←2010-03-14 2010-03-15 2010-03-16→ ↑2010 ↑all
00:00:49 <fax> then it says that Q(y1,...,ym) = P(1,...,1) = 0 (mod p), hence Q(y1,...,ym) = +/- p is Q is constant and so is P
00:02:51 <alise> fax: what's the abstract algorithm for finite integrals?
00:02:53 <alise> maybe I can J it up
00:03:56 <fax> alise, I don't know what you mean.. symbolic antidifferentiation?
00:05:44 -!- coppro has joined.
00:06:02 <fax> for definite integral you can just sum up the values
00:06:04 <fax> because it's finite!
00:06:38 <alise> your sigma definition in al-jabr looked all higher order
00:07:10 <alise> I should do integrals as an adverb: so I get the derivative function, and two arguments
00:07:14 <alise> but that's all
00:08:21 <augur> oerjan: its linear time tho.
00:08:28 <augur> since you again dont have to _solve the linear equation
00:08:36 <augur> i did my math wrong before
00:08:38 <alise> Fixpoint Sigma n a f :=
00:08:38 <alise> match n with
00:08:38 <alise> | O => 0
00:08:38 <alise> | S n => f a + Sigma n (a + 1) f
00:08:38 <alise> end.
00:08:38 <alise> Definition Discrete_Definite_Integral a b f :=
00:08:39 <alise> match b - a with
00:08:39 <alise> | Zpos p => Sigma (nat_of_P p) a f
00:08:40 <alise> | _ => 0
00:08:40 <alise> end.
00:08:43 <alise> Is this just because Coq sucks at recursion?
00:08:46 <alise> (Sorry for the flood.)
00:08:57 <alise> With J it should be a cinch, since it is awesome at arrays.
00:09:03 <alise> What's a simpler general recursive definition?
00:09:14 <augur> essentially you can refactor the expression into a{6x}b{2y}c{5x-y-z}
00:09:15 <alise> I've no idea what nat_of_P is for starters.
00:09:21 <alise> Z -> N?
00:10:09 <alise> So a (f integ) b, we do b - a, if it's negative then 0, otherwise...
00:10:14 <alise> ? Sigma n recurses indefinitely.
00:10:22 <alise> That doesn't really work.
00:10:27 <augur> and so you just recognize 6x a's and, 2y b's, and for each, determine what x and y are, and if they're not integers, fail.
00:11:06 <alise> fax: is this some magic?
00:11:14 <fax> hm?
00:11:26 <fax> Sigma is that normal big-summation thing
00:11:48 <oerjan> augur: if you are right, it only means i was not clever enough with my example - it should be possible to find one where the original variables are _not_ determined by the string parsed
00:11:56 <alise> oh, it decomposes n into n
00:12:00 <alise> that's confusing, call it n' or something
00:12:20 <augur> oerjan: im not sure if that even makes any sense
00:12:23 <oerjan> which was my point with using more variables than equations in the first place
00:12:27 <alise> so Sigma n a f = sum (map (\_ -> f a) [0..n])
00:12:36 <alise> 0 to n inclusive? Yes.
00:12:40 <alise> no wait
00:12:42 <alise> it's ... hm
00:12:50 <alise> it's just multiplication fax
00:12:56 <alise> oh wait no it's not
00:13:01 <augur> because if the variables range over Z, and exponents range over Z, then obviously we can just refactor and if at any more one of them fails to do so, we're done
00:13:06 <alise> sum (map f [1..n])
00:13:08 <alise> right?
00:13:10 <augur> we're still not _solving_ diophantines
00:13:24 <augur> also, holy fuck i have hand sanitizier that smells EXACTLY like pot
00:13:40 <alise> maybe it's actually pot that works like hand sanitiser
00:13:45 <oerjan> augur: the variables range over N
00:14:04 <oerjan> which should be obvious, since you don't have negative length string
00:14:05 <oerjan> *s
00:14:08 <alise> fax: Sigma n a f = sum (map f [1..n]) right? Just getting the range right
00:14:12 <augur> well, the exponents, at least.
00:14:27 <augur> i mean, theres no harm in ranging the variables over Z, so long as the exponents are always N
00:14:45 <oerjan> augur: my notation is simply meant as an abbreviation for expanding the sums out
00:15:13 <fax> alise yeah
00:15:14 <augur> e.g. if you had some expression a{m}b{n}c{m-n} and you tried to recognize abb..., you would calculate that you need 2-3 = -1 c's
00:15:21 <augur> which fails immediately because its a negative exponent
00:16:20 <alise> if. (y-x) > 0 do. +/ v (x+i. (y-x)) else. 0 end.
00:16:25 <oerjan> augur: the thing is that with sufficiently complicated linear equations, you can get into trouble determining whether any of the several solutions is a natural number. in fact even integers might give enough trouble.
00:17:25 -!- alise_ has joined.
00:17:25 <augur> but theres no harm in letting the variables range over Z, because itll just force things to be refactored. e.g. a{m}b{n}c{m-n} is just a{m+n}b{m}c{n}
00:17:33 <alise_> fax: ok right gimme an example to test integ
00:17:43 <augur> oerjan: but these arent EQUATIONS
00:17:46 <augur> thats the point, right
00:18:00 <augur> they're really just sums
00:18:14 <oerjan> augur: i am talking about the equations i'm trying to turn into examples that show you that you cannot get away with not solving them :D
00:18:17 <augur> i mean, if you did lets say
00:18:59 <alise_> fax: plz
00:19:18 <augur> if you had something like a{x^2 + y^2}b{x}c{y}
00:19:23 <augur> no even that
00:19:44 <alise_> fax: so this is my understanding of integrate
00:19:47 <alise_> your def
00:20:17 <augur> oerjan: im failing to see any situation where it actually _is_ a problem
00:20:30 <alise_> integ f x y | y-x > 0 = sum (map f [(y-x)..(i-1)])
00:20:32 <alise_> | otherwise = 0
00:20:33 -!- alise has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
00:20:39 <alise_> where [m..n] is [m,m+1,...,n-1,n]
00:20:43 <alise_> fax: isthis right?
00:20:46 <alise_> *is this
00:21:17 <fax> hello
00:22:31 <alise_> 23:20 <alise_> integ f x y | y-x > 0 = sum (map f [(y-x)..(i-1)])
00:22:31 <alise_> 23:20 <alise_> | otherwise = 0
00:22:31 <alise_> 23:20 * alise (~alise@genld-216-213.t-mobile.co.uk) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
00:22:31 <alise_> 23:20 <alise_> where [m..n] is [m,m+1,...,n-1,n]
00:22:31 <alise_> is that your def?
00:22:37 <alise_> erm
00:22:51 <alise_> 23:20 <alise_> integ f x y | y-x > 0 = sum (map f [x..(y-x)])
00:22:52 <alise_> 23:20 <alise_> | otherwise = 0
00:22:52 <alise_> 23:20 * alise (~alise@genld-216-213.t-mobile.co.uk) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
00:22:52 <alise_> 23:20 <alise_> where [m..n] is [m,m+1,...,n-1,n]
00:22:53 <alise_> that's not right...
00:23:22 <fax> alise use the paper instead of my code!
00:23:23 <alise_> ok so we loop (y-x) times, first value to the function is x
00:23:28 <fax> it's much clearer, and all my stuff is copying it exactly
00:23:30 <alise_> fax: no :)
00:23:53 <alise_> so
00:23:53 <alise_> i.(y-x)
00:23:53 <alise_> yields a list starting at 0 of (y-x) in length
00:23:53 <alise_> x + i. (y-x)
00:23:53 <alise_> ok, that's right
00:23:54 <alise_> so then we u on it
00:23:54 <alise_> and +/
00:23:56 <alise_> if. (y-x)>0 do. +/u x+i.y-x else. 0 end.
00:24:02 <alise_> this is right, so why do i get domain errors
00:24:10 -!- cheater2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
00:24:13 <alise_> ehh just gimme a dead simple example to test :))
00:24:50 <alise_> 3 (id integ) 4
00:24:50 <alise_> |domain error
00:24:50 <alise_> | 3 (id integ)4
00:24:52 <alise_> there is no damn reason for that
00:24:53 <fax> example of waht?
00:24:57 -!- cheater3 has joined.
00:24:58 <alise_> your finite integ
00:25:17 <oerjan> augur: what about /a{256*x}a{3*y}b{y}b{256*z}/
00:25:18 <oklopol> what's going on?
00:25:31 <alise_> ok seriously my definition is right
00:25:33 <alise_> myabe the if is the problem
00:25:49 <augur> oejan, what about it?
00:25:49 <oerjan> (trying to find an example based on the brainfuck constant algorithm trickeries
00:25:50 <alise_> nope
00:25:53 <oerjan> )
00:26:03 <oerjan> augur: can you refactor that?
00:26:12 <augur> recognize some number of a's, divide by 256, if thats not an int, fail
00:26:16 <augur> oh i see
00:26:19 <augur> oh my lets see :x
00:26:41 <oklopol> "integ f x y | y-x > 0 = sum (map f [x..(y-x)])" <<< you go from x to y-x? so y's like 2x+offset?
00:26:49 <oklopol> i mean not that i have any idea what that's about
00:27:57 <alise_> finite integration
00:28:01 <alise_> my j definition is breaking
00:28:02 <alise_> fix it :)
00:28:23 <alise_> integ =: adverb define
00:28:24 <alise_> if. (y-x)>0 do. +/u x+i.y-x else. 0 end.
00:28:24 <alise_> )
00:30:00 <augur> oerjan, first, w must be a multiple of 3
00:30:05 <augur> ew
00:30:08 <augur> er
00:30:15 <augur> the number of a's must be a multiple of 3
00:30:23 <oerjan> augur: incorrect
00:30:27 <augur> no, correct
00:30:32 <oerjan> no, incorrect
00:30:32 * fax downloads j
00:30:36 <augur> oerjan
00:30:48 <augur> it is correct
00:30:51 <augur> and let me prove to you why
00:30:52 <oerjan> 256 is not divisible by 3
00:30:57 <alise_> fax: good idea, watch out for the installer it fucks your home directory (ok well adds a directory or two to it)
00:31:01 <augur> that is irrelevant to the point
00:31:06 <alise_> you can specify a different dir but make sure you can write in it
00:31:06 <oerjan> x is not used anywhere else
00:31:08 <oklopol> alise_: how do you apply an adverb? :P
00:31:12 <augur> be quiet, oerjan
00:31:13 <augur> and listen
00:31:38 <oerjan> augur: no it is not, you can add 256 a's to any solution and get a new one, which is not a multiple of 3 if the original is
00:31:44 <augur> a^(256x + 3y) b^(y + 256x) = a^w b^(w/3 - 256x - 256w)
00:31:58 * fax realizes how much I have forgotten when given a blank window
00:32:15 <augur> er, 256x/3
00:32:15 -!- MizardX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
00:32:27 <augur> - 256z
00:32:28 -!- MizardX has joined.
00:32:28 <augur> not w
00:32:29 <augur> sorry.
00:32:57 <oklopol> alise_: how do i apply that to a function and two data arguments?
00:33:11 <augur> a^w b^(w/3 - 256x/3 - 256z)
00:33:20 <oklopol> i can't just do "x function integ y"
00:33:23 <alise_> oklopol: x (func integ) y
00:33:27 <oklopol> oh.
00:33:27 <alise_> produces a domain error, helpfully
00:33:29 <oklopol> i can huh
00:33:33 <alise_> no matter what you plug in
00:33:43 <oklopol> ah okay, is that the problem?
00:33:53 <alise_> oklopol: lol
00:33:53 <alise_> its just like x +/ y
00:33:53 <alise_> *it's
00:33:53 <alise_> here's its pal deriv
00:33:53 <alise_> deriv =: adverb define
00:33:54 <alise_> u (y+1) - u y
00:33:54 <alise_> )
00:33:55 <alise_> that one actually works
00:34:07 <augur> well you might be right actually :)
00:34:18 * oerjan cackles evilly
00:34:19 <alise_> oklopol: what that integ produces a domain error all the time?
00:34:28 <alise_> yes. i don't think the algorithm-if-it-worked has been translated incorrectly
00:34:41 <oklopol> alise_: i thought there had to be special syntax for when it's letters and not operator letters, exactly because it produced a domain error
00:34:52 <alise_> well, (foo deriv) x works so
00:34:55 <oklopol> then again why would that give me a domain error
00:34:59 <alise_> well exactly
00:35:10 <alise_> j comes with a debugger, I think i'll try that
00:35:24 <fax> fucking hell what's the identity
00:35:40 <alise_> if i can find it lol
00:36:23 <alise_> id v 3 : (,'y')
00:36:29 <alise_> that is ... not helpful
00:36:43 <fax> ah what the FUCK
00:36:57 -!- cheater3 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
00:36:57 <fax> id =: monad : 'x' -- this is wrong
00:37:01 <fax> id =: monad : 'y' -- this works
00:37:08 <alise_> ?
00:37:10 <alise_> yeah
00:37:11 <alise_> because
00:37:14 <alise_> (x u y)
00:37:15 <alise_> is application
00:37:19 <fax> ???
00:37:20 <alise_> so (u y) is just a simplified form of that
00:37:22 <fax> oh
00:37:30 <alise_> remember everything is infix even things that aren't :))
00:37:41 <alise_> also often this is a nicer syntax for definitions:
00:37:45 <alise_> id =: monad define
00:37:45 <alise_> y
00:37:45 <alise_> )
00:37:50 <alise_> longer ones anyway
00:38:01 -!- cheater2 has joined.
00:38:04 <alise_> specially ones with strings :)
00:38:10 <augur> oerjan, so if we accept that this might be tricky, how can we make it trivial
00:38:15 <alise_> oklopol: you might be right about needing special syntax for the dyadic adverb case
00:38:18 <augur> eliminating addition would do it
00:38:34 <augur> atleast, variable addition
00:38:53 <augur> so a{2x+3} is fine, but a{2x+y} is not
00:38:54 <oklopol> a hint is it doesn't work no matter what the code in the body is
00:38:55 <fax> alise? +/ f a + i. b
00:38:58 <fax> this seems to work
00:39:00 <alise_> Unlike verbs, adverbs and conjunctions have fixed valence: an adverb is monadic (applying to a single argument to its left), and a conjunction is dyadic.
00:39:02 <oklopol> the call gives a domain error
00:39:02 <alise_> ahh
00:39:05 <alise_> maybe i need a conjunction!
00:39:11 <oerjan> augur: so each character can only be used with one variable?
00:39:15 <fax> sum f mapped over the range a to b
00:39:23 <alise_> yeppp i need a conjunction i think
00:40:05 <alise_> 3 (id integ) 4
00:40:05 <alise_> |ill-formed name: ?
00:40:05 <alise_> | ({."1 wdq) =:wd_val
00:40:05 <alise_> wat.
00:40:07 <augur> oerjan, well, no that would be stupid
00:40:08 <oerjan> augur: after all you'll also have to disallow a{2x}a{y}
00:40:08 <augur> you're right
00:40:17 <oklopol> alise_: why conjunction? it just takes one verb
00:40:23 <oklopol> one function
00:40:25 <alise_> ah right
00:40:28 <alise_> then wtf is up :)
00:40:47 <oklopol> well dunno, do adverbs actually get to talk about the parameters the resulting verb is called with?
00:40:52 <oklopol> x and y
00:40:58 <augur> well, but oerjan, here's the good thing at least, right
00:41:01 <oklopol> i mean, i don't actually remember pretty much any syntax...
00:41:06 <fax> oerjan did you se the proof about primes?
00:41:09 <alise_> yes they do
00:41:11 <alise_> that's why deriv works :-)
00:41:15 <oklopol> hmm right
00:41:17 <augur> a^256x a^3y b^y b^256z is surely linear time, right
00:41:20 <fax> I just wrote the one from the book out
00:41:29 <oerjan> fax: the one with P(1,1,...,1) ? yes
00:41:51 <fax> okay
00:41:53 <augur> thats just (a...)^x (aaa)^y b^y (b...)^z
00:42:38 <augur> which would have minimal amounts of backtracking
00:43:45 <alise_> http://www.mail-archive.com/general@jsoftware.com/msg04062.html
00:43:48 <alise_> may be a monadic/dyadic issue???
00:43:52 <oklopol> alise_: if it's any consolation, your deriv is wrong
00:44:00 <fax> hi oklopol
00:44:04 <oklopol> hi faxie
00:44:13 <augur> so if we didnt solve the simple diophantines, but instead had some amount of backtracking, it wouldnt be _too_ bad i think
00:44:16 <alise_> (id integ) 4
00:44:16 <alise_> |value error: x
00:44:16 <alise_> | +/u x+i.y- x
00:44:20 <alise_> well that's at least helpful
00:44:22 <oerjan> augur: mind you the diophantine equation in that particular case is not _that_ hard to solve. in fact i think several optimizing brainfuck compilers do it :D
00:44:26 <fax> oklopol, do you know about this bijection between N^2 and N!
00:44:36 <oerjan> (in essence)
00:44:38 <oklopol> well yes
00:44:44 <fax> f(x,y) = (x^2+y^2+x+2xy+3y)/2
00:44:51 <oklopol> oh well maybe not that one
00:44:55 <fax> it's so beautiful
00:44:56 <augur> oerjan: right, im just saying we dont have to solve them we could ust do something else
00:45:01 <fax> oerjan proved it in like 1 second
00:46:05 <oerjan> augur: i think if there is more than two variables for a given char, your backtracking could easily be quadratic etc.
00:46:09 <oerjan> *are
00:46:09 <oklopol> oh he did now
00:46:18 <alise_> "Mathematical fields always permit further division."
00:46:22 <fax> and I didn't know that C(n,k) is the n'th k-dimensional pyramid
00:46:30 <oerjan> oklopol: mind you i guessed it was a basic idea i already knew about
00:46:37 <augur> oerjan: hm. ok so then we dont have linear time
00:46:45 <oklopol> so how do you prove it?
00:46:48 <augur> im partially ok with that, actually
00:46:52 <alise_> My wit i sunmatched.
00:46:57 <oklopol> i mean one second sort of implies it's not some boring algebra
00:47:06 <alise_> *is unmatched
00:47:19 <augur> im more interested in the class of languages that is representable in such a simple fashion
00:47:24 <augur> the parse complexity isnt a huge issue
00:47:32 <oklopol> fax: i didn't know that either, n'th as in of height n?
00:47:39 <fax> n'th in the sequence
00:47:54 <fax> for example nC2 = n(n-1)/2 triangular numbers
00:47:58 <augur> tho the linear time subset of those is itself interesting
00:48:06 <alise_> oklopol: FIX IT :|
00:48:09 <oklopol> "in the sequence"?
00:48:13 <oklopol> alise_: fix what?
00:48:16 <fax> 1,3,6,10,15,...
00:48:18 <oklopol> the derivative is trivial to fix
00:48:26 <alise_> the deriv isn't broken.
00:48:29 <oklopol> oh well i see
00:48:33 <fax> oklopol, the really amazing bit is that the the FINITE INTEGRAL of nCk is nCk+1
00:49:01 <fax> (which explains why it's a bijection)
00:49:02 <oklopol> yeah finite integration and falling powers are pals
00:49:07 <oklopol> oh
00:49:29 <fax> and this generalizes too
00:49:38 <oklopol> so wait what do we see why f is a bijection now?
00:49:42 <oklopol> i don't see.
00:49:43 <alise_> ` =: adverb : 'u (y+1) - u y' NB. now I just need a fancy symbol for my broken integration
00:49:44 <HackEgo> No output.
00:49:53 <fax> oklopol, well if we are at T(3) = 6,
00:50:02 <fax> we can add 1, 2, or 3, until we hit T(4)
00:50:17 <oklopol> alise_: so what's ] deriv 1
00:50:27 <oklopol> 2 - 1 = 1
00:50:30 <fax> so there is a bijection between N and (x,y) : NxN where y < x
00:51:26 <alise_> oklopol: ] deriv 1 results in 1. why
00:51:28 <oerjan> oklopol: f(x,y) = (x+y)C2 + y iirc
00:51:39 <alise_> it's exactly fax's def so...
00:52:12 <alise_> aw ` isn't a valid name
00:52:38 <oklopol> alise_: oh sorry, ] doesn't show the problem
00:52:46 <oklopol> but try say +: deriv 6
00:53:02 <fax> and you can just shift it over to make the full bijection
00:53:06 <fax> skew
00:53:10 <oklopol> the derivative of +: is constant 2
00:53:41 <oklopol> oerjan: ah, okay that's cool
00:53:42 <alise_> then fax's definition must suffer from the same problem
00:53:47 <alise_> because his is exactly the same
00:53:51 <oklopol> where's fax's definition?
00:53:59 <alise_> http://github.com/odge/al-jabr/blob/master/Fun/FiniteCalculus.v
00:54:01 <oklopol> are you sure she expressed it in j?
00:54:02 <augur> oerjan: on an unrelated note, wanna hear a cool technique for doing part-of-speech induction? :D
00:54:13 <alise_> Definition DiscreteDerivative (f : Z -> Z) (x : Z) := f (x + 1) - f x.
00:54:20 <oklopol> okay
00:54:27 <oklopol> and you have f (x + 1 - f x)
00:54:30 <alise_> XD
00:54:33 <alise_> no i don't
00:54:40 <alise_> hmm so i do
00:54:41 <alise_> wow :D
00:54:45 <oklopol> well okay
00:54:46 <alise_> pretty epic failure there
00:54:48 <oerjan> augur: not really, my head is on the verge of full
00:54:51 <oklopol> you have f ((x + 1) - f x)
00:54:53 <augur> aww
00:54:58 <augur> well empty some of it out!
00:55:00 <oklopol> i mean in j terms
00:55:10 <augur> anyway, im going to tell the channel anyway, oerjan
00:55:12 <augur> so dont worry :D
00:55:17 <oerjan> AAAAAA
00:55:19 <augur> oklopol! im going to tell this to you too
00:55:20 <oerjan> i mean, ok
00:55:28 <augur> 8D
00:55:31 <oklopol> augur: go for it, not that i have any idea what's going on
00:55:31 <alise_> deriv =: adverb : '(u y+1)-u y'
00:55:36 <alise_> a nicer name would be... nice, though
00:55:49 <alise_> +:` x etc
00:55:54 <alise_> but that's not valid
00:55:54 <augur> oklopol: part of speech induction. that is, given some text in a language, discovering the parts of speech (noun, verb, etc.)
00:56:12 <augur> so the algorithm goes like this
00:56:17 <fax> http://www.jstor.org/pss/2323743
00:56:24 <fax> geometry of binomial coefficients - Stephen Wolfram
00:56:51 <fax> looking at the binary stuff :|
00:57:26 <alise_> fax: yay, % deriv now produces a correct plot
00:58:01 <alise_> + deriv still produces a ridiculous plot with little spikes at float errors
00:58:44 <augur> for each word, collect the "n-contexts" that it appears in, where the n-context of the word is the set of pairs of strings where each string is the n words immediately to the left/right of the word in some sentence the word appears in
00:59:03 <fax> nicee nice baby
00:59:25 <augur> e.g. if you have the sentence "the dog barked", the 1-context is (the, barked). if you have two sentenes, "the dog barked" and "the dog yelped", it has the 1-contexts {(the, barked), (the, yelped)}
00:59:54 <augur> so you just map each word to its sentential neighborhood, basically.
00:59:55 <alise_> oklopol: now fix integ >_>
00:59:58 <alise_> do you even know the error :P
01:00:26 <augur> then you build a graph where each node in the graph is a word, and an arc connects two words if the words share at least one context
01:01:12 <augur> that is, the graph is (V, E) where V is the words, and (w1, w2) is in E iff context(w1) intersect context(w2) is not empty
01:01:51 <augur> so that gives you a similarity graph, showing you which words show up in similar neighborhoods to which other words
01:02:16 <augur> then if you take the word-wise maximal cliques of this graph, you get the parts of speech
01:03:37 <alise_> oklopol: I know the equation is correct -
01:03:41 <alise_> +/] 3+i.1
01:03:41 <alise_> 3
01:03:47 <alise_> it's just the definition is broken
01:03:56 <augur> and this algorithm works _surprisingly_ well
01:03:57 <oklopol> yeah but there's a domain error no matter what code you put in the if
01:04:05 <oklopol> augur: i'll read.
01:04:05 <augur> but its pretty slow.
01:04:17 <augur> at least with the maximal graph algos i have.
01:04:31 <augur> er, maximal clique.
01:05:13 <alise_> oklopol: so it is the control structure.
01:05:45 <alise_> ah
01:05:50 <alise_> inside the ifneeds to be imperative things i think
01:05:52 <alise_> *if needs
01:06:40 <alise_> nope
01:06:45 <oklopol> augur: okay that does sound like an interesting idea
01:06:50 <augur> :)
01:06:58 <oklopol> i'll have to check the definition of maximum clique tho
01:07:04 <oklopol> i have a very vague idea
01:07:28 <augur> you know what a clique is right?
01:07:41 <oklopol> wait lol
01:07:43 <alise_> The last sentence executed in a T block is tested for a non-zero value in its leading atom, determining whether the B block after the do. or the rest of the sentence is executed. An empty T block result or an omitted T block tests true.
01:07:43 <alise_> or the rest of the sentence?
01:07:52 <augur> a clique is a complete subgraph
01:07:57 <alise_> foo =: adverb define
01:07:57 <alise_> y-x
01:07:57 <alise_> )
01:07:58 <alise_> fails
01:08:06 <augur> that is, a subgraph where each vertex is connected to each other vertex
01:08:27 <oklopol> ywah
01:08:29 <oklopol> yeah
01:08:30 <augur> a maximAL (with an "al", not maximum "um")
01:08:32 <alise_> ok, it's the multiple argument thing
01:08:42 <oklopol> but no i didn't remember that right away
01:08:53 <augur> clique is a clique that cannot be enlarged by adding any other vertex
01:09:00 <alise_> foo =: adverb define
01:09:00 <alise_> dyad : 'y-x'
01:09:01 <alise_> )
01:09:01 <alise_> 1 ] foo 2
01:09:01 <alise_> 1
01:09:08 <augur> so a clique not copletely contained in any other clique
01:09:39 <augur> the _node-wise_ maximal cliques of a node are the largest cliques that the node appears in
01:09:46 <alise_> |value error: u
01:09:47 <alise_> | +/ u x+i.y-x
01:09:47 -!- coppro has quit (Quit: I am leaving. You are about to explode.).
01:09:47 <alise_> lollll
01:09:57 <augur> so the maximal cliques-that-contain-that-node
01:11:07 <oklopol> your maximum
01:11:18 <alise_> fuck =: adverb define
01:11:19 <alise_> x
01:11:20 <alise_> )
01:11:20 <alise_> ] fuck
01:11:20 <alise_> +-+
01:11:20 <alise_> ]
01:11:20 <alise_> +-+
01:11:33 <alise_> so... we can either have one or the other but not both, cool
01:11:37 <alise_> now how do you define an adverb returning dyad
01:11:42 <alise_> without this hit
01:12:15 <oklopol> have to do a sleep
01:12:15 <alise_> likewise, an adverb may refer to its left argument (using u) as well as to the arguments of the resulting verb (x and y).
01:12:16 <alise_> fugfuck
01:12:17 <oklopol> ->
01:12:34 <fax> fughafpb
01:12:36 <alise_> AHAAAA
01:12:37 <alise_> i think I have it
01:12:39 <fax> AHAHAH!!!!
01:13:04 <alise_> 3 (] integ) 4
01:13:05 <alise_> 3
01:13:06 <alise_> you know what the fix was
01:13:10 <alise_> integ =: adverb define
01:13:10 <alise_> :
01:13:10 <alise_> if. (y-x)>0 do. +/u x+i.y-x else. 0 end.
01:13:10 <alise_> )
01:13:12 <alise_> one single fucking colon
01:13:15 <alise_> "dyadic case" separator
01:13:20 <alise_> ok gimme an example
01:14:58 <oklopol> ah
01:15:12 <oklopol> i actually should've remembered that
01:15:13 <oklopol> ->
01:15:28 <alise_> deriv =: adverb : '(u y+1)-u y'
01:15:29 <alise_> integ =: adverb define
01:15:29 <alise_> :
01:15:29 <alise_> if. (y-x)>0 do. +/u x+i.y-x else. 0 end.
01:15:29 <alise_> )
01:15:30 <alise_> finite calculus in J
01:16:39 <fax> yay
01:16:40 <alise_> fax: now gimme a test case
01:16:50 <fax> alise you must know triangular numbers
01:16:53 <alise_> something semicomplicated, preferably involving both deriv and integ (in whatever syntax you want)
01:17:00 <fax> integrate the identity function to get them
01:17:11 <fax> integrate it again to get 3D pyramid numbers
01:18:53 <alise_> 0]deriv integ"0 i.10
01:18:53 <alise_> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
01:18:55 <alise_> Sucks eggs!
01:20:48 <alise_> do you actually need the x param?
01:20:57 <fax> it doesn't wokr?
01:20:59 <alise_> you can do that from outside integ no?
01:21:02 <alise_> fax: it does
01:21:07 <fax> what did you integrate?
01:21:13 <fax> "0 is the identity?
01:21:14 <alise_> pronounce(sucks eggs) ~ pronounce(success)
01:21:21 <alise_> ] is identity
01:21:23 <alise_> it's (] deriv) integ
01:21:24 <fax> oh
01:21:27 <alise_> "0 is just so that I can map it over i.10
01:21:30 <fax> oh!!!
01:21:35 <alise_> (because it's dyadic you need to fuck about with rank)
01:21:45 <alise_> (for monadic verbs it maps automatically)
01:21:55 <alise_> ("0 says basically... this thing takes atoms, not lists)
01:22:53 <fax> how do I integrate id?
01:23:00 <alise_> ]integ
01:23:08 <alise_> it's (f adverb), always
01:23:13 <alise_> x f adverb y also works
01:23:29 <fax> 1 (]integ) 6
01:23:34 <alise_> 1 ]integ 6 even.
01:23:36 <fax> it works ! but how do I map over i.1
01:23:40 <fax> i.10
01:23:45 <alise_> 1 ]integ 6"0 i.10
01:24:08 <fax> 1 ]integ "0 i.10
01:24:09 <fax> 0 0 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36
01:24:10 <fax> yes!
01:24:43 <alise_> right
01:24:52 <oerjan> now try integrating 2, add constant 1, then integrate again
01:24:58 <alise_> integrating... 2?
01:25:02 <alise_> 2 is not a function
01:25:02 <oerjan> constant 2
01:25:24 <alise_> 2: is constant 2
01:25:26 <fax> alise this is so cool
01:25:27 <alise_> 1: is constant 1
01:25:30 <alise_> what do you mean adding constant 1, add howso
01:25:38 <alise_> fax: j or finite calculus in general? :)
01:25:43 <fax> everything!!
01:25:48 <alise_> j's array handling is awesome, and finite calculus is neat
01:25:52 <alise_> very simple definitions
01:25:56 <oerjan> alise_: const n = \x -> n
01:25:59 <alise_> yes
01:26:00 <fax> I need to start using J again, I've totally forgotton it
01:26:03 <alise_> "add" constant 1
01:26:07 <alise_> how do you "add" two functions
01:26:13 <fax> f+g = \x -> f x + g x
01:26:13 <alise_> \f g x -> f x + g x?
01:26:19 <oerjan> yes
01:27:33 <alise_> so basically
01:27:33 <alise_> foo =: dyad : '(1 (2:integ) y)+1'
01:27:36 <oerjan> i would have thought J would have that as an easy operation
01:27:39 <fax> I have to go
01:27:40 <fax> bye
01:27:40 <alise_> probably does
01:27:42 <alise_> but I don't know it
01:27:45 <oerjan> isn't that what forks do?
01:27:52 <alise_> forks are
01:28:04 <alise_> x v y -> (x arg) v (y arg)
01:28:07 <alise_> so I guess
01:28:08 <alise_> but anyway
01:28:12 <alise_> foo =: dyad : '(1 (2:integ) y)+1'
01:28:14 <alise_> 1 (foo integ) 1
01:28:14 <alise_> 0
01:28:14 <alise_> 1 (foo integ) 2
01:28:14 <alise_> |domain error: foo
01:28:14 <alise_> | +/ u x+i.y-x
01:28:15 <alise_> :/
01:28:20 <fax> yeah stuff like forks I struggled to learn
01:28:23 <alise_> stoopid
01:28:27 <alise_> i need monad duh
01:28:29 <alise_> fax: it's easy
01:28:33 <alise_> if you apply an operator to two functions
01:28:37 <oerjan> mind you fork is the only J think i know :D
01:28:38 <alise_> then you get
01:28:43 <alise_> \x. (f x) op (g x)
01:28:47 <alise_> from f op g
01:29:02 <oerjan> alise_: mind you it's also ((1+).) in haskell
01:29:13 <alise_> oerjan: ok this is just giving me constant 1 :)
01:29:35 <alise_> 2 (foo integ) is constant 3
01:29:54 <alise_> same for all n>1
01:30:01 <oerjan> can't you integrate the function \x -> 2 ?
01:30:04 <alise_> yes
01:30:14 <alise_> 1 (2:integ)"0 i.10
01:30:15 <alise_> 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
01:30:21 <alise_> gives, uh, constant 2 :P
01:30:22 <fax> that's nto correct is it
01:30:24 <oerjan> should be 0 2 4 6 ...
01:30:25 <alise_> more or less
01:30:31 <fax> more or less XD
01:30:47 <alise_> fax: well if it is not then yours is wrong also
01:30:52 <alise_> oh
01:30:54 <alise_> i needed 2:"0
01:31:00 <alise_> 1 ((2:"0)integ)"0 i.10
01:31:01 <alise_> 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
01:31:18 <alise_> foo =: monad : '(1 ((2:"0)integ) y)+1'
01:31:19 <alise_> 1 (foo integ)"0 i.10
01:31:19 <alise_> 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
01:31:21 <alise_> altogether less interesting.
01:32:17 <oerjan> hm that's not quite right there shouldn't be two 0's first?
01:32:31 <alise_> ah got it working
01:32:41 <alise_> 1 ((1&((2:"0)integ))"0 + 1:)"0 i.10
01:32:43 <alise_> 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
01:33:04 <oerjan> only 1 of the 1's should be there
01:33:16 <oerjan> otherwise the next step would fail, or?
01:33:17 <alise_> i. 10 = 0, 1, 2, ...,
01:33:17 <alise_> 9
01:33:31 <fax> I like J
01:33:38 <alise_> j likes you
01:34:39 -!- Asztal has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
01:35:03 <alise_> It would be nice if J had the facilities to do symbolic stuff too.
01:35:05 <oerjan> alise_: now integrate one more time
01:35:08 <alise_> Plus types; then we'd have the perfect language.
01:35:15 <alise_> oerjan: as in ((f integ) integ), presumably
01:35:17 <fax> what happens if you integrate again??
01:35:27 <oerjan> alise_: after adding the 1
01:35:32 <alise_> 1 (((1&((2:"0)integ))"0 + 1:)"0 integ)"0 i.10
01:35:33 <alise_> 0 0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64
01:35:35 <alise_> the world asplodes
01:35:38 <oerjan> success!
01:35:39 <fax> theat's squares
01:35:40 <fax> :D
01:35:56 <alise_> esolang idea: just integration and constant functions
01:37:03 <alise_> :( deriv fails on an integ'd func
01:37:14 <fax> realy?? why
01:38:31 -!- fax has quit (Quit: Lost terminal).
01:38:35 <alise_> (1&]integ)"0 deriv 1
01:38:35 <alise_> |domain error
01:38:35 <alise_> | ( u y+1)-u y
01:40:32 <alise_> oerjan: what number did you say basic arithmetic fails at? 10^40?
01:44:00 <oerjan> possibly
01:44:10 <alise_> were you serious? :)
01:44:26 <oerjan> hardly
01:44:43 -!- coppro has joined.
01:44:44 <oerjan> well it _could_ be
01:45:02 <oerjan> the number was of course pulled out of my ass
01:45:21 <oerjan> apart from being on the order of something cosmological
01:45:23 <alise_> oerjan: ok do you believe there is some number n where arithmetic breaks down
01:45:34 <alise_> in /theory/, not on computing machines
01:46:03 <oerjan> i do not positively believe there is such a number no
01:46:20 <oerjan> but i would not positively rule it entirely out either
01:46:53 <alise_> prob=?
01:47:07 <oerjan> no
01:47:26 <oerjan> you've already got _one_ number out of my ass :D
01:47:42 <alise_> i was asking for a number.
01:47:42 <alise_> or is it too small to exist :)
01:47:50 <oerjan> and if there is one thing i _don't_ believe in, it's making up answers when you don't know things
01:48:18 <alise_> ok then, prob>0.5?
01:48:31 <alise_> i mean this is a question about your belief in its probability
01:48:51 <oerjan> i do not believe my belief is quantifiable
01:49:53 <alise_> prob>0.5 is just a nerdy way of saying is it more likely than not in your opinion
01:50:04 <alise_> i.e. do you err on the side of there is such a number - or not?
01:50:32 <oerjan> mu
01:51:18 <alise_> you are one awkward bastard :)
01:51:40 <oerjan> it is a hypothetical possibility, for which i have absolutely no evidence one way or the other. how the heck should i assign a number to it?
01:51:57 <alise_> synchronicity, a hypothetical possibility with no evidence one way or the other
01:52:39 <oerjan> i just _knew_ you'd say something like that
01:52:53 <oerjan> er...
01:52:56 <alise_> i am a predictable guy.
01:53:01 <alise_> but... i have a point
01:54:16 <oerjan> my evidence for synchronicity is immeasurably stronger than my evidence that there exists an inconsistent number. if you want to conclude from that that your asked prob<0.5 then be my guest.
01:54:37 <alise_> but evidence for synchronicity isn't really, it's not actual evidence implying synchronicity
01:54:47 <alise_> because your brain is designed to find causal relations
01:55:01 <alise_> that doesn't mean there isn't any such thing and it's a valid belief...
01:55:07 <alise_> but there is no actual quantifiable evidence for it
01:56:38 <Sgeo> Major deadline coming up, and I think I'm going to switch to the pre-rewrite
01:56:49 <Sgeo> Because a lot of stuff that still needs to be done in the rewrite was done here
01:57:05 <alise_> Then why did you rewrite?
01:57:11 <Sgeo> I did not. The other guy did.
01:57:16 <Sgeo> I had no involvement.
01:57:19 <alise_> also - lemme guess, there's no actual DEADLINE
01:57:26 <alise_> because it's just a bunch of kids thinking they're professional
01:57:31 <alise_> so they dreamt one up
01:57:40 <alise_> marketing! pr! promotions! firing! Enterprise-quality code!
01:57:59 <Sgeo> Well, AWI won't renew the guy in charge's citizenship if the deadline is not met
01:58:03 <Sgeo> So yes, there is a deadline
01:58:14 <alise_> Ooh, horrific.
02:04:58 <alise_> Bye, everyone, until Friday. If anyone wants to talk to me... do it now.
02:05:11 <oerjan> bye
02:05:44 <alise_> I have to be up in... less than six and a half hours.
02:05:56 <Sgeo> Bye alise_. Wish your situation was resolved sooner :/
02:06:02 <alise_> Ditto.
02:06:05 <alise_> Thanks.
02:06:07 <alise_> Toodles!
02:06:09 -!- alise_ has quit.
02:28:49 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
02:35:16 -!- coppro has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
02:37:24 -!- coppro has joined.
02:49:03 <Gregor> Wowsers!
02:49:13 <Gregor> Apparently when I post a plea for people to munge comics on lonelydino.com , they actually do!
02:52:38 <pikhq> Whoa.
03:10:24 -!- Oranjer has left (?).
03:20:40 <Sgeo> munge?
03:46:23 -!- Oranjer has joined.
04:28:42 -!- mibygl has joined.
04:28:51 <mibygl> So, they say that in Unix, everything is a file.
04:29:19 <mibygl> So, in Unix, what isn't a file? If a process doesn't have access to any files, what can it do?
04:29:38 <mibygl> Apart from creating files and accessing them. :P
04:30:06 <coppro> mibygl: "Everything is a file" refers to the fact that all methods of communication (pipes, files, sockets, devices, etc.) are all accessed in exactly the same way
04:30:18 <coppro> modern systems go even farther with /proc and /sys
04:31:45 <mibygl> Hmm.
04:32:26 -!- Oranjer has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
04:32:55 <mibygl> "Problem: I can't access any web sites because my Internet connection is down. Solution: use a USB drive to load Apache onto the affected computer and create a web site. It will then be possible to access that web site."
04:33:20 * mibygl coughs.
04:33:33 <mibygl> But anyway.
04:33:44 <oerjan> rright
04:34:56 <Gregor> Also, sockets are only files on fairly esoteric systems, e.g. Plan 9 and Hurd.
04:45:02 * mibygl ponders permissions.
04:46:08 <mibygl> They're pretty simple. Read, write, execute, setuid, setgid, sticky... is that all the permission bits?
04:47:43 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Good night).
04:48:57 <Gregor> Well, with the caveat that there are in fact three read bits, three write bits and three execute bits, yes.
04:49:16 <mibygl> Right.
04:57:21 <mibygl> I wonder how groups work.
04:59:23 <Gregor> Poorly.
04:59:43 <mibygl> Does each process have precisely one real and effective group ID? What do a user's other groups do?
05:00:17 <Gregor> Yes. Other groups allow the process access to files etc based on group permissions, but written files will be of the effective group.
05:00:48 -!- mibygl has quit (Quit: Page closed).
05:00:53 <Gregor> ... ohhhhkidokie.
05:00:58 -!- mibygl has joined.
05:01:10 <Gregor> <mibygl> Does each process have precisely one real and effective group ID? What do a user's other groups do?
05:01:10 <Gregor> <Gregor> Yes. Other groups allow the process access to files etc based on group permissions, but written files will be of the effective group.
05:01:42 <mibygl> So does a process have the group permissions of its own group plus all the groups its user is in?
05:01:51 <Gregor> Yes.
05:01:58 <Gregor> The assumption is that usually those overlap, but they don't have to.
05:02:13 <Gregor> (Also, I believe the details of that are not particularly solid, they vary from system to system)
05:02:31 <Gregor> ("system" meaning "operating system" in this case)
05:03:35 * mibygl nods.
05:03:44 <mibygl> Seems straightforward enough.
05:04:25 <Gregor> Then of course some unixen implement ACLs, and that system has complicated interactions with classic permissions.
05:06:30 <mibygl> Fun.
05:07:24 <Gregor> For instance, I'm fairly certain that SELinux implements ACLs (along with a trillion other things), but I have not one clue how they work.]
05:15:02 -!- myndzi\ has joined.
05:18:13 -!- myndzi has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
05:19:10 <Gregor> In my font, myndzi\'s i\ looks a lot like a lambda :P
05:33:59 -!- adu has joined.
05:37:53 <augur> hey myndzi\ :o
05:37:57 <augur> i havent seen you in a while
05:38:42 <myndzi\> i'm surprised anyone remembers me, i wasn't exactly active i guess :P
05:38:45 -!- myndzi\ has changed nick to myndzi.
05:39:05 <myndzi> i think i didn't have the channel on autojoin or something
05:43:25 <augur> but you do now! :D
05:44:02 <myndzi> er.. one moment... yes, sure, yeah
05:44:03 <myndzi> ;)
05:44:45 <augur> good boy
05:45:53 <augur> man
05:46:16 <augur> i can do part-of-speech induction on a 5000 sentence corpus in about, oh, 3 seconds
05:47:22 <myndzi> that's cool
05:47:29 <myndzi> i always kinda wanted to learn about natural language processing
05:47:36 <augur> i dont. :P
05:47:42 <augur> its yawnfully boring
05:47:43 <myndzi> but everything i tried to look up on the internet was over my head
05:47:46 <augur> but whatever
05:47:51 <augur> oh!
05:47:54 <augur> want an introduction
05:47:55 <augur> ?
05:47:59 <myndzi> sure
05:48:26 <augur> step 1: generate a random model of the corpus
05:48:50 <augur> step 2: calculate the statistics based off of that model and compare it to the new data
05:48:55 <augur> step 3: update your model
05:49:00 <augur> step 4: goto step 2
05:49:02 <myndzi> ..what
05:49:03 <myndzi> :P
05:49:10 <augur> you think im joking
05:49:11 <augur> im not
05:49:23 <myndzi> no, i just don't know what statistics i'm calculating or what the model means
05:49:24 <augur> so much of NLP is basically that
05:49:26 <myndzi> hehe
05:49:31 <augur> any statistics you want
05:49:49 <augur> usually its just basic probabilities
05:49:51 <myndzi> so you're saying basically pick a random part of speech for every word, and then <do thing> and correct it repeatedly?
05:50:11 <augur> so like, if some new sentence comes in, you update your predictions by just like, throwing the sentence into the model
05:50:14 <augur> its really stupid
05:50:20 <myndzi> that's rather disappointing actually
05:50:33 <myndzi> i thought that there would be a way to actually parse english grammar or something
05:50:40 <augur> when im done eating ill give you a more accurate picture
05:51:22 <myndzi> mmk
05:51:29 <myndzi> i guess that's why we have lojban eh?
05:51:30 <myndzi> :)
05:51:36 <augur> no.
05:54:01 <myndzi> sure! one of the reasons lojban was thunk up was to have a language that could be unambiguously machine-processed
05:54:07 <augur> that doesnt mean trivially learned.
05:54:15 <myndzi> oh, certainly not
05:54:21 <myndzi> i don't propose anybody learns lojban lol
05:54:44 <myndzi> it's an interesting idea, but i think i read somewhere that the words were basically randomly generated
05:54:50 <myndzi> there's no character to that
05:55:28 <myndzi> i wonder if there are many widely used languages that are much easier on NLP than English
05:55:35 <myndzi> i wouldn't be surprised at all
05:55:40 <myndzi> either way really, for different reasons
06:09:10 <augur> ok im done eating
06:09:20 <augur> so here is the current algo we're doing in class
06:09:58 <augur> first you assume that your input data is a probabilistic markovian process
06:10:05 <augur> this is false, but just pretend, because we're NLP people
06:10:52 <myndzi> mmk
06:10:56 <augur> so build a random fully-connected probabilistic finite state machine with state-wise write probabilities
06:11:10 <augur> that is, transitions are distinct from symbol writes
06:11:34 <augur> when you transition to a state, you write a symbol associated with that state
06:11:52 <augur> as opposed to writing a symbol associated with a particular transition.
06:12:14 <myndzi> yep, now i know *exactly* what to read about on wikipedia! :P
06:12:19 <myndzi> i'm sorry, i probably don't really belong here lol
06:12:25 <myndzi> actually i never went to college D:
06:12:26 <augur> wait, it gets BETTER
06:13:22 <augur> when a new sentences comes in
06:13:34 -!- coppro has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
06:14:18 <augur> calculate the expected number of times that sentence should show up in a corpus of the size you have
06:14:36 <augur> (or when a new symbol comes in. its all the same.)
06:15:25 <myndzi> so the states in this case would be nouns, verbs, etc.?
06:15:32 <augur> then, using that re-normalize your probabilities, and this is your new model
06:15:41 <augur> the states would be whatever.
06:15:52 <myndzi> specifically for NLP
06:16:00 <augur> the number of states you need varies
06:17:05 <myndzi> i think i about have the gist of it, but what does this have to do with part of speech decisions?
06:17:29 <myndzi> oh, i guess they are learned from the arrangement of symbols in your corpus
06:17:37 <myndzi> and not explicitly defined
06:17:40 <augur> oh, the part of speech induction thing is a different task
06:17:53 <augur> but you could probably apply a similar thing to it
06:17:57 <augur> thats not how im approaching it, tho
06:18:00 <myndzi> ah
06:18:15 <myndzi> i was trying to read your description in the context of tagging parts of speech hehe
06:18:26 <myndzi> i probably used the term NLP wrong then
06:18:27 <augur> oh no, dont do that
06:18:40 <augur> what i described was sequence recognition
06:18:43 <augur> sentences, usually
06:18:50 <augur> is it a sentence or not
06:18:56 <augur> how likely is it to be produced
06:18:56 <augur> etc
06:18:57 <myndzi> i see
06:19:12 <augur> the POS induction im doing is not at all like that
06:19:28 <myndzi> POS induction is the part that sounded interesting
06:19:51 <augur> the whole induction probably is interesting
06:20:00 <augur> and thats basically what the sequence recognition thing is
06:20:05 <augur> one kind of induction problem
06:20:13 <augur> POS induction is just a special case
06:20:40 <myndzi> because words have a specific subset of parts of speech they can be?
06:20:40 <augur> the two become obviously related when you take it into the second dimension and start doing actual structure induction as opposed to markovian inductions
06:20:58 <augur> no just because words are a degenerate structure
06:21:35 <myndzi> your mom's a degenerate structure >:(
06:21:43 <augur> so basically, if you have a good algorithm for discovering that some sequences s1 = w1 w2 ... and s2 = x1 x2 ...
06:21:45 <augur> etc
06:21:49 <augur> are really the same thing
06:22:01 <augur> e.g. that "the dog" and "my cat" are basically the same kind of phrase, namely a noun phrase
06:22:11 <myndzi> yeah
06:22:17 <augur> then you can do that for the degenerate case where the "phrase" consists of a single symbol
06:22:27 <augur> which is just POS induction
06:22:44 <augur> im not sure if the converse is true
06:23:03 <augur> ie if you can do POS induction, then you can do structure induction
06:23:06 <augur> its probably not true.
06:23:32 <myndzi> well this is surely more than i knew about the subject before, but it won't sink in immediately
06:23:35 <myndzi> y u gotta use big words
06:23:59 <augur> dats hao i rol
06:25:02 <myndzi> my brother has a shirt with that phrase and a toilet paper roll
06:25:09 <myndzi> ..but the toilet paper is on backwards! >:(
06:25:28 <myndzi> lol @ wikipedia page on markov chain
06:25:29 <myndzi> This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please improve this article to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (July 2009)
06:25:32 <myndzi> amen!
06:26:12 <augur> indeed
06:36:32 -!- mibygl has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
07:01:03 <Gregor> OK, http://xkcd.com/714/ is pretty good :P
07:03:38 <myndzi> i'm not familiar with the source material
07:03:43 <myndzi> but presumably, it doesn't contain people fucking
07:09:02 <Gregor> Presumably.
07:28:52 <augur> hahaha
07:28:58 <augur> longing looks across the bridge of galactica
07:29:04 <augur> obviously her porn is guy on guy 8D
07:35:54 -!- tombom has joined.
07:36:34 <myndzi> what about, like, kara...
07:36:35 <myndzi> oh wait...
07:36:46 <myndzi> (also i don't remember who actually belongs on the bridge)
07:36:56 <myndzi> duvalla(sp?) at least, ya?
07:48:25 <augur> dualla
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
09:57:04 -!- clog has joined.
09:57:04 -!- clog has joined.
09:57:32 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds).
10:26:59 -!- lereah_ has joined.
10:42:00 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
10:42:33 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
10:42:33 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu.
11:32:32 <cheater> why is there no esolang for PONIES?
11:33:24 <lereah_> Ponies are pig disgusting
11:59:29 -!- ais523 has joined.
12:02:38 -!- kwertii has quit (Quit: bye).
12:09:29 -!- ais523 has quit.
12:09:49 -!- ais523 has joined.
13:10:01 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
13:26:22 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
13:27:01 -!- augur has joined.
13:35:48 <cheater> NOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo
13:50:55 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds).
13:51:28 -!- augur has joined.
14:01:58 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
14:02:33 -!- augur has joined.
14:06:53 -!- ais523 has joined.
14:07:34 -!- oerjan has joined.
14:09:38 -!- FireFly has joined.
15:02:04 -!- werdan7 has quit (Ping timeout: 619 seconds).
15:08:50 -!- coppro has joined.
15:10:09 -!- werdan7 has joined.
15:15:01 -!- Ilari has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
15:16:15 -!- coppro has quit (Quit: I am leaving. You are about to explode.).
15:36:49 <augur> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcn1rIliuBg
15:36:52 <augur> relevant.
15:43:09 -!- MizardX has joined.
15:51:56 -!- hiato has joined.
15:59:12 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Sick transit Gloria Monday).
16:24:42 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
16:32:19 -!- kar8nga has joined.
16:37:20 -!- charlls has joined.
16:44:15 -!- sshc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
17:02:44 -!- fax has joined.
17:06:04 -!- lament has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
17:08:17 -!- lament has joined.
17:26:36 -!- hiato has quit (Quit: underflow).
17:35:42 -!- MizardX- has joined.
17:35:44 -!- MizardX- has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
17:36:07 -!- MizardX- has joined.
17:38:12 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds).
17:38:35 -!- MizardX- has changed nick to MizardX.
17:58:20 * pikhq continues to think non-Unicode encodings should die
17:58:36 * fax thinks unicode should die
17:58:51 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
17:58:51 <pikhq> fax: Why?
17:59:04 <fax> if binary was good enough for Jesus Christ it's sure as hell good enough for me
17:59:08 <pikhq> Because you think it's simpler for there to exist several hundred character sets?
17:59:11 <pikhq> Hahahah.
17:59:18 <fax> seriously though unicode sucks
17:59:37 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
17:59:37 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu.
17:59:45 <pikhq> The alternative is several hundred character sets.
18:00:12 <fax> I mean the idea of having lots of symbols is great, and stuff like ligatures and arabic writing is wonderful
18:00:29 <fax> but things like superscript digits and summation signs just ruin it
18:00:51 <fax> what we really need is something that does text AND something that does typesetting
18:01:14 <fax> (typesetting beyond the very basic, put each symbol after (or before if it's a RTL one) the previous)
18:01:47 <pikhq> Those are there because other character sets had it, and Unicode is meant to have the following property: fromUnicode . toUnicode == id
18:01:50 <fax> but what we have know is close enough to good that nobody solves the problem of typesetting (I mean look at IRC, HTML, and so on)
18:02:30 <fax> okay so I guess having actually written this out, it's not unicode I am against exactly
18:06:30 <Gregor> ½
18:06:58 <lament> typesetting is crucial to proper functioning of the modern society
18:07:42 <lament> it's incredibly important to get all the ligatures and kerning correct
18:07:51 <lament> and WASH YOUR HANDS afterwards
18:07:56 <fax> :)
18:08:58 <pikhq> EUC-JP, ShiftJIS, and JIS in particular should die.
18:09:23 <pikhq> (there are four -- *FOUR* encodings in common use in Japanese. All incompatible.)
18:11:37 <lament> maybe the language itself should be abolished.
18:11:42 <pikhq> (EUC-JP is used because it doesn't break POSIX systems' minds, ShiftJIS is used because Windows used it, and JIS is 7-bit safe.)
18:11:51 <Gregor> Along with all other non-English languages.
18:12:03 <pikhq> Gregor: But first, let's abolish English.
18:12:43 <ais523> idea suggested in another channel: use /b/ as an entropy source for /dev/random
18:12:47 <ais523> good idea, or bad idea?
18:12:56 <Gregor> EXCELLENT idea.
18:13:03 <pikhq> ais523: Insufficiently random.
18:13:13 <ais523> pikhq: for entropy sources, it doesn't matter
18:13:19 <ais523> pure zeros does nothing, anything else makes it more random
18:13:27 <pikhq> Mmm.
18:13:34 <pikhq> Well then. Good idea.
18:14:34 <fax> I guess you could make a game that uses /b/ as input
18:14:55 <fax> kind of like tetris peices, except memes
18:16:12 -!- tombom has joined.
18:23:34 -!- lereah_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
18:28:46 -!- sshc has joined.
19:04:52 -!- MizardX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
19:05:55 -!- MizardX has joined.
19:10:03 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
19:16:36 <AnMaster> fizzie, there?
19:19:25 <fizzie> Well, a bit busy.
19:19:29 <fizzie> But technically speaking yes.
19:19:37 <AnMaster> fizzie, working on hugin thingy
19:19:56 <AnMaster> sadly I have huge parallax, mobile phone camera
19:20:05 <AnMaster> so not sure this will give anything usable
19:21:43 <fizzie> "Usable" is in the eye of the beholder, though.
19:25:11 <AnMaster> fizzie, what about support beams that are off by 1/2 of their width or more?
19:27:04 <fizzie> It depends on what you are going to use it for. That sort of picture can still be usable if you just want to make a generic sort of "this is about what the view was like" statement.
19:27:33 <AnMaster> fizzie, my mobile camera doesn't provide focal length or fov in the exif data btw, which makes me have to guess for something that works
19:28:27 <AnMaster> wow at the rectilinear projection of this...
19:31:50 <fizzie> Mine doesn't write fov into exif either, but you can sometimes find that information elsewhere.
19:32:26 <fizzie> Though I guess the initial guess doesn't have to be very good if you optimizize it anyway.
19:41:30 <AnMaster> fizzie, I need 9 non-vert/horiz lines to even get this to look like something from this world
19:54:21 -!- hiato has joined.
20:11:28 <oklopol> welcome back everybody
20:11:33 <oklopol> especially hiato i guess
20:11:50 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
20:13:21 -!- pikhq has set topic: "Gwandocu (n): Extremely strong evidence, far beyond a reasonable doubt." | module Topic where aliseSighting :: IO Integer | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D.
20:15:31 <oklopol> good one
20:17:30 <ais523> I like that topic
20:24:31 <AnMaster> fizzie, doing a first stitch atm, if not too bad I will upload it somewhere
20:25:14 <AnMaster> (using enblend due to being unable to get good enough fit for enfuse to be usable at all)
20:27:00 <AnMaster> yeargh
20:29:41 <AnMaster> well, uploading anyway
20:29:44 <AnMaster> it might be interesting
20:30:29 <AnMaster> fizzie, http://omploader.org/vM3VidQ
20:31:28 <AnMaster> (I like that bench, it is always warm XD)
20:32:01 <uorygl> Needless to say...
20:32:08 <AnMaster> uorygl, ?
20:32:20 <uorygl> AnMaster: I said "needless to say". That means I don't need to say it.
20:32:29 <AnMaster> uorygl, don't need to say *what*?
20:32:38 <uorygl> It goes without saying!
20:32:53 <AnMaster> uorygl, I have no idea idea what you are referring to :/
20:34:46 <oklopol> don't say
20:35:22 <fax> hi
20:36:20 -!- kar8nga has joined.
20:38:22 -!- MizardX- has joined.
20:40:19 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds).
20:40:20 -!- MizardX- has changed nick to MizardX.
20:41:00 <AnMaster> fizzie, so well, what do you think of it?
20:41:32 <fizzie> The window frameworksy aren't any worse than that at-the-work-place mobile-phone shots I did. Is this where?
20:42:27 -!- oerjan has joined.
20:46:15 <oerjan> 10:12:43 <ais523> idea suggested in another channel: use /b/ as an entropy source for /dev/random
20:47:22 <oerjan> coming next: Anonymous carefully manipulates /b/ to hack computer cryptography by messing up /dev/random
20:48:07 <ais523> that's supposed to be impossible
20:48:41 <AnMaster> fizzie, "is this where"?
20:48:53 <oklopol> "where is this"
20:48:57 <fizzie> Yes.
20:49:00 <AnMaster> oh
20:49:05 <AnMaster> Finnish influences?
20:49:10 <hiato> oklopol: 21:08 < oklopol> especially hiato i guess
20:49:13 <AnMaster> fizzie, Örebro Universitet
20:49:13 <hiato> thanks :)
20:49:15 <oklopol> possibly
20:49:28 <AnMaster> fizzie, this is the rather messy enfuse result: http://omploader.org/vM3VjMQ
20:50:12 <oklopol> hiato: i didn't notice someone had just joined so i had to acknowledge that my comment happened to made sense :P
20:50:22 <AnMaster> I wonder if one could do stereo image from this
20:50:24 <AnMaster> perhaps not
20:50:41 <fizzie> "Where this is?" might be the canonical word order for Finnish, but we're a bit more flexible about that; "is this where?" (or "onko tämä mistä?") doesn't sound *so* confusing.
20:50:43 <AnMaster> it would have to figure out where the camera was... which is likely to be hard
20:50:46 <hiato> oklopol: hahaha, nice. Well, 'tis the thought that counts anyway :P
20:51:00 <AnMaster> fizzie, "where is this" in English even afaik
20:51:05 <AnMaster> not "where this is"
20:51:06 <AnMaster> :/
20:51:13 <AnMaster> oh
20:51:18 <AnMaster> Finnish, not English
20:51:20 <AnMaster> I need to sleep
20:51:23 <AnMaster> so I can read properly
20:51:24 <hiato> heh
20:51:24 <oklopol> "where this is" makes no sense, "is this where" almost does
20:51:26 <uorygl> Hmm, "is this where?" is a double question.
20:51:52 <uorygl> Well, I guess "where" can mean "the place" rather than being a question word. "Is this the place?"
20:51:54 <hiato> well, in context, where this is, means something. It was "where this is" and "is this where" it was
20:52:05 <hiato> uorygl: precisely
20:52:10 <AnMaster> I was expecting "is this where <insert gruesome event> happened"
20:52:12 <AnMaster> or such
20:52:21 <fizzie> "Onko tämä mistä?" is maybe closer to "is this from where?"
20:52:33 <oklopol> oh well in uorygl's sense it makes total sense
20:52:35 <AnMaster> fizzie, what did you think about the enfused variant?
20:52:41 <hiato> but, by that token, "this is where" some gruesome event happened makes sense too, though not a question
20:52:42 <AnMaster> notice the weird art out there
20:52:52 <AnMaster> I have no clue what it is supposed to look like
20:53:00 <AnMaster> or be
20:53:06 <uorygl> Interpreted straight, "is this where?" is asking whether it's in a certain place and also asking what that place is.
20:53:19 <oklopol> couldn't you say something like "you found this where exactly?"
20:53:39 <fizzie> AnMaster: It looks pretty typical as far as enfuse-with-unaligned-sources material go; my no-tripod shots often seem to end up as "blurry".
20:53:43 <hiato> yeah, but that's a cultural thing as opposed to grammatical
20:53:46 <AnMaster> fizzie, however, in the parts where enfuse *did* manage to merge nicely it increased detail level and removed jpeg artifacts quite nicely
20:54:10 <uorygl> It's easy to do that in Lojban. "xu zvati ma" means, verbosely, "True-or-false: it's at what-place?."
20:54:21 <oklopol> hiato: was that response to me? i'm just saying that sort of usage exists, the kinds where "is this where" = "where is this"
20:54:29 <AnMaster> fizzie, I actually started out wanting to take photos of the long ice taps hanging down (was even worse a few weeks ago)
20:54:37 <oklopol> *kind
20:55:07 <hiato> oklopol: yeah, it was. I guess, but that is stertching, as the one is a question (starts with a verb) whereas the other is a subjunctive clause, or part of it IIRC
20:55:21 <oklopol> uorygl: "xu zvati ma" does not mean "is this where" in the sense of "is this the place"
20:55:26 <fizzie> AnMaster: By "ice taps", do you mean the icicles?
20:55:36 <hiato> stalactites?
20:55:38 <AnMaster> fizzie, oh that is the English word, is it?
20:55:41 <uorygl> oklopol: right.
20:55:44 <AnMaster> fizzie, but yes
20:56:03 <oklopol> hiato: no it's just "where is this" vs "where did you find this", and "is this where" vs "you found this where"
20:56:18 <oklopol> it just doesn't make sense for a short sentence
20:56:47 <oklopol> well i don't know about subjunctive clause, but they are definitely the exact same thing
20:56:59 <oklopol> uorygl: in fact i'm not sure it means anything
20:57:07 <oklopol> or umm
20:57:16 <oklopol> i guess it means, supply whether somewhere, supply where
20:57:24 <oklopol> (if somewhere)
20:57:41 <hiato> oklopol: right. Now I'm confused. The first two ("where is this" and "where did you find this" are completely different, in both tense and meaning, explicitly and impliticly), the second two are closer related, but still have different meanings and are not interchangable
20:58:25 <hiato> or, are you talking about a context, as opposed to taken on their own?
20:58:34 <oklopol> "this is" and "you find this" are both normal sentences, you're just asking where those things happen.
20:58:46 <hiato> er, right
20:58:57 <oklopol> "where does an elephant eat its baby", "the elephant ate its baby WHERE?"
20:59:13 <oklopol> hmm
20:59:17 <hiato> but, "Where is this?" and "Where did you find this?" are different in meaning, but perhaps not necessarily answer
20:59:34 <AnMaster> fizzie, anyway, I think I shall have to get a compact camera that produces raw. That is, my normal camera is way too bulky to just put in a pocket in the backpack
20:59:35 <hiato> "This is Alaska" vs "On a map"
20:59:38 <oklopol> actually the elephant thing corresponds better to "this is where?"
20:59:44 <AnMaster> and the one in the mobile phone is very bad quality
20:59:57 <AnMaster> so something like a compact high end camera would be perfect
21:00:05 <AnMaster> and light
21:00:16 <oklopol> okay yeah i'm not sure "is this where" makes sense
21:00:16 <AnMaster> my normal camera is too heavy as well
21:00:35 <oklopol> "you read this where" is also "this is where"
21:00:38 <AnMaster> oklopol, now figure out "this where is"
21:00:56 <hiato> oklopol: as a unit, it doesn't. It can only make sense as part of a larger sentence, acting as the main verb as opposed to part of the predicate
21:01:06 <fizzie> This is where it is at.
21:01:30 <hiato> and "you read this where" is horrible abuse of grammar and doesn't actually make sense if read like that
21:01:34 <oklopol> hiato: or in the sense uorygl said. that's a bit irrelevant
21:01:45 <fizzie> Bot-tweetery: "About IRC: further discussion would be fruitless. you have to stop doing scheme and do something less kludgish, so... :p i'm not sure"
21:01:45 <hiato> as opposed to "You read this? Where?"
21:01:51 <oklopol> lol
21:01:55 <oklopol> no that's not what i mean
21:02:39 <AnMaster> fizzie, btw I use hugin to merge and perspective correct photos of overheads from lectures
21:02:47 <AnMaster> it works quite well even from the mobile phone
21:03:18 <AnMaster> since it is basically no parallax, and even if there is it is all on one plane (the projection)
21:03:33 <oklopol> sure "you read this where?" is horrible, but "you saw this where" gives 114000 google hits
21:03:48 <oklopol> well
21:03:57 <oklopol> most are probably not in the sense i mean
21:04:00 <oklopol> but first result is :P
21:04:06 <hiato> hardly a grammatical argument if google is involved :P
21:04:07 <AnMaster> oklopol, that works when "where" is stressed. Like in shock or surprise
21:04:09 <oklopol> wait no
21:04:14 <oklopol> but at least one is!
21:04:18 <oklopol> on the first page
21:04:20 <fizzie> AnMaster: Don't your people publish that sort of stuff over the interwebs? (Though we have photographed the blackboards on some lectures.)
21:04:28 <oklopol> AnMaster: yes that's the point
21:04:43 <hiato> what you're seeing is "you saw this where <subject/clause>"
21:04:44 <AnMaster> fizzie, well, I write down the stuff from the whiteboards. But no, not overheads afaik
21:05:04 <oklopol> no i'm not
21:05:13 <hiato> then it can't be a question
21:05:16 <AnMaster> fizzie, considering that teacher is not the most apt with computers (he teaches electricity, currently about AC)
21:05:19 <oklopol> most on the first few pages are "you saw this where" in the sense "where did you see this"
21:05:26 <hiato> in fact, it cant ever really be a question oklopol
21:05:40 <hiato> that's cause interwebz kiddies are shtoopid
21:06:01 <oklopol> i'm sure some of them are native speakers.
21:06:15 <fizzie> AnMaster: Ah, yes. I guess we've got a few cases who have only handwritten non-computerized stuff. But everyone else as a rule publishes most lecture material in the System we have.
21:06:35 <hiato> oklopol while true, the native and grammatically correct speakers are a minority
21:06:36 <AnMaster> fizzie, or rather, he seems to not use computers unless he have to. Considering he is rumoured to teach VHDL as well I don't know what to make of it
21:07:17 <hiato> in fact, in germanic languages, that construction just doesn't work: "jy het dit gesien waar?" makes as little sense as it does in english, in afirkaans/dutch
21:07:33 <AnMaster> fizzie, but yes, in general many seem to use hand written notes for the lectures. Well, not the math teachers, they all use latex
21:07:36 <fizzie> Heh, "rumoured to teach VHDL" sounds nice. It's like VHDL is some sort of dirty secret.
21:07:36 <oklopol> hiato: well it's true the prescriptivist answer might be that the construct is not grammatical, but i'm pretty sure it's not just shtoopid internet kids who use it.
21:07:42 <oklopol> *interwebz kiddies
21:08:01 <AnMaster> fizzie, XD. (never mind that the math teachers often depart from their lecture notes)
21:08:10 <oklopol> it's a normal colloquial construct, emphasizes where
21:08:22 <hiato> heh, +3 for the correction oklopol, but fair enough, it has been assimilated, just as the double negative has "You aint going nowhere"
21:08:25 -!- MizardX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
21:08:26 <AnMaster> fizzie, well, I will have some VHDL in the next course iirc
21:08:33 <AnMaster> so I guess I'll get to know that then
21:08:49 <hiato> that, however, doesn't mean it actually makes sense within the rules of the grammar, rather that it has an accepted meaning
21:09:14 <hiato> amongst native speakers in specific envirnments
21:09:40 <AnMaster> hiato, "all but" is a strange idiom
21:10:00 <AnMaster> (about as strange as "You aint going nowhere" is to me)
21:10:06 <oklopol> well i dunno bout dat
21:10:23 <hiato> AnMaster: if anything, it is more grounded in English than most others. It's very arcaic, and I have yet to meet someone who uses it readily
21:10:25 <uorygl> Well, "all but" makes more sense than it can seem to.
21:10:36 <AnMaster> hiato, uses what? "all but"?
21:10:43 <hiato> All but John ate the food.
21:10:45 <hiato> yes
21:10:45 <uorygl> If something is all but destroyed, it's been damanged in every possible manner except for destroying it.
21:10:48 <oklopol> by which i mean "yes maybe, i don't know" and not "you're wrong"
21:10:49 <hiato> in that context
21:11:06 <AnMaster> hiato, seen it in literature. Oh btw I tend to use archaic Swedish just for the fun
21:11:08 <uorygl> If somebody all but kills you, you're only barely alive at the end.
21:11:15 <AnMaster> I couldn't manage that in English
21:11:22 <hiato> uorygl: only strictly speaking
21:11:28 <hiato> AnMaster: I try it :)
21:11:58 <hiato> though, there is the alternative construction "save", eg: "He ate it all save the rice"
21:12:14 <hiato> where "all but" is nonsensical
21:12:30 <oklopol> i don't think save is the same as all but
21:12:38 <AnMaster> hiato, you would get double "all" without it?
21:12:43 <uorygl> It seems that "all but" is only an idiom when it precedes an adjective, or even only when it precedes a past participle.
21:12:47 <hiato> oklopol: oh?
21:13:11 <oklopol> hiato: well for one thing, "all but" is nonsensical in your example :)
21:13:19 <hiato> uorygl: I'm almost sure it's not called an idiom, that would be more like "Two wrongs don't make a right"
21:13:50 <hiato> as opposed to an adage which is something like "A penny saved is a penny earned"
21:13:50 <uorygl> Are we talking about "he ate it all but the rice" or about "he ate it all all but the rice"?
21:13:56 <oklopol> does either of those make sense?
21:13:57 <uorygl> "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "a penny saved is a penny earned" are the same type of phrase.
21:14:04 <uorygl> "He ate it all but the rice" seems to make sense to me.
21:14:19 <hiato> yes, oklopol, that's what I'm saying, they are equivalent, but not interchangable
21:14:25 <oklopol> well if you think of "but" as "except", but i mean if you think of "all but" as "all but"
21:14:35 <hiato> uorygl: they are subtley different, and hence are either idioms or adages
21:14:52 -!- MizardX has joined.
21:14:52 <hiato> and, he ate it all but the rice doesn't actually make senes
21:14:57 <oklopol> hiato: can you show me where they are interchangeable? if their uses are completely separate, then i'm not sure they can be considered the same :P
21:15:09 <oklopol> they are similar, sure
21:15:23 <hiato> oklopol: "..they are equivalent, but not interchangable..."
21:15:24 <hiato> ;)
21:15:35 <oklopol> yeah but what does that mean
21:16:13 <hiato> ah, well, by that I meant that they express the same concept through the same consturct: list <all but/save> exclusion has the same meaning forall list and exclusion
21:16:20 <AnMaster> <uorygl> "Two wrongs don't make a right" <-- unless left twice was same as right
21:16:27 <hiato> but the grammar is subtley different, so not interchangeable
21:16:34 <hiato> AnMaster: heh
21:16:34 <uorygl> You could say that in Haskell, "" and [] are equivalent but not interchangeable. 3:[] is a valid expression while 3:"" is not, even though [] and "" are equal.
21:16:45 <hiato> uorygl: nice example
21:17:40 <AnMaster> the issue I have with "all but" is that it *doesn't* mean "all except"
21:17:52 <hiato> uorygl: "An adage (pronounced /ˈædɪdʒ/), or adagium (Latin), is a short but memorable saying that holds some important fact of experience that is considered true by many people, or that has gained some credibility through its long use. It often involves a planning failure such as "don't count your chickens before they hatch" or "don't burn bridges behind you." Adages may be interesting observations, practical or ethical guidelines, or p
21:17:58 <oklopol> okay in what sort of sentence do they mean the same thing, if not actually syntactically interchangeable?
21:18:00 <hiato> AnMaster: [citation needed]
21:18:18 <AnMaster> hiato, well, at least sometimes it doesn't mean that, unless I'm confusing things
21:18:41 <uorygl> AnMaster: well, it sort of does mean that.
21:18:41 <oklopol> well okay "all but" can also mean "all except", but the sense used in "he all but killed me" i don't think "save" can ever do
21:18:43 <AnMaster> hiato, also second meaning at http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/all+but
21:18:47 <hiato> oklopol: Of his belongings, he took all but the sink VS He took his belongings save the sink
21:19:20 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Later).
21:19:21 <AnMaster> oklopol, try "almost"
21:19:22 <oklopol> yeah but that's not the actual construct "all but", that's just a sentence where "all" and "but" are adjacent :P
21:19:22 <hiato> though, the second would need qualification
21:19:31 <hiato> oklopol: yes it is
21:19:44 <uorygl> If he all but killed me, then he didn't give me a shower, bandage my wounds, or give me a haircut.
21:20:09 <uorygl> And he didn't kill me.
21:20:17 <oklopol> hiato: well whatever, i don't think were actually arguing about anything :P
21:20:19 <hiato> uorygl: you can't really use "all but" in that construction. It usually doesn't refer to degree of action so much as exclusion from a list
21:20:21 <oklopol> *we're
21:20:27 <hiato> oklopol: agreed
21:20:42 <uorygl> You can't say "he all but killed me"?
21:20:45 <oklopol> "hiato: uorygl: you can't really use "all but" in that construction." <<< yes you can, it's the meaning uorygl has been talking about all the time
21:20:49 <oklopol> and it's the one i said save can't do
21:21:21 <hiato> uorygl: not unless you were an uneducated peasant living in post-Elizabethan england
21:21:27 <oklopol> like all but do something, all but some adjective. not "all but" as in "all except"
21:21:42 <hiato> oklopol: he used in in degree
21:21:48 <hiato> you're showing me exclusion
21:22:14 <oklopol> well obviously exclusion is what save does, but i was never talking about that usage
21:22:34 <oklopol> "save" and "all but" are the same when "all but" is "all except"
21:22:54 <oklopol> if that's what you've been saying, then yeah we weren't arguing about anything
21:23:31 <hiato> To take his example to it's logical maximum: He all but painted yellow is fine, but He pianted it all but yellow (where all but is the degree of painting it yellow) is silly
21:23:43 <hiato> oklopol: then I guess we're not
21:24:17 <oklopol> i am a potato, i am a macaroni
21:24:27 <hiato> wait, bad example, but I hope you see what I mean
21:24:27 <uorygl> I guess I'm going to simply contradict you and say that "he all but killed me" is indeed a valid way of saying that he wounded me in every possible manner short of killing me.
21:24:52 <hiato> now there's another equivalent yet not interchangeable consturction: short of
21:25:22 <hiato> but, uorygl, it's not so much a strict grammatical rule as a manner of interpretation
21:25:36 <hiato> I think we broke oklopol: 22:21 < oklopol> i am a potato, i am a macaroni
21:26:21 * hiato sighs, realising English has too many exceptions for its rules to be called rules in the first place
21:27:04 <uorygl> There are rules that are broken rarely if ever.
21:27:19 <oklopol> rules that can be broken are cooles, says this dude
21:27:27 <hiato> Rules that broken, rarely if ever, are present
21:27:40 <hiato> *are
21:27:56 <hiato> rarely, if ever, are some rules broken
21:28:15 <uorygl> The determiner always comes before the noun, never after.
21:28:19 <hiato> Yeah, I'm at the end of my string
21:28:26 <hiato> oklopol: I like that
21:28:29 <uorygl> Not even the most foolish of fools would accidentally say "dog the" for "the dog".
21:28:30 <oklopol> what's a determiner
21:28:32 <hiato> uorygl: a determiner?
21:28:35 <oklopol> hiato: why :o
21:28:42 <uorygl> A determiner is pretty much an article.
21:28:45 <oklopol> oh that sort of determinator
21:28:51 <hiato> oklopol: cooles, it's catchy :P
21:28:55 <oklopol> ah!
21:28:55 <oklopol> yes
21:29:12 <oklopol> the acts of you liking it are cooles
21:29:27 <uorygl> A/an, the, my, your, his, her, its, our, their, Alice's...
21:29:37 <hiato> uorygl: Fair enough, but, again, the exception does not make it the rule
21:29:58 <uorygl> Huh?
21:30:27 <hiato> the exception to the exception of the rules being malformed is not the rule of the exception of the rules being malformed
21:30:32 <oklopol> "huh" means "whew" in finnish
21:30:32 <hiato> (take that, grammar gods)
21:30:42 <hiato> where whew means?
21:30:50 <oklopol> load of my back
21:30:55 <oklopol> *off
21:31:00 <hiato> of, phew type thing
21:31:01 <hiato> right
21:31:04 <uorygl> Well, I said that there are rules without exceptions, not that most rules don't have exceptions.
21:31:14 <hiato> uorygl: then we have no fight
21:31:21 <hiato> but I will make one if possible
21:31:26 <uorygl> And there are lots of "rules" that simply say that something is true most of the time.
21:31:39 <uorygl> Most of the time, the subject precedes the verb. Most of the time, all phrases are contiguous.
21:31:55 <uorygl> s/all//
21:32:50 <uorygl> Most of the time, "me" is an object pronoun.
21:32:53 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
21:33:18 <hiato> fundementally, I hate the rules of stress: it should be that the penultimate syllable recieves the stress in the word, hence paRABola not PARAbola but, then we get TElevesion not teleVISion or DIfficulty not diFICULty
21:33:30 <hiato> and so on and so forth
21:33:43 <uorygl> But "Are we there yet?" is an exception to the first, "I want to slap the person in the face who did that" is an exception to the second, and "Me and Andy are going to the store" is an exception to the third.
21:33:44 <hiato> so it's these inconsistencies that annoy me, as I'm not a native speaker
21:34:21 <uorygl> If you were to stress the penultimate syllable, you would have "paraBOla", not "paRAbola".
21:34:31 <uorygl> And the "ficul" of "difficulty" is two syllables.
21:35:04 <hiato> uorygl: but, convention prohibits the latter two examples. Never end in a preposition, and the reflexive personal pronouns have lowest priority
21:35:21 <hiato> yes, my bad to those two
21:35:40 <oklopol> and how is "paRABola" penultimate
21:35:46 <uorygl> It seems that we inherit a lot of our stress rules from Latin.
21:35:47 <hiato> I live in a country where english is a minority language, so emphasis is strange
21:36:13 <hiato> I would tend to agree
21:36:17 <uorygl> And, unfortunately, the stress cues are now totally gone, so we just have to look everything up in a dictionary.
21:36:23 <oklopol> emphasis should be on the first syllable, so you know where words start
21:36:52 <uorygl> Lojban has a pretty complicated system for telling you where words begin and end.
21:36:55 <hiato> oklopol: imagane saying "IMageen SAyin"
21:37:08 <hiato> or SUyin
21:37:17 <hiato> uorygl my memory fails me
21:37:27 <uorygl> It's, like...
21:37:52 <oklopol> hiato: it would be a more beautiful english
21:38:23 <uorygl> Once you hit a pair of consonants in a row, everything from then on is a single word up to the syllable after the next stressed syllable.
21:38:42 <uorygl> So if you have "babababablababaBAbababa", then "blababaBAba" is a single word.
21:38:54 <hiato> oklopol: I beg to differ. English is beuatiful in that it is the quintessential natural language. Full of quirks and relics of the past, assimilations from long forgotten languges and silly human tendancies come grammar rules
21:39:34 <lament> what is beauty?
21:39:45 <hiato> uorygl: that must be rather complex to speak fluently, as it requires an analysis of the language, as opposed to isolated understanding of terms/phrases
21:39:55 <uorygl> Also, the last consonant before the consonant pair, and all the vowels after that, are included in the word if and only if the word would otherwise be only one syllable.
21:39:58 <hiato> lament: your mother
21:39:59 <AnMaster> still speaking about language?
21:40:01 <AnMaster> -_-
21:40:04 <oklopol> hiato: well okay i guess i agree
21:40:17 <AnMaster> lament, good queston
21:40:22 <AnMaster> question*
21:40:26 <oklopol> lament: shut up and sleep with me
21:40:27 <AnMaster> tell me if you find the answer to it
21:40:45 <uorygl> Finally, once you've identified words using those rules, every consonant has its own word.
21:40:52 <oklopol> *-and sleep with me
21:40:52 <AnMaster> lament, but I heard it can be found in the eye of the beholder
21:41:04 <lament> no i won't sleep with you
21:41:08 <hiato> uorygl: I could never talk it
21:41:10 <AnMaster> lament, so clearly you need to dissect your own eyes to find out :D
21:41:14 <hiato> lament, what about me?
21:41:15 <uorygl> hiato: well, not really; in practice, these rules simply place restrictions on what words are possible.
21:41:24 <oklopol> lament: i removed that part
21:41:30 <lament> hiato: not you either
21:41:42 <oklopol> i realized you are canadian and i'm racist
21:41:44 <AnMaster> lament, get started with it :)
21:41:45 * hiato shies his head in sorrow
21:41:58 <uorygl> hiato: so it really becomes the same sort of "identify the words; those are where the words are" that natural languages are.
21:43:38 <hiato> uorygl: I guess, but it all sounds far too little like a language and more like a programming language to me. Though I realise its goal is to be machine parsable. But still, words should not have different "arguments" to them, opreators should not have strange precedence and so on, if a language is to be understood and spoken as opposed to learned and recalled
21:44:35 <uorygl> English has arguments!
21:44:56 <uorygl> In the sentence "I threw the ball to John", the arguments of "threw" are "I", "the ball", and "to John".
21:45:17 -!- augur has joined.
21:45:54 <uorygl> And there's really not much strange precedence stuff; the rule is simply that everything is greedy.
21:46:13 <hiato> I don't believe they are arguments. For example, the ball was thrown from me to john. Are you now going to say taht Eng can be RPN?
21:46:39 <uorygl> Well, "arguments" is what they're called!
21:46:53 <hiato> there are no markers to say that John, Ball and I belong to throw, as opposed to ball and throw belong to John
21:47:03 <hiato> or that all of it belongs to was
21:47:25 <uorygl> What's argument-y about Lojban's arguments that's not argument-y about English's arguments?
21:49:21 <hiato> you cant say that throw "operates on" or "requires" "argumenst" in any manner in Eng. In any natlang, well, I guess isolating ones, each verb needs no qualification, or can be arbitrarilely qualified. It can't specify how many or what form its qualifications can take anymore than any other part of speech. In fact, if anything, there will generally be an alternate construction that, without any delimiation has a similar if not identical meani
21:50:36 <hiato> the trivial example of which is active VS passive, wherein, if anything is to be considered an argument in the first, it can be considered an operator in the second. Unless you now say that Natlangs have first class "verbs" that can be parsed to other verbs and verbs can return "verbs" and so on
21:51:16 <uorygl> Well, likewise, in Lojban, each "verb" takes whatever number of arguments you feel like passing to it.
21:51:44 <hiato> whereas, in Lojban, you have fi, fo, and what have you that need to be specified if the "arguments" are "parsed" out of order
21:53:08 <uorygl> Well, you have that stuff in English, too. You can't say "Patrick ate John" by saying "John ate Patrick".
21:53:19 <hiato> but in english: Throw the right ball on your right to my left OR Throw to my left that ball that is on your right OR The ball that is on your right must be thrown, relative to me, left (assuming it was a command)
21:53:36 <hiato> No, that is confusing subject and object with qualifications
21:53:52 <uorygl> Well, Lojban has both sorts of things.
21:54:08 <hiato> again, you cannot manipulate like that without delimeters
21:54:37 <hiato> and or specific constructions to change the manner in which verbs "operate" on their arguments
21:54:52 <uorygl> In Lojban, there are two things corresponding to prepositions, which are argument slots and modals.
21:55:09 <hiato> Doesn't the name give it away?
21:55:22 <hiato> A verb may be considered a function, as oppose to a concept
21:55:25 <uorygl> Give what away?
21:55:37 <uorygl> It's not a function, it's a relation.
21:55:43 <hiato> which are argument slots
21:55:56 <hiato> To me relations don't need arguments
21:56:03 <hiato> and most certianly not in specific slots
21:56:06 <uorygl> No?
21:56:31 <uorygl> Doesn't a relation say that a specific thing is related to a specific other thing in a specific way?
21:56:32 <hiato> if qualification is desired, it may be given in any manner of ways, as opposed to conforming to an expect construct per verb
21:56:53 <hiato> John is bigger than Peter. We don't say how John is bigger
21:57:12 <uorygl> How do you say "I eat pizza" without using the construct that "eat" expects?
21:57:17 <hiato> just that, by size, they are related
21:57:28 <hiato> eat does not expect a construct, that's what I'm saying
21:57:36 <hiato> English expects (mostly) SVO
21:57:41 <hiato> that's it
21:57:53 <uorygl> "Is bigger than" has exactly two slots, no more, no less, and each one goes in a specific place.
21:58:22 <hiato> I eat a pizza - has the same constuction as I throw a pizza and I sling a pizza etc etc
21:58:25 <uorygl> If all you were saying is that John and Peter are related by size, then "John is bigger than Peter" and "Peter is bigger than John" would mean the same thing.
21:58:31 <hiato> ENGLISH is what specifies order, not verbs
21:58:45 <hiato> THere is no verb that can ovveride SVO
21:58:49 <AnMaster> uorygl, err, ternary "is bigger than" would be fun
21:58:49 <hiato> I dare you to find one
21:58:51 <uorygl> Likewise, in Lojban, you use precisely the same grammatical rules for all "verbs".
21:59:33 <hiato> In lojban, some verbs take subject, object then (eg) position, others are object only, some still are position relative to subject in manner and so on
21:59:47 <uorygl> But they all use precisely the same grammar.
21:59:49 <hiato> where each verb has an overriding say in what follows int
21:59:51 <hiato> no
21:59:54 <hiato> they don't
22:00:20 <uorygl> So what's an example of differing grammar?
22:01:15 <hiato> you can't tell me that WALK 1.left 2.relative to John is the same as EAT 1.fast 2.John's food 3.on the left
22:01:27 <hiato> If the third slot of EAT specifies location
22:01:32 <hiato> then location goes there
22:01:40 <hiato> whereas the third slot of DRIVE may specify time
22:01:46 <hiato> and you can't put location there
22:02:30 <uorygl> So you're saying that in Lojban, the thing denoted by a slot varies by what the verb is?
22:02:32 <hiato> here, the language has no say in what order/what type of slots go where, why? Because each verb is different
22:02:40 <hiato> Yes
22:02:55 <hiato> If WALK expects 1.direction 2.speed
22:02:56 <uorygl> Well, heck, English does that, too.
22:03:07 <hiato> it would be nonsensical to write WALK 1.fast 2.left
22:03:13 <hiato> but, in english
22:03:18 <hiato> I walk to the left, quickly
22:03:25 <hiato> I walk quickly to the left
22:03:30 <uorygl> "Boil" takes one thing in its subject slot, "jump" takes a different thing in its subject slot.
22:03:41 <hiato> uorygl you're not seeing my point
22:04:18 <hiato> not what it takes, but the order. SVO *is* English. Lojban, verbs specify what comes where
22:04:43 <hiato> 22:57 < hiato> where each verb has an overriding say in what follows int
22:05:19 <hiato> see what I mean?
22:05:22 <uorygl> I can give you an example of two verbs in English that mean the same thing but take their arguments in different slots.
22:05:34 <uorygl> In English, "X likes Y" and "Y pleases X" mean the same thing.
22:05:53 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
22:06:00 <uorygl> In the something-likes-something relation, there's no inherent subject or object there; English verbs assign them arbitrarily.
22:06:11 <hiato> no, they don't, and again, you're confusing the matter with SVO and the order VERBS take qualification
22:06:24 <hiato> it's not who does what, but the what is being done that gets qualified
22:06:32 <hiato> and that's where the difference is
22:07:04 <uorygl> I think I've lost track of what your point is.
22:07:18 <hiato> (either way, John likes Mary and John eats Mary - both times English assigns SVO, verbs have no say)
22:07:26 <hiato> eh
22:07:45 <hiato> I tire, so I'm gonna hit the sack
22:07:55 <hiato> but, re-read over the logs for what it's worth
22:07:57 <uorygl> Lojban also has SVO! You put the x1 before the verb, and the x2, the x3, the x4, and the x5 after!
22:08:04 <hiato> it woujld seem we're saying different things
22:08:12 <uorygl> Maybe so.
22:08:12 -!- adu has quit (Quit: adu).
22:08:12 <hiato> and so arent arguing about anything
22:08:26 <uorygl> Whatever it is, it's your fault. :P
22:08:44 <hiato> yes, I agree with taht SVO in lojban, but that is not how the verb qualification works. X1 may not be subject, X2 may not be verb etc
22:08:49 <hiato> heh, whatever :P
22:08:53 <hiato> anyway, cheers
22:08:57 <hiato> it's been interesting
22:09:03 <hiato> as always on this channel
22:09:23 -!- hiato has quit (Quit: underflow).
22:09:26 <uorygl> In English, the subject slot may not be the x1, the verb may not be the x2, etc.
22:09:40 <uorygl> The subject/object distinction is just as arbitrary as the x1/x2/x3/x4/x5 distinction.
22:22:09 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
22:28:07 <AnMaster> uorygl, x?
22:28:34 <AnMaster> also stop talking about non-esolangs for a momement :/
22:28:39 <AnMaster> moment
22:28:39 <AnMaster> '
22:28:46 <AnMaster> s/'/*/
22:29:30 <lament> x1 x2 x1 x1 x2 x3 x1 x2 x3 x1 x4 x5 x6 x7 x2 x5 x1
22:29:36 <lament> x1 x4 x4 x4???
22:30:38 <AnMaster> lament, I just have no idea what they mean
22:37:30 -!- coppro has joined.
22:45:47 -!- Ilari has joined.
22:58:51 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
23:10:45 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined.
23:13:13 -!- Ilari_ has joined.
23:14:00 -!- Ilari has quit (Quit: leaving).
23:14:01 -!- Ilari_ has changed nick to Ilari.
23:14:16 -!- augur has joined.
23:19:46 <Phantom_Hoover> Hello?
23:20:32 <FireFly> Good day to you too, sir.
23:20:33 <FireFly> Erm
23:20:34 <FireFly> Hi
23:21:01 <Phantom_Hoover> Hello.
23:21:08 <Phantom_Hoover> Who maintains the wiki?
23:21:37 <Phantom_Hoover> It's using an *incredibly* out-of-date version of MediaWiki.
23:24:25 <olsner> is it out-of-date enough to be esoteric? if not, we just have to wait a while :)
23:25:17 <Gregor> olsner: lawl
23:25:23 <Gregor> It should be running Hackiki ^^
23:25:23 -!- tombom has quit (Quit: Leaving).
23:25:35 <Phantom_Hoover> Seriously, who does maintain it?
23:25:57 <Gregor> The ever-enigmatic graue.
23:26:14 <olsner> hackiki? reminds me of a kebab place here that's called hakepi
23:26:29 <Gregor> olsner: http://hackiki.org/ But instead, it's the GREATEST WIKI SOFTWARE EVARS
23:26:56 <olsner> Gregor: but it will not feed me!
23:27:00 <fizzie> AnMaster: Whiteboard scribblings from a lecture: http://www.cis.hut.fi/~itniemin/lumileopardi.jpg
23:27:05 <Gregor> olsner: Won't it? WON'T IT?
23:27:18 <Gregor> fizzie: Useful.
23:27:24 <Phantom_Hoover> I suppose you could write a wiki using Brainfuck and CGI.
23:27:47 <olsner> Gregor: I VERY MUCH DOUBT that it will
23:27:49 <Phantom_Hoover> Though the tape would need to be *enormous*.
23:28:08 <Gregor> Haaaaaaaa
23:28:10 <Gregor> Ckiiiiiiii
23:28:11 <olsner> ooh, actually, we could write the wiki in mod_rewrite!
23:28:12 <Gregor> Kiiiiiiiii
23:28:41 <olsner> just needs some storage api, but that can be built external to the rewriting
23:29:05 <fizzie> Gregor: It's a visualization of the positive and negative border; it's about finding frequent itemsets in data; and the thing that looks a bit like pi to the zeroth power with a hook on it is actually a snow leopard.
23:29:33 <olsner> mod_rewrite is horribly inefficient though, it'll run out of memory in notime
23:29:47 <Gregor> Phantom_Hoover: HA
23:29:49 <Gregor> olsner: CKI
23:29:51 <Gregor> fizzie: KI
23:30:22 <olsner> Gregor: meh
23:30:24 <Gregor> (This is the only kind of software evangelism I know how to do :P )
23:30:32 <Gregor> olsner: Meh? D-8
23:31:11 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
23:31:14 <Phantom_Hoover> "CKI"? "KI"?
23:31:20 <AnMaster> <fizzie> AnMaster: Whiteboard scribblings from a lecture: http://www.cis.hut.fi/~itniemin/lumileopardi.jpg <-- quantum physics?
23:31:30 <Gregor> Phantom_Hoover: "Hackiki" :P
23:32:03 <olsner> AnMaster: picture of a clown?
23:32:04 <pikhq> Hackiki is actually pretty awesome.
23:32:12 <Phantom_Hoover> I suppose if that ESO OS (first on the forum) gets working you could hack together an HTTP server.
23:32:40 <Phantom_Hoover> And yes, Hackiki looks cool.
23:33:00 <olsner> hmm, maybe multi-process postscript or something :)
23:33:12 -!- Oranjer has joined.
23:33:24 <Gregor> olsner: D-8
23:33:32 <fizzie> AnMaster: Like I described it to Gregor: "It's a visualization of the positive and negative border; it's about finding frequent itemsets in data; and the thing that looks a bit like pi to the zeroth power with a hook on it is actually a snow leopard."
23:33:33 <Phantom_Hoover> "D-8"?
23:33:42 <Phantom_Hoover> I'm not good at acronyms.
23:33:47 <Gregor> Clearly.
23:33:55 <Phantom_Hoover> "Date"?
23:34:03 <Gregor> I was rolling 1 negative-8 sided die.
23:34:13 <Phantom_Hoover> Ah.
23:34:24 <Gregor> Everyone else: Was that too mean? :P
23:34:44 <Gregor> Phantom_Hoover: Lean your head to the right :P
23:34:44 <Oranjer> maybe
23:34:49 <Phantom_Hoover> I'm now thoroughly confused.
23:35:11 <pikhq> Phantom_Hoover: 本当に?グレーが君がやったね!
23:35:12 <Oranjer> it's a smiley
23:35:27 <pikhq> s/グレーが/グレーガ/
23:36:16 <olsner> although it's the very opposite of a smiley, in some sense
23:36:24 <olsner> in some other sense it is exactly a smiley
23:36:35 <Gregor> It's a megafrowny
23:36:49 <olsner> (then again, the negative-8 sided die is also a sense, so I'm not saying much here)
23:37:15 <pikhq> (*echm* Really? Gregor has succeeded!)
23:38:07 <Phantom_Hoover> Must dash.
23:38:08 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.8/20100214235838]).
23:38:37 <Oranjer> I'm certain there's another way to represent "must dash"
23:39:18 <pikhq> 行くはず。
23:39:20 <pikhq> ^ That?
23:39:45 <olsner> shouldn't that be a 'ki' rather than 'ku'?
23:39:59 <pikhq> olsner: Should it?
23:40:50 <olsner> it depends on how you read the other characters
23:41:22 <Gregor> `fetch http://pastebin.ca/raw/1841805
23:41:32 <HackEgo> 2010-03-15 22:41:08 URL:http://pastebin.ca/raw/1841805 [445] -> "1841805" [1]
23:41:44 <pikhq> Should definitely be く.
23:41:53 <Gregor> `run mv "1841805" bin/roll ; dos2unix bin/roll; chmod 0755 bin/roll
23:41:57 <HackEgo> No output.
23:41:59 <Gregor> `roll 55d6
23:42:01 <HackEgo> No output.
23:42:04 <Gregor> Whoops
23:45:26 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Quit: When two people dream the same dream, it ceases to be an illusion. KVIrc 3.4.2 Shiny http://www.kvirc.net).
23:45:38 <pikhq> Mmm. はず is probably wrong in this context, though. Should be more 行かなくちゃ。
23:46:09 <augur> i'll hazu your ikanakucha
23:46:11 -!- jay has joined.
23:46:17 <jay> HI
23:46:27 <pikhq> augur: Hah.
23:46:39 -!- jay has changed nick to Guest31015.
23:46:40 <pikhq> jay: ようこそ。
23:47:21 <Gregor> Hello Mr. Anonymous Guest
23:48:04 <Guest31015> 私は、私はGoogle翻訳を使用して日本語を話さない
23:48:20 <Guest31015> haha google can't translate it's own name
23:48:33 <pikhq> Congrats. :P
23:48:33 <Gregor> Guest31015: Nobody here speaks Japanese, pikhq just likes to think that he does.
23:48:40 <Guest31015> oh
23:48:54 -!- Oranjer has left (?).
23:49:00 <pikhq> Gregor: Hey, I'm actually *learning* Japanese you know.
23:49:10 <Guest31015> Can a language with no array support be turing-complete?
23:49:22 <fax> yes
23:49:23 <olsner> turing machines have no arrays
23:49:33 <Guest31015> how can it emulate a 'tape'
23:49:35 <pikhq> Though I don't think you need to know Japanese to tell he just used Google's translator.
23:49:40 <Gregor> Arguably the tape is an "array", however the Lambda calculus certainly has no arrays.
23:49:48 <olsner> Guest31015: it doesn't emulate a tape it *has* a tape
23:49:54 <pikhq> Guest31015: Depends on the language.
23:49:55 <olsner> that's the definition of a TM
23:50:43 <fizzie> olsner: For some unfathomable reason I have an irresistible urge to reply "no, YOU are the tape" to that.
23:50:57 <Gregor> In Soviet Russia, tape emulate YOU!
23:51:22 <Guest31015> haha :)
23:51:30 <fizzie> Anyhoo, two stacks is also a fashionable way to emulate a tape.
23:52:06 <oklopol> although it's more the string rewriting type of tape because you can add new cells
23:52:08 <oklopol> and remove them
23:52:53 <Guest31015> what about Commodore Basic? Is it turing complete? I think it does not have arrays
23:52:54 <oklopol> the kind you'd use with thue, no one actually uses the nondeterminism
23:53:24 <AnMaster> <olsner> AnMaster: picture of a clown? <-- not "of": "by"
23:53:28 <AnMaster> <fizzie> AnMaster: Like I described it to Gregor: "It's a visualization of the positive and negative border; it's about finding frequent itemsets in data; and the thing that looks a bit like pi to the zeroth power with a hook on it is actually a snow leopard." <-- wth
23:53:41 <fax> most programming langaugges are turing complete, because it's very hard not to be
23:53:49 <fizzie> AnMaster: In fact, fi:lumileopardi (in the file name) is en:"snow leopard".
23:53:51 <Gregor> fax's previous statement is not true.
23:54:03 <fax> which one ??
23:54:13 <Gregor> The "very hard not to be part"
23:54:14 <Gregor> Erm
23:54:16 <Gregor> The "very hard not to be" part
23:54:29 <fax> it is hard not to be turing complete
23:54:30 <AnMaster> fizzie, why
23:54:39 <pikhq> It is easy to not be Turing complete.
23:54:44 <fax> just put while(1) around almost anything and it becomes TC
23:54:51 <pikhq> What's hard is to both be not Turing complete *and* be useful.
23:55:03 <Guest31015> sql can do it
23:55:08 <Sgeo> Not too difficult to design HQ9+, really
23:55:21 <Gregor> I would be very surprised if some of the earliest incarnations of BASIC were TC ... like the guest said, no arrays, and most didn't even have scopes, making local variables useless and recursion impossible.
23:55:21 <AnMaster> -_-
23:55:22 <augur> so guys
23:55:32 <augur> who's written proper regex engines?
23:55:33 <augur> anyone?
23:55:40 <Gregor> Not me!
23:55:50 <fax> hm well Gregor that's a good point if you have finite variables which are all fixed size integers :|
23:55:53 <pikhq> Gregor: Register machine, maybe?
23:55:56 * Sgeo 's written stuff that abuses regexes
23:55:59 <AnMaster> fizzie, ?
23:56:01 <fizzie> AnMaster: It's a sort of a "you had to be there" thing, but briefly... the lecturer kept on scribbling more things on top of the picture, and everyone was trying to follow; at some point he added that thing with no explanation at all. Something like 15 minutes later someone finally asked "what's that pi-like thing there", and he replied "it's a snow leopard". A beat panel, then lots of laughter.
23:56:11 <fax> presumably there was a stack ?
23:56:16 <fax> but maybe not..
23:56:24 <AnMaster> fizzie, heh
23:56:31 <pikhq> fax: BASIC did not have a stack initially.
23:56:36 <pikhq> It had GOTO.
23:56:42 <pikhq> GOSUB was a latter addition
23:56:43 <Gregor> Gosub was an "innovation"
23:57:14 <AnMaster> fizzie, thus it follows that snow leopards have the value 1?
23:57:17 <AnMaster> no?
23:57:25 <Sgeo> What picture is this?
23:57:30 <AnMaster> since they are equivalent to pi^0
23:57:32 <fizzie> pikhq, Gregor: On the other hand, that sort of BASICs (at least the ones I've used) tend to have PEEK and POKE. Of course it's still finite-sized, but so's the computer.
23:57:35 <AnMaster> which is equal to 1
23:57:50 <Gregor> Yeah, PEEK and POKE make things ... odd.
23:57:51 <fizzie> Sgeo: http://www.cis.hut.fi/~itniemin/lumileopardi.jpg
23:58:09 <AnMaster> fizzie, what is the T supposed to be then?
23:58:41 <augur> fizzie: FACIES O_O
23:58:42 <pikhq> PEEK and POKE make it into definitely a register machine. Thus, it's TC if given infinite memory...
23:58:47 <Guest31015> I can draw a picture that's tcx
23:58:49 <Guest31015> tc
23:59:01 <augur> whats that a picture of, fizzie
23:59:05 <fizzie> AnMaster: The T and S have some sensible meanings there, though I've forgotten what they were. Pretty much everything else in the picture, except the snow leopard, has at least some sort of justification.
23:59:20 <fizzie> augur: Here's a copy of my earlier description: "It's a visualization of the positive and negative border; it's about finding frequent itemsets in data; and the thing that looks a bit like pi to the zeroth power with a hook on it is actually a snow leopard."
23:59:28 <AnMaster> fizzie, hard to imagine some of those
23:59:37 <AnMaster> fizzie, like those wavy lines
←2010-03-14 2010-03-15 2010-03-16→ ↑2010 ↑all