←2012-10-31 2012-11-01 2012-11-02→ ↑2012 ↑all
00:04:58 <kmc> Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Know Anything About Baseball
00:06:26 <kmc> this is the one area where nerds -- usually a fairly intellectual lot -- are extremely proud of ignorance
00:06:33 <kmc> is it so in all countries or just the USA?
00:08:13 <olsner> well, outside USA and Japan *no-one* knows what baseball is
00:09:27 <olsner> I suppose nerds might be more proud of that ignorance though
00:09:38 <olsner> as opposed to simply not caring about it
00:09:52 <kmc> well sports in general i mean
00:10:18 <kmc> baseball's just on my mind because San Francisco won at baseball and now all the nerds in San Francisco are loudly proclaiming how much they don't know or care about baseball
00:10:37 <Phantom__Hoover> they don't actually realise san fransisco won
00:10:46 <Phantom__Hoover> it's just a coincidene
00:10:48 <Phantom__Hoover> *c
00:10:52 <olsner> what's san francisco?
00:11:02 <kmc> hehe
00:11:04 <elliott> olsner: some baseball thing i think
00:11:14 <olsner> maybe it's a player?
00:12:40 <Phantom__Hoover> i think it's a type of base
00:12:50 <pikhq> olsner: Some other countries play baseball. Japan managed to get other bits of Asia in on it, and it's apparently pretty common in the Carribean.
00:13:40 <kmc> olsner: this clip will make it clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElAcu-1dlPM
00:13:40 <pikhq> Also, I can't comment about the ignorance: I don't actively *follow* most sports, but I'm not exactly ignorant on them.
00:13:43 <kmc> (nsfw language)
00:14:06 <pikhq> (hell, I've been known to nerd out on the origins of (American) football and its relation to other games)
00:14:38 * pikhq also enjoys watching football, so. *shrug*
00:14:51 <kmc> yeah that's the irony (?)
00:14:54 <kmc> sports fans are sports nerds
00:14:58 <Phantom__Hoover> kmc, i never understood nsfw language
00:15:14 <Phantom__Hoover> i mean ffs you shouldn't be listening to videos at work with speakers on
00:15:20 <pikhq> For the most part? Yeah, it's just nerding out about sports instead of something else.
00:15:59 <olsner> nsfwu
00:16:04 <kmc> Phantom__Hoover: people do though
00:16:05 <kmc> beats me
00:16:16 <olsner> it appears to have been fairly safe for wu though, so that's not funny
00:16:16 <pikhq> Especially given that for most spectator sports, 99% of the audience doesn't actually *do* the sport in question.
00:16:30 <pikhq> (in any capacity, obviously)
00:16:36 <olsner> kmc: thanks, I think I understand san francisco now
00:16:42 <kmc> baseball in particular is all about the stats and the obsessive knowledge of past games and teams
00:16:51 <kmc> anyway
00:16:57 <Phantom__Hoover> kmc, in that case your workplace is either so relaxed I can't believe someone's going to flip out over some cursing, or you deserve what's coming to you anyway.
00:17:22 <pikhq> And, yeah, baseball in particular is a land of statistical analysis.
00:17:35 <Phantom__Hoover> brrrr stats
00:18:34 <kmc> anyway i don't care if people care about baseball or are ignorant of baseball
00:19:22 <pikhq> You're just finding it an interesting cultural phenomenon.
00:19:46 <pikhq> That smarter people go "sports -- eeew" as a *rule*.
00:19:59 <kmc> no what i mind is people who are conspicuous about their ignorance and proud of it
00:20:11 <pikhq> Aaah. Well. Yes, there is that.
00:20:18 <pikhq> Pride in ignorance is sad.
00:20:31 <kmc> there's a rule that whenever spots are brought up, you have to be the loudest in proclaiming your utter contempt and ignorance of sports
00:20:33 <elliott> q
00:20:35 <kmc> lest you be branded as one of Them
00:20:56 <kmc> this is one of the aspects of "nerd culture" which I think derives directly from middle school bullying or something
00:21:04 <pikhq> Probably.
00:21:26 <kmc> elliott: r
00:21:31 <elliott> s
00:21:37 <olsner> hmm, I might end up having to watch the rest of deadwood now... all because of wu
00:21:40 <pikhq> ティ
00:21:59 <elliott> olsner: can you explain san francisco to me?
00:22:02 <elliott> i didn't watch the video
00:22:48 <comex> hey elliott go vote in the distributor election
00:22:58 <olsner> elliott: I really can't do it as well as wu does
00:23:03 <comex> ;o
00:23:05 <elliott> comex: isn't it all votes for you?
00:23:12 <elliott> if i do that i'd have to like email taral though and ugh
00:23:14 <pikhq> Hey, go vote for President of the World.
00:23:25 <elliott> pikhq: i vote comex
00:23:34 <elliott> actually no
00:23:36 <comex> it's one vote for me, one vote for scshunt, one vote endorsing me, two present, endorse Google Groups, and denounce Google Groups :p
00:23:37 <elliott> i vote olsner
00:23:47 <elliott> comex: well i dont think anyone actually cares about the vote
00:23:49 <kmc> deadwood is fucking brilliant
00:23:55 <elliott> i'm not sure why you're even voting at all
00:24:00 <comex> yeah, I just don't want to arbitrarily declare myself the winner
00:24:14 <elliott> comex: well you can arbitrarily declare yourself the winner by having taral decide you'd be good to give the lists :P
00:24:26 <comex> and I started a vote because I felt it was an appropriately Agoran way to do things :p
00:24:28 <elliott> i guess i could vote for you though
00:24:32 <elliott> but not right now, too lazy
00:24:50 <coppro> comex: yw
00:25:01 <quintopia> is there anything a regex can do that a finite list of greedy string substitutions can't?
00:25:03 <comex> coppro: ?
00:25:07 <coppro> comex: voted for you
00:25:12 <pikhq> elliott: But there's only Obama and Romney!
00:25:12 <elliott> oh shit
00:25:15 <elliott> i'll vote coppro then
00:25:20 <comex> hehe
00:28:10 <olsner> elliott: but you already voted me
00:29:05 <elliott> no this is for distributor silly
00:29:34 <olsner> voting for sillies?
00:31:23 <elliott> yes
00:32:05 -!- Arc_Koen has quit (Quit: Arc_Koen).
00:33:41 <elliott> http://esolangs.org/wiki/Epsilo wow what a page
00:33:45 <elliott> perhaps this should be deleted
00:35:02 <elliott> pikhq: btw
00:35:12 <elliott> pikhq: do you know why ctrl+alt+fN might not work to switch to vts
00:35:16 <elliott> it's been like this a while for me!
00:36:32 -!- DH____ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
00:36:37 -!- DHeadshot has joined.
00:37:38 <kmc> hey elliott do you think i should follow this link to accounts-google-com-id189134acx-ssl-k-emailrenew77.idns.pl and put in my gmail password
00:37:43 <kmc> seems legit right
00:37:54 <elliott> kmc: yes
00:38:02 <elliott> kmc: google is the most famous polish company
00:38:21 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
00:38:25 <kmc> and it has ssl right there in the name!
00:38:28 <kmc> secure!
00:39:06 <olsner> and emailrenew77 ... if the previous 76 renews got lost, they might give up trying to renew your email any moment
00:40:54 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
00:40:59 -!- DH____ has joined.
00:44:07 <elliott> kmc: do you know :(
00:44:16 <kmc> do i know what
00:44:24 <kmc> why ctrl+alt+fN might not work to switch to vts?
00:44:46 <kmc> well if you've remapped those keys in X then you have to use the remapped ones
00:45:30 <elliott> i haven't remapped them at all
00:45:32 <elliott> they just don't do shit
00:47:30 <ion> Confirmation process complete.. Click here to Continue to your Gmail
00:48:09 <elliott> i just put q in all the fields
00:48:13 <elliott> am i SCAMMING the SCAMMERS????
00:48:15 <ion> I put “test”.
00:48:54 <shachaf> elliott: does that make YOU a SCAMMER?
00:48:59 <shachaf> are you SCAMMING the YOURSELF?
00:49:01 <ion> scammer²
00:49:15 <shachaf> contravariant scammer
00:49:16 <ion> It’s scammers all the way down.
00:51:42 <kmc> wait did you actually visit that url
00:51:45 <kmc> i haven't been there
00:51:48 <kmc> i had the good sense to stay away
00:51:57 <kmc> you should see if you can SQL inject it
00:52:38 <shachaf> what url ?? ?
00:53:23 <shachaf> oh
00:54:27 <shachaf> kmc: You can tell it's fake because it doesn't require you to check the "I agree to the Google Terms" checkbox.
00:54:44 <elliott> kmc: the malware will aim heck your linux system
00:54:46 <elliott> dont visit the page!!!
00:55:04 <shachaf> elliott: "2 l8" :'(
00:55:22 <elliott> anyway seriously does anyone know why vt switching is fucked
00:55:31 <shachaf> elliott: You should upgrade to lens 3.1
00:55:36 <elliott> if it helps i am using kms
00:55:39 <elliott> intel graphics
00:56:21 <tswett> So guys, you know how there's no computable set of axioms in first-order logic that uniquely determines the natural numbers?
00:56:44 <elliott> no tswett
00:56:50 <elliott> if someone had been repeatedly saying that for the past week or so
00:56:50 <shachaf> tswett: No number greater than about 30 is natural.
00:56:52 <elliott> maybe I would know that
00:57:17 <tswett> shachaf: hm. I'm not so sure about that.
00:57:20 <tswett> Is 30 a natural number?
00:57:31 <shachaf> Yes.
00:57:36 <tswett> How about 32?
00:57:42 <shachaf> No.
00:57:48 <tswett> What about 31?
00:57:53 <shachaf> Yes.
00:57:59 <ion> 32 is quite unnatural indeed.
00:58:02 <tswett> How about 31 + 1?
00:58:05 <shachaf> No.
00:58:12 <tswett> Hmm...
00:58:22 <tswett> Are the natural numbers closed under addition?
00:58:31 <shachaf> tswett: Are you thinking of the axiom "every natural number has a successor"?
00:58:38 <shachaf> That was mistranscribed from the original.
00:58:47 <tswett> Oh?
00:58:49 <shachaf> The original is "every natural number (except 31) has a successor".
00:58:56 <ion> Indeed.
00:58:57 <tswett> Ah.
00:59:03 <tswett> So they are, in fact, not closed under addition?
00:59:13 <shachaf> That depends on what addition is.
00:59:21 <elliott> 31 has a successor
00:59:23 <ion> The mindblower is that the “31” in the original text is in base-8.
00:59:24 <elliott> it's just not a natural successor
00:59:25 * tswett nods.
00:59:44 <coppro> shachaf: I prefer wording it as "Every natural number that is not 31 has a successor"
00:59:51 <coppro> so it's clear that it doesn't preclude 31 having a successor
01:00:01 <shachaf> coppro: No, that's not right.
01:00:05 <shachaf> 31 *doesn't* have a successor.
01:00:10 <tswett> Let's define n + 0 as n, and n + (the successor of m) as the successor of (n + m).
01:00:36 <tswett> Then clearly 31 + 1 is undefined, since it would be the successor of 31.
01:00:51 <shachaf> tswett: Well, you have to prove that a natural number N isn't 31 before you can say things like "the successor of N"
01:00:58 <tswett> Right.
01:01:04 <shachaf> Just like you have to prove it's not 0 before you can say "the predecessor of N".
01:01:21 <shachaf> elliott: fix my ghc bug :'(
01:01:37 <elliott> no
01:01:58 <tswett> Let's add another axiom.
01:02:11 <shachaf> elliott: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7364
01:02:42 <elliott> btw zfc is inconsistent guys
01:02:42 <tswett> There exists an operation @ such that for all natural numbers a, b, c, and d, if a @ b = c @ d, then a = c and b = d.
01:02:56 <shachaf> tswett.gimli.moed++
01:03:02 <elliott> tswett: that axiom looks rejectable
01:03:23 <tswett> I dunno. Maybe it's consistent with the axioms we have so far.
01:03:30 <shachaf> elliott: dont wrorry!! hes not talking about @
01:03:33 <shachaf> just "@"
01:03:58 <elliott> shachaf: that isn't a funny joke though
01:04:11 <shachaf> uh oh
01:05:17 <tswett> http://pastie.org/5147243 - I think these are the axioms we're dealing with.
01:05:22 <shachaf> kmc: Do you know much about accordions?
01:05:52 <ion> according to whom?
01:06:06 <tswett> 1 is zero, 2 is successors for n != 31, 3 is successors for n = 31, 4 is the predecessor of 0, 5 is that succession is a bijection, and 6 is the @ operation.
01:06:18 <ion>
01:07:11 <tswett> I think this system might be inconsistent.
01:07:31 <shachaf> tswett: You just had to go and add that weird axiom, didn't you?
01:07:49 <tswett> shachaf: well, yes. How else are we supposed to represent ordered pairs of natural numbers as natural numbers?
01:08:17 <shachaf> What's the type of @?
01:08:33 <tswett> Nat -> Nat -> Nat, I guess.
01:08:41 <tswett> Right, I should have specified that.
01:09:04 <shachaf> That doesn't make sense. :-(
01:09:19 <elliott> i think @ is just fine
01:09:25 <tswett> Consider the natural numbers 0 @ 0, 0 @ 1, 0 @ 2, ..., up through 0 @ 31, as well as 1 @ 0. Assume that 0 @ 0 = 0, 0 @ 1 = 1, 0 @ 2 = 2, ..., up through 0 @ 31 = 31. Then 1 @ 0 can't be any natural number, so we have a contradiction.
01:09:28 <elliott> because tswett does not restrict natