50 <lament> what's the threshold for profoundness then?
18:57:03 <dev_squid> I guess it's up to the person asking.
18:57:18 <lament> or rather, what branch of science should address this question, if not philosophy of mathematics?
18:57:24 <MissPiggy> dev_squid, philosophy just means critical thinking it doesn't have to be profound but obvious profound stuff is some of the best/most famous philosophy
18:57:33 <dev_squid> I don't think it's a question worth addressing, personally.
18:57:33 <MissPiggy> obviously*
18:57:53 <lament> dev_squid: why, is the answer obvious?
18:58:01 <dev_squid> It's obvious to me.
18:58:13 <MissPiggy> what is the answer??
18:58:27 <dev_squid> There is no definite answer, for sure.
18:58:30 <lament> ...
18:58:34 <dev_squid> But...
18:58:46 <MissPiggy> dev_squid philosophy doesn't care if there's a definite answer or not
18:58:54 <MissPiggy> dev_squid the whole point is the journey
18:59:03 <dev_squid> It depends on how you define "numbers".
18:59:13 <cpressey> "Computational irreducibility" seems to be "You can't predict the final state of a (complex) program without running it". Sounds like a layman-formatted version of undecidability to me.
18:59:14 <MissPiggy> (although some philosophers say that if there is a definite answer it's not philosophy any more, I don't agree with that)
18:59:34 <MissPiggy> cpressey, yeah I can't understand why it is even mentioned it is so weird..
19:00:00 <cpressey> MissPiggy: To sell more copies of Mathematica, of course.
19:00:08 <cpressey> Wolfram is a marketing machine.
19:00:34 <dev_squid> cpressey, that's some crazy shit. What exactly isn't predictable but that's traceable?
19:01:08 <MissPiggy> dev_squid, imagine some terribly complicated progarm that happend to always print 1 :P
19:01:39 <cpressey> dev_squid: Well, take the Life automaton for example. If I give you a random starting configuration, can you tell me if there will eventually be a glider at some coordinates (x, y)?
19:03:56 <dev_squid> cpressey, are you asking if I -personally- can predict it, or if -anything- could predict it?
19:04:37 <MissPiggy> ((p nand q) nand r) nand (p nand ((p nand r) nand p)) = r
19:04:53 <MissPiggy> apparently that's all you need to define nand ? :|
19:05:05 <cpressey> dev_squid: Well, not you personally :) Say "any computer program".
19:05:11 <MissPiggy> where's oklopol
19:05:13 <MissPiggy> can clue do that?
19:05:14 <oklopol> here
19:05:21 <MissPiggy> oh my god are you arelly there!
19:05:21 <oklopol> yes
19:05:41 <cpressey> Bootstrapped NAND, I never thought of that. Nice.
19:05:46 <dev_squid> cpressey, I do remember reading about complicated algorithms that could calculate a future generations without simulating each generation seperately, IIRC.
19:06:00 <dev_squid> cpressey, is that what you mean?
19:07:32 <dev_squid> cpressey, but without simulating it, I guess you could say you can't calculate when the next time state N will occur.
19:07:35 <cpressey> dev_squid: Assuming such algorithms exist -- yes, I'm referring to the fact that running those algorithms are tantamount to running the Life automaton.
19:08:08 <fizzie> Features, schemeatures: added that thing into twungot where it replies whenever someone tweets with the string @fungot in it.
19:08:09 <fungot> fizzie: indeed, do any search for air france 296
19:08:30 <cpressey> dev_squid: It all derives from the Halting Problem.
19:08:40 <dev_squid> cpressey, yep.
19:09:00 <lament> but what is the meaning of it all?
19:09:06 <MissPiggy> lament :(
19:09:45 <dev_squid> cpressey, so you can't calculate the next time state N will occur without actually running the program.
19:09:46 <dev_squid> I see.
19:10:07 <MissPiggy> (or a more complicated version of the program)
19:10:09 <cpressey> dev_squid: Not *in general*, no. In some special cases, yes.
19:11:02 <cpressey> Like, if I have a set of configurations where I've already run them and cached where the gliders end up, and you give me a configuration that happens to be one of those... as a trivial example.
19:11:03 <dev_squid> cpressey, yep.
19:11:32 <dev_squid> cpressey, I'm thinking of Hashlife.
19:11:38 <dev_squid> cpressey, *facedesk*
19:12:05 <cpressey> Ah, I see.
19:12:06 * MissPiggy 's todo list contains: implement/understand hashlife
19:12:15 <MissPiggy> something which I probably wont actually ever do...
19:12:24 <cpressey> Yeah, it looks like a kind of abstract interpretation of Life.
19:12:53 <dev_squid> MissPiggy, I don't understand it, and I doubt I ever will.
19:13:04 <cpressey> Thing is, there will always be some Life configurations where running them in Hashlife won't be any faster.
19:13:06 <MissPiggy> I don't imagine it's very difficult
19:13:45 * cpressey 's todo list contains "understand and implement generalized abstract interpretation" :)
19:14:07 <MissPiggy> lament but what does it mean to understand something?
19:14:31 <dev_squid> cpressey, I was under the impression Hashlife doesn't iterate generations at all, but it seems like it does...just, a lot faster.
19:16:14 <pikhq> Hashlife just works by noting that Life patterns are highly redundant. And so, it can memoise the iteration of patterns.
19:16:19 <cpressey> It looks like it does iterate generations, at first, and as it does so, it "recognizes" the patterns in them. After it has recognized the patterns, it uses them to process the evolution.
19:16:25 <lament> MissPiggy: but what does mean mean?
19:17:23 <pikhq> For instance -- gliders. It can, instead of computing each and every cell in the glider pattern, simply fetch the next needed portion of the pattern out of its hash table.
19:18:03 <cpressey> Thing is, (and I'm basing this on the idea that Life is TC), it should be possible to find Life forms that don't get significantly simpler over time. Some kind of puffer train which grows utter crap behind it comes to mind.
19:18:12 <Deewiant> fizzie: Will it reply to @fungotfoobar as well?
19:18:13 <fungot> Deewiant: oznaczono jako spam lmmfao that had me laughing the whole films takes place in slow motion affect you can hear the engiens running, it would be 2 flight crew, and not what you'd expect!
19:18:44 <MissPiggy> f(z) = z
19:18:44 <MissPiggy> This map is called the identity map, and is extremely boring.
19:18:55 <lament> whatusedtobefungotboring
19:18:56 <fungot> lament: i personally liked the mr. potato head one.... really awesome, and not a single reply before posting the same 24-second video that was a " man" a " pussy" a high vocabulary level.
19:19:20 <MissPiggy> cpressey :D I wonder what the life equivalent of busy beaver is
19:19:24 <pikhq> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Life Man.
19:19:49 <pikhq> MissPiggy: A busy beaver.
19:19:57 <fizzie> Deewiant: No, because those don't end up on the "mentions" Twitter API listings.
19:19:58 <MissPiggy> pikhq what the fuck
19:19:59 <pikhq> Life describes a TC system.
19:20:02 <MissPiggy> are you trolling
19:20:20 <cpressey> pikhq: No, other Life.
19:20:21 <Deewiant> fizzie: Ah, you're using a clever API.
19:20:35 <MissPiggy> this is like that time when I was wondering how to prove something was undecidible and you said "halting problem"
19:20:46 <MissPiggy> it's suck a fucking awful answer I can't tell if you are trolling or not
19:20:47 <fizzie> Deewiant: Since they've bothered to provide a nice, RESTful JSON-driven API, I might as well use it.
19:21:03 <Deewiant> Yes, I suppose you might. :-)
19:21:55 <pikhq> MissPiggy: Life is equivalent to a Turing-machine. Thus, the busy beaver analogue is merely an implementation of a busy beaver machine in Life.
19:22:01 <MissPiggy> shut up
19:22:29 <MissPiggy> pikhq: f(z) = z
19:22:30 <MissPiggy> This map is called the identity map, and is extremely boring.
19:22:47 <lament> what is life?
19:22:51 <pikhq> MissPiggy: When you ask a boring question, you get a boring answer.
19:23:00 <fizzie> Twungot (undocumented, unpretty) code is in fungot's git repository anyhow.
19:23:00 <fungot> fizzie: what if she is so funny...
19:23:07 <lament> MissPiggy: isn't the identity map pretty interesting?
19:23:11 <lament> i mean, what's the type signature?
19:23:18 <MissPiggy> lament this is from terry tao
19:23:25 <lament> yeah well he can suck it
19:23:42 <pikhq> lament: The B3/S23 2 dimensional cellular automaton. Known to be Turing-complete.
19:24:03 <lament> pikhq: great answers to great questions
19:24:23 <pikhq> lament: Of course, if you don't grok that, that doesn't help you. But, then, you're here, so. ;)
19:24:40 <lament> but what's the MEANING of life?
19:24:54 <pikhq> Beats me.
19:25:00 <cpressey> z = f(z) = f(f(z)) = f(f(f(z))) = (the remainder of this sequence has been hashlifed into constant space)
19:25:23 <cpressey> I guess the other question is, where is Hashlife for Turing Machines?
19:26:00 <MissPiggy> normal turing machines don't have so much redundancy
19:26:08 <dev_squid> True.
19:26:48 <cpressey> Yeah, Life has all that symmetry. It's pretty bloated that way.
19:27:23 <dev_squid> So back to my original question, is it impossible (due to parity) to make a transistor that halves a 4-micron current in WireWorld?
19:27:36 <lament> Life needs some spontaneous symmetry breaking.
19:27:44 <dev_squid> I've been trying and I get it either on generation too fast or one too slow.
19:28:02 <cpressey> dev_squid: Been a lot time since I've WW'ed. From faint echoes of firings of neurons, I would guess, yes, it's impossible.
19:28:17 <cpressey> Complete guess.
19:28:27 <cpressey> Seem to remember having similar frustrations.
19:28:32 <cpressey> Could be completely wrong.
19:28:34 <dev_squid> cpressey, I think the current has to be of n-micron where n is odd. >:(
19:29:30 <dev_squid> cpressey, or it could just be that it's too small of a gap, much like in how 4-micron currents can't go through the smaller logic gates.
19:29:42 <dev_squid> *properly
19:30:14 <dev_squid> I'll try it with 5-micron. :)
19:30:56 <MissPiggy> the turing machine example that comes with Golly is just one way to make a turing machine
19:31:09 <MissPiggy> and turing machines araen't the only way to impleement N -> N functions in Life
19:31:38 <dev_squid> MissPiggy, yerp.
19:31:47 <MissPiggy> there is a limit on the size that a life pattern can grow, it takes n steps (minimum) to reach n pixels away
19:32:03 <MissPiggy> and finding a configuartion that fills space as fast as possible is trivial
19:32:31 <MissPiggy> but that configuration is not a busy beaver
19:32:40 <MissPiggy> it only computes O(n^2)
19:33:48 <MissPiggy> that's why it's an interesting question and 'shut-up' answers like "just implement it in the turing machine" are not good
19:35:23 <pikhq> Okay, so you want the non-trivial busy beaver configuration for Life.
19:35:37 <pikhq> You should say as much. Otherwise you get simple answers.
19:35:50 <MissPiggy> pikhq it's not my homework
19:36:02 <MissPiggy> I just mentioned this because it's interesting
19:36:03 <pikhq> ...
19:36:18 <pikhq> Did I even claim that?
19:36:30 <pikhq> I simply gave you a trivial answer to a trivial question.
19:37:24 <MissPiggy> ok
19:40:54 -!- asiekierka has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
19:46:00 <dev_squid> Dumb question incoming.
19:46:11 <dev_squid> ANDNOT=NAND?
19:47:02 <dev_squid> All Wireworld references I've seen call them ANDNOT gates...why not just NAND?
19:48:25 <fizzie> "An AND-NOT gate calculates the function ‘A AND NOT B’." -- at least that sort of function is not NAND.
19:48:26 -!- hiato has joined.
19:49:01 <lament> p and not q != not (p and q)
19:49:02 <dev_squid> So ANDNOT is not NAND?
19:49:12 <dev_squid> I see.
19:50:38 <cpressey> MissPiggy, you could implement Hashlife for Langton's Ant.
19:50:43 <cpressey> ... Hashant.
19:50:51 <dev_squid> I've also noticed that the XOR gates they've described don't have a clock structure to output a 1 when there is not input (i.e. 0 xor 0)...so are they not -true- XOR gates?
19:52:04 <cpressey> XOR doesn't need a clock, as long as when both inputs are 0 the output is 1, it should be no problem.
19:52:40 <dev_squid> cpressey, the gate isn't 'active', so if there is no input, there is not output.
19:53:03 <cpressey> Hm, then yes,it is some pseudo-XOR, I'd say.
19:53:08 <dev_squid> Yep.
19:53:41 <dev_squid> You could construct a 'real' XOR gate with an AND and then NOT structure.
19:54:38 <fizzie> Uh.. isn't 0 XOR 0 supposed to be 0, anyway? XOR is true for (1, 0) or (0, 1); false for (0, 0) or (1, 1).
19:54:53 <dev_squid> fizzie, no. 0 xor 0 is 1.
19:55:06 <fizzie> That's a very strange sort of exclusive-OR.
19:55:08 <dev_squid> Oh, wait.
19:55:18 <dev_squid> *facedesk*
19:55:24 <cpressey> Oh, confusion between XOR and EQU I think.
19:55:27 <MissPiggy> I totally don't understand any boolean domain except {0,1}
19:55:31 <cpressey> EQU being the inverse of XOR
19:55:43 <dev_squid> Oh, yeah I confused it.
19:56:00 <dev_squid> Again, *facedesk*. Pardon my faggotry.
20:01:24 <cpressey> So it turns out, in my experimental term-rewriting language, the terms *being rewritten* may contain variables. This was an accident, and strikes me as somewhat... unwholesome. However, until I understand the implications, I'm hesitant to take it out.
20:02:10 <MissPiggy> :D
20:02:35 <cpressey> let (a @x) -> (b @x) in (a 5) ==> (b 5) <-- that's normal (@x denotes a variable.)
20:03:26 <cpressey> let (a 5) -> (b @x) in (@x 5) ==> (b a) <-- that's nuts.
20:17:16 -!- oerjan has joined.
20:19:31 -!- Asztal has joined.
20:23:07 <oerjan> <AnMaster> horrible music interrupted by "you now have place number 5 in the queue"
20:23:19 <oerjan> well what were you doing in the queue to HELL anyway
20:31:23 <oerjan> <augur> alise talks too much.
20:31:50 <oklopol> oerjan quotes too much
20:31:56 <oerjan> after that discussion you and coppro had in the logs, you shouldn't be complaining ;D
20:33:20 <fizzie> oklopol doth protest too much.
20:33:22 <oerjan> oklopol: don't worry, that was the last one for now
20:34:54 <oklopol> i was just hoping you'd quote me and say something witty!
20:35:15 <oerjan> <oklopol> oerjan quotes too much <-- no i don't!
20:35:21 <oerjan> like that?
20:35:54 <oklopol> yes, thank you
20:37:55 <oklopol> so
20:38:01 <oklopol> what discussion did they have?
20:39:10 <oerjan> about whether a rotating coordinate frame is as valid as a non-rotating one. it was my fault for bringing it up, actually.
20:40:38 <oklopol> well if you mention coordinate frames, what can you expect except a flamewar
20:40:56 <oerjan> wouldn't a framewar be more likely?
20:41:18 <oklopol> must've been a typo
20:41:27 <oerjan> how typical
20:50:21 <scarf> hmm, they found a side-channel attack against RSA
20:50:34 <scarf> where you can brownout a system trying to do the calculations and figure out the private keys that way
20:50:50 <oerjan> what's brownout?
20:51:59 <scarf> when a system doesn't have enough voltage on the input to operate correctly, but it doesn't have low enough voltage that it turns off altogether
20:52:20 <scarf> some systems have explicit brownout detection circuitry; the rest just malfunction in that situation
20:52:34 <cpressey> o_O
20:53:25 <oerjan> that reminds me of that jvm attack which depends on random faults in memory
20:53:55 <oerjan> s/faults/errors/
20:54:29 <oerjan> both seem to depend on a computer's hardware not doing what it should
20:54:32 <scarf> there was a proof a while bag that you could remotely attack (I'm not sure which sort of attack) an RSA system that ran on a processor that did one multiplication incorrectly, FDIV-bug style
20:54:56 <oerjan> heh
20:55:44 <oerjan> although brownout sounds like you need physical access
20:56:27 <cpressey> or good timing
20:56:34 <cpressey> (I hear thunder in the distance)
20:56:43 <oerjan> maybe if you control the power plant first
20:57:31 <scarf> oerjan: on a system with software-controlled overclocking, you can do it by overclocking the processor past its possible range
20:57:44 <oerjan> ooh
20:57:46 <scarf> well, that either browns out the system or causes it to melt
20:58:03 <scarf> depending on whether the power supply or the heatsinking fails first
21:02:18 -!- pikhq has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
21:02:56 -!- pikhq has joined.
21:03:40 <pikhq> Why yes, FUSE filesystem, I would absolutely love for you to read the entire contents of that file into memory.
21:03:59 <pikhq> I of course have enough memory for 12 gigabyte files in RAM.
21:04:19 <fizzie> I've somehow always felt that side-channel attacks are somehow unfair to poor widdle cryptographers. :/
21:04:32 <scarf> pikhq: 12GB of RAM isn't entirely implausible nowadays
21:05:17 <pikhq> scarf: Yes, but reading the entire contents of a 12GB file into memory is pretty dumb.
21:05:26 <scarf> it depends on what you're doing
21:05:41 <pikhq> ... Filesystem.
21:05:54 <scarf> heh
21:06:38 <fizzie> FUSE filesystems sometimes are a bit dumb; see, when you put it in userspace, you make it a lot easier to just write a messy filesystem, without having arcane skills; and then people do.
21:07:04 <pikhq> So I have discovered.
21:07:24 <fizzie> One would hope that at least the widely used ones (sshfs?) would be clever enough not to be stupid, though.
21:07:50 <pikhq> I was playing with fusecompress. Which apparently sucks for large files.
21:08:15 <pikhq> It appears to read an entire file into memory when you modify it.
21:08:29 -!- oklokok has joined.
21:09:13 -!- oklopol has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
21:09:28 <fizzie> Well, compression always makes random-access harder.
21:10:30 <pikhq> Yes, but there are fairly easy ways to make it not horrifying.
21:10:32 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
21:10:48 <pikhq> Even if you're not going to be clever: split the file into blocks. Compress the blocks seperately.
21:11:02 -!- hiato has quit (Quit: leaving).
21:11:11 <pikhq> Inefficient, but it's at least not going to swap you to death when you try to modify a file.
21:11:49 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds).
21:11:49 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu.
21:11:57 <cpressey> I love my magic objects and their magic
21:13:01 <fizzie> pikhq: It should do that already, I think. At least the fusecompress man page options list has: "Block size influences compression ratio. Bigger block size allows better compression ratio, but random access to data will be slower and memory requirements will be bigger." They must have just screwed it up somehow.
21:13:13 <cpressey> I think "magic" in this context might even be definable: putting together two functionalities which should be separate.
21:13:23 <fizzie> (Default size is 100 kB.)
21:13:24 <cpressey> Like, generating a form, and seeing if a form needs to be generated.
21:14:21 <pikhq> fizzie: ... Yeah, probably just screwed it up.
21:14:36 <pikhq> And I'm not going to look and see how to get it right.
21:15:03 <fizzie> I'm happy to report that at least dd'ing a 10-byte block at the middle of a three-gigabyte file over sshfs won't cause it to transfer three gigabytes over the network.
21:15:42 <pikhq> That's because sshfs is somewhat intelligent.
21:18:19 <oerjan> it lets you read data sanely so you won't suspect its plan to take over the world
21:24:21 <scarf> ok, YouTube comments are driving me mad
21:24:26 <scarf> the issue isn't the content, but chronological order
21:24:40 <scarf> the /newest/ comments are at the top, except that older comments appear to be written as replies to newer ones
21:25:10 <scarf> which appears to require either a whole load of the IRP-style "hello" "please say 'hello' immediately before this comment", or a deceptive sorting algorithm
21:25:53 <oerjan> scarf: time travelers from a future idiocracy?
21:25:55 <cpressey> scarf: I have never frickin understood them either.
21:26:09 <Deewiant> scarf: It's deceptive. Not sure how it works.
21:26:12 <scarf> oerjan: I like the concept
21:26:29 <cpressey> I understand that the newest is at the top, but even so, there is always someone who is replying to something I can't see, for whatever reason.
21:28:39 <scarf> further theory: people in Youtube, whenever they see someone's replied to their question, repeat the question
21:28:41 <scarf> for context
22:10:52 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
22:17:09 <pikhq> The Youtube comment system is probably designed to allow for stupid people.
22:17:41 -!- oklokok has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
22:18:45 <augur> <oklokok> i love augur
22:18:55 <augur> HAY GAIS
22:19:45 <pikhq> OHEY
22:20:48 -!- dev_squid has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
22:30:58 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
22:31:02 -!- tombom_ has quit (Quit: Leaving).
22:33:14 -!- coppro has joined.
22:41:37 -!- dev_squid has joined.
22:46:42 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Later).
22:48:50 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
22:50:28 -!- alise has joined.
22:50:45 <alise> I am looking at Windows 7 Home Premium.
22:50:47 <alise> Challenge: Explain this.
22:52:39 <scarf> this isn't your computer
22:52:51 <scarf> the fact that you're using a webclient extends that impression
22:53:19 <lament> alise: you're gay.
22:53:27 <MissPiggy> problem solved
22:53:54 <Gregor> Gays see Windows 7 in their mind.
22:54:00 -!- alise_ has joined.
22:54:02 <alise_> Whoopsie,
22:54:04 <scarf> hi alise_
22:54:05 <alise_> *.
22:54:15 <scarf> my guess is that you're using a computer other than your own
22:54:47 <scarf> given that it's around 11pm where you live, you can't be at a cybercafe or anything like that
22:54:55 <scarf> so you're probably at a friend's or relative's house
22:55:18 -!- alise has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
22:55:26 <lament> gay lover's
22:56:11 <alise_> scarf: Incorrect.
22:56:24 <alise_> Well, relative's house yes, other person's computer no.
22:56:28 <scarf> hmm
22:56:38 <scarf> new computer, and you haven't installed an OS on it?
22:56:56 <scarf> other possibility's that your computer was dual-boot all along, and you're using the other side for some reason
22:57:12 <scarf> I can understand you using win7 deliberately, but home premium would seem unlikely, and this would seem a weird time to experiment
22:58:27 <alise_> Home Premium is pretty much the best Windows 7 version, Ultimate just has a few more stuffs
22:58:30 <alise_> New computer, yes, bingo.
22:59:01 <alise_> Rationale: Temporary residence as part of homelessness + going around to get things sorted + etc = lugging around an iMac is not ideal.
22:59:18 <scarf> you have a laptop, then, probably a netbook
22:59:37 <alise_> Not quite a netbook, they all had really ridiculously tiny 9" screens
22:59:44 <scarf> wow, that's small
22:59:51 <scarf> this netbook is about A4, which is still quite small
22:59:51 <alise_> And the 11" laptops cost similar prices to the 13" ones
22:59:55 <alise_> So it's just a small laptop
23:00:09 <alise_> Apparently it gets 8 hours battery life, so... that would be nice, I guess, though I doubt it's quite that much.
23:00:22 <scarf> mine's advertised as 8, it's around 5 in practice
23:00:29 <scarf> what model is it?
23:00:35 <alise_> Toshiba Satellite Tsomething.
23:00:49 <scarf> wow, you may have exactly the same as mine, which is also a toshiba satellite
23:01:02 <alise_> No, you probably have the 11" model.
23:01:05 <alise_> Mine's its 13.3" big brother
23:01:12 <scarf> fair enough
23:01:32 <alise_> How are you meant to type without thumbing the trackpad?
23:01:36 <alise_> I am rather unexperienced with laptops...
23:01:41 <scarf> I can't manage that either
23:01:49 <Gregor> Neither can I.
23:01:50 <scarf> I've just got really experienced at mitigating thumbpad errors
23:01:51 <Gregor> It's really annoying.
23:02:08 <scarf> you can turn off tap-to-click on the thumbpad if you really care, that prevents thumbing it by mistake doing much
23:02:31 <Deewiant> I just disable the pad entirely
23:02:32 <alise_> Yes, but the button isn't the best, I think you'll agree.
23:02:35 <alise_> A bit hard to reach too.
23:02:38 <scarf> yep
23:02:44 <scarf> my mouse is really unreliable atm
23:02:46 <alise_> Deewiant: No nipple mouse, and using Windows without a mouse is suicidal.
23:02:53 <scarf> so I'm using hold-primary-click-for-secondary-click
23:03:06 <scarf> which means I can do pretty much anything with touchpad gestures
23:03:56 <alise_> Apparently there's an eco mode which sacrifices performance for battery, which would be totally superfluous if they weren't presumably lying about the 8-hour life in the battery indicator.
23:04:12 <alise_> Whoo, it's gone down to 4 hours already :-D
23:04:52 <alise_> Why does it randomly decide to spin the fan up for no reason?
23:04:53 <alise_> Who knows.
23:05:00 <alise_> (Why does it come with so much junk installed? Who knows.)
23:05:00 <AnMaster> <oerjan> well what were you doing in the queue to HELL anyway <-- the train went to norway by mistake ;P
23:05:25 <scarf> alise_: oh, it spins up the fan randomly on Windows too?
23:05:44 <scarf> it probably does it more often there than here, though
23:05:47 <alise_> heh
23:05:51 <alise_> it's a really quiet fan though
23:05:56 <alise_> so i don't really care at all
23:05:57 <scarf> it has multiple settings
23:06:03 <scarf> it sometimes spins up to quiet for several minutes
23:06:04 <alise_> in fact, it's kind of eerie how quiet it has been
23:06:10 <scarf> and sometimes to REALLY LOUD for about ten seconds
23:06:22 <alise_> also, I've christened this machine Dinky
23:06:27 <scarf> why?
23:06:30 <scarf> mine's called desert
23:06:35 <alise_> I suppose it's not actually all that dinky
23:06:41 <alise_> scarf: because in some ephemeral way it is small and dinky.
23:06:48 <alise_> Compared to an iMac, I suppose. :P
23:07:38 <alise_> Also, what is it with airline food^W^W mobile broadband software?
23:07:45 <alise_> It's all incorrigibly awful
23:08:04 <AnMaster> <pikhq> Why yes, FUSE filesystem, I would absolutely love for you to read the entire contents of that file into memory.
23:08:04 <AnMaster> <pikhq> I of course have enough memory for 12 gigabyte files in RAM.
23:08:06 <AnMaster> wonderful
23:08:07 <scarf> oh, one thing that's annoying is things like the wireless killswitch seem to only work on Windows her
23:08:08 <scarf> *here
23:08:30 <AnMaster> pikhq, what fuse file system was it?
23:08:54 <alise_> 4 gigabytes of RAM in a machine with this CPU is hilariously pointless
23:09:14 <AnMaster> ah compression
23:09:16 <alise_> 1.30GHz single core, fuck yeah
23:09:18 <augur> alise_: why'd you get a new computer thats not a mac?
23:09:22 <AnMaster> pikhq, I would recommend using squashfs for compressing filesystem ;P
23:09:36 <scarf> alise_: this one has 3GB
23:09:41 <scarf> and is likewise single-core
23:09:44 <alise_> augur: because buying a mac laptop for use tomorrow without financial planning is a stupid idea
23:09:50 <alise_> They are, you might note, rather expensive
23:09:54 <cpressey> alise_: Welcome to laptop-land. You'll learn to love to hate to type.
23:09:56 <scarf> actually, having that much memory compared to the CPU means it's unlikely to start swapping without lots of notice
23:10:07 <augur> why did you buy a laptop for use tomorrow?
23:10:08 <alise_> Besides, I have no real qualms with UBuntu.
23:10:21 <alise_> augur: because my life is fucked up right now and I can't lug about an iMac
23:10:31 <augur> whats goin on?
23:10:39 <alise_> scarf: hmm... does yours have more than 1.30GHz of juice?
23:10:52 <alise_> also, if you have a 32-bit OS it's feasible that you have >3 gigs and just don't know it
23:10:55 <scarf> 1.3 exactly
23:10:58 <alise_> augur: Well, you know the situation with the unit, right?
23:11:02 <augur> no
23:11:03 <scarf> and I have a 32-bit OS, but it was advertised with 3GB
23:11:10 <alise_> You do, I told you.
23:11:24 <alise_> Basically a mental health institution has me there the entire week apart from the -ends.
23:11:29 <augur> oh wait, you mean the "zomg the boy is crazy" thing
23:11:31 <scarf> apart from this week?
23:11:39 <alise_> But not right now, that's not the issue, the issue is that for various complicated reasons I don't have any permanent residence right now
23:11:41 <scarf> or have you been going this week anyway, somehow?
23:11:56 <alise_> I've sent my clone there
23:11:56 <alise_> :p
23:12:12 <augur> can i get an alise_ clone? :X
23:12:12 <scarf> alise_: this is the best time ever for you to be a pair of identical twins
23:12:31 <alise_> augur: That's possibly the most disturbing thing you've ever said :P
23:12:38 <alise_> cpressey: The keys are... so flat.
23:12:40 <augur> i try <3
23:12:42 <cpressey> alise_: So where the hell are you? Please say "A truck stop outside El Paso". It's the only correct answer.
23:12:45 <alise_> I've had a scissor-switch keyboard before but jeez.
23:12:55 <alise_> A truck stop outside El Paso. (Uncle's house)
23:13:01 <cpressey> Right on.
23:13:17 <scarf> alise_: please get your life sorted out before you run out of relatives
23:13:33 <alise_> scarf: XD
23:13:39 <AnMaster> alise_, homelessness?
23:13:40 <AnMaster> wth
23:13:52 <AnMaster> I didn't gather it was quite that bad
23:13:59 <alise_> It's not like we didn't pay the rent or anything :P And it's not like we're sleeping on the streets
23:14:02 <scarf> he isn't homeless, just being shuffled from relative to relative
23:14:20 <alise_> It's just that going back to my (ex-)stepfather's house is not really an option.
23:14:27 <AnMaster> <scarf> you can turn off tap-to-click on the thumbpad if you really care, that prevents thumbing it by mistake doing much <-- thumbpad? Is that different from a normal touchpad?
23:14:31 <alise_> scarf: Only left my father's house because he demanded, increasingly angrily, that I attend the unit
23:14:44 <scarf> AnMaster: no, it's just a thumbpad, I misnamed it
23:14:48 <alise_> Actually he called social services on us because for a few hours he didn't know where we'd gone to...
23:14:53 <alise_> He's pretty fucking crazy.
23:14:58 <AnMaster> scarf, ?
23:15:08 <scarf> calling social services due to not knowing where your son is seems plausible
23:15:23 <scarf> *touchpad
23:15:34 <AnMaster> scarf, ah
23:15:43 <alise_> scarf: no, it was /after/ he found out
23:15:50 <AnMaster> <alise_> I've had a scissor-switch keyboard before but jeez. <-- they vary widely in quality in my experience
23:16:30 <scarf> alise_: are you at least going to school, somehow? my guess is that that's completely implausible given the situation
23:16:52 <scarf> but I'm worried that you'll get in trouble on the technicality that you're within the compulsory education age range, yet not going to school
23:17:12 <AnMaster> alise_, your parents are separated?
23:17:16 <AnMaster> or what is going on
23:17:22 <AnMaster> have you fled from home?
23:17:28 * AnMaster is utterly confused now
23:17:35 <augur> ok
23:17:39 <augur> i think ive just seen
23:17:40 <augur> what is by far
23:17:42 <alise_> My parents have been separated since I was three.
23:17:46 <AnMaster> ah
23:17:47 <alise_> I am with my mother.
23:17:48 <augur> the weirdest and wonderfullest musical instrument ever
23:18:12 <AnMaster> augur, ?
23:18:17 <augur> AnMaster: an audience.
23:18:20 <augur> http://www.ted.com/talks/bobby_mcferrin_hacks_your_brain_with_music.html
23:18:26 <augur> bobby mcferrin plays a fucking audience.
23:19:00 <alise_> This thing has a nice DPI.
23:19:19 <alise_> Can't even see /Windows's/ subpixel fringes.
23:19:34 * Sgeo has .. somewhat mixed emotions about Ruby
23:19:40 <augur> Sgeo: why
23:19:42 <augur> what kind
23:19:43 <scarf> I can see the subpixel fringes here if I zoom in a lot
23:20:02 <alise_> He has a part of him that thinks it's good, and it hasn't been forcibly amputated yet
23:20:02 <alise_> I'll Get Around To It(TM)
23:20:08 <Sgeo> On the one hand, it's the language I'm learning right now, therefore it's awesome. On the other hand, 20 ways to do the same thing gets on my nerves rapidly
23:20:26 <scarf> Sgeo: learn Perl, it only has 19
23:20:26 <augur> Sgeo: oh get over it :P
23:20:29 <AnMaster> augur, wow
23:20:30 <alise_> I think the fan logic for this machine is "Fan for a minute or two. Sleep a few minutes. Repeat."
23:20:40 <augur> AnMaster: RIGHT?
23:20:48 <scarf> alise_: plus a random-number generator
23:20:49 <Sgeo> Also, still haven't figured out how to mechanically translate [something for i in stuff for j in otherstuff]
23:20:56 <Sgeo> Nor (something for i in stuff)
23:20:59 <scarf> it does fan louder while under load, though, if not more often
23:21:02 <augur> Sgeo: what?
23:21:09 <AnMaster> augur, ?
23:21:13 <AnMaster> augur, about that video
23:21:14 <AnMaster> ..
23:21:16 <Sgeo> I'm used to Python's list comprehensions
23:21:21 <augur> AnMaster: i know. its amaing.
23:21:28 <Sgeo> It's somewhat easy to translate simple ones to Ruby
23:21:30 <augur> Sgeo: ah, list comprehensions dont exist in ruby, unfortunately.
23:21:32 <AnMaster> augur, also amazing
23:21:45 <augur> you need to do maps instead.
23:21:55 <augur> what sort of complicated map are you trying to do?
23:22:14 <Sgeo> [x*x for x in [1,2,3] if x > 1] becomes [1,2,3].select{ |x| x > 1}.map{|x| x*x}
23:22:30 <augur> yeah.
23:22:46 <Sgeo> What's the equivalent for multiuple "for x in y"s?
23:22:57 <augur> example?
23:23:01 <Sgeo> And is there something similar I can do with generators?
23:23:15 <Sgeo> [x*y for x in range(10) for y in range(10)]
23:23:17 <AnMaster> hm? python has list comprehensions?
23:23:20 <AnMaster> didn't remember that
23:23:30 <augur> ah. i see. no i dont think such a thing is easy to do in ruby
23:23:56 <Gregor> augur: That was pretty cool at the end.
23:23:57 <AnMaster> Sgeo, should be straightforward in erlang btw
23:24:03 <augur> Gregor: :)
23:24:06 <Gregor> Up 'til then it was more "uhh, OK?"
23:24:14 <augur> yeah
23:24:15 <alise_> 0.upto(10) {|x| 0.upto(10) {|y| x*y}}
23:24:15 <alise_> OR something
23:24:15 <alise_> *Or
23:24:16 <augur> he got people going
23:24:19 <augur> then bam
23:24:25 <augur> alise_: no, that wouldnt do it
23:24:46 <alise_> Err, right
23:25:02 <augur> (0..10).to_a.map { |x| (0..10).to_a.map { |y| x*y } }.flatten
23:25:04 <alise_> (0..10).map {|x| (0..10).map {|y| x*y}}
23:25:19 <augur> ranges dont have a map method ;)
23:25:54 <alise_> fucking lame
23:26:35 <Gregor> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2k7aoIGqTI Anyone who hasn't seen this needs to watch it on loop until their eyes bleed.
23:26:35 <Sgeo> You can presumably make your own, and it will be an automatic part of all ranges
23:26:53 <scarf> Gregor: what is it? with a description like that, I don't want to click on it
23:27:06 <Gregor> scarf: It's The Cosmic Adventures of Doctor Fabulous
23:27:15 <scarf> hmm
23:27:51 <AnMaster> Sgeo, [X*Y||X<-lists:seq(0,10),Y<-lists:seq(0,10)]. (erlang)
23:29:00 <AnMaster> all possible combinations
23:29:08 <AnMaster> (I assume that is what the python one does)
23:30:01 <AnMaster> http://sprunge.us/dVZH is the generated list
23:30:30 -!- alise has joined.
23:30:32 <alise> Our Content Lock system protects under 18s from accessing inappropriate content, including unmoderated user-generated content and social networking sites. To remove Content Lock, click on the link below, call 1818 from your mobile or visit your nearest T-Mobile Store.
23:30:33 <alise> FFS
23:30:38 <alise> just give me youtube
23:30:52 -!- alise_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
23:31:20 <AnMaster> Sgeo, does that do the same as the python one?
23:31:25 <scarf> social networking = inappropriate content?
23:31:27 <AnMaster> Sgeo, yes or no
23:31:31 <AnMaster> scarf, very!
23:31:35 <scarf> unmoderated user-generated, is that to give an excuse to block WIkipedia?
23:31:44 <Sgeo> Yes, but in a certain order
23:31:54 <AnMaster> Sgeo, hm?
23:31:57 <scarf> if you're tethering, could you bounce an ssh tunnel off somewhere?
23:32:03 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
23:32:33 <Sgeo> [(x, y) for x in (1,2,3) for y in range(1,2,3)] starts [(1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,1)...
23:32:34 <Sgeo> iirc
23:32:40 <alise> scarf: YOUTUBE IS VIOLENCE
23:32:41 <alise> AND SEX
23:32:43 <alise> AND WARFARE
23:32:47 <alise> AND ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC
23:32:54 <scarf> gah, not rock and roll!
23:33:00 <AnMaster> Sgeo, that python expression gives me a list that goes to 81 here ....
23:33:01 <AnMaster> wth
23:33:05 <scarf> seriously, it's probably a better idea to just go round the filter
23:33:09 <alise> So now it wants me to supply a credit card number so it can verify that I'm an under-18 using someone else's credit card number.
23:33:22 <scarf> and what they /probably/ want to do is avoid people using loads of bandwidth
23:33:33 <cpressey> "You are number 5 in queue. Estimated wait time is 2 minute(s)s"
23:33:38 <scarf> if it's an unlimited-connection sort of thing
23:33:38 <alise> The old vodafone 3g stick did the same thing
23:33:44 <alise> It was damn annoying
23:33:51 <alise> scarf: No, pay-as-you-go, but topped up a lot I think
23:33:53 <scarf> and implies deep packet inspection, doesn't it?
23:33:54 <alise> For 30 days
23:34:03 <alise> (Pay for one day get 30 days free; pretty sweet deal imo.)
23:34:06 <alise> scarf: Probably.
23:34:08 <scarf> or they couldn't see where you were sending the query
23:34:13 <alise> Maybe DNS-based?
23:34:13 <AnMaster> Sgeo, http://sprunge.us/hZQA <-- that makes no sense
23:34:25 <MissPiggy> Gregor this isn't very good
23:34:26 <AnMaster> Sgeo, unless range(10) actually means 0..9
23:34:35 <Gregor> MissPiggy: YOU FAIL
23:34:37 <AnMaster> which would be sillier than I remembered
23:34:39 <Sgeo> AnMaster, it does
23:34:52 <MissPiggy> :(
23:35:09 <AnMaster> Sgeo, well then change the erlang expression to [X*Y||X<-lists:seq(0,9),Y<-lists:seq(0,9)]
23:35:11 <AnMaster> night
23:35:24 <Sgeo> Night AnMaster
23:37:19 <uorygl> I wonder if it's possible to apply for and receive a credit card entirely over the Internet.
23:38:25 <alise> Incidentally, this laptop used to be a display item.
23:38:25 <alise> There were only two laptops of this model and they were both displays...
23:45:10 -!- alise has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
23:48:37 -!- scarf has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
23:48:52 <MissPiggy> :(((( I watched the whole thing
23:49:02 <MissPiggy> it's meant to be a satire?
23:50:00 <Gregor> Yes.
23:50:21 <Gregor> Of various nonsense, and also with a heavy smattering of unrelated nonsense.
23:51:06 -!- alise has joined.
23:53:11 -!- cbrowne has joined.
23:54:42 <alise> This thing measures the battery life in Toshiba time.
23:54:47 <alise> It goes quickly, like technology.
23:56:39 <alise> ugh, scarf disappeared
23:57:32 <MissPiggy> gregor said i fail :(
23:57:37 <MissPiggy> I cant help who I am!
23:58:02 <MissPiggy> this is rocket launch
23:58:02 <MissPiggy> http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1368162
23:58:13 <MissPiggy> it goes into "orbit" in "space"
23:58:27 <MissPiggy> (at least that's what they tell us..)
←2010-03-03 2010-03-04 2010-03-05→ ↑2010 ↑all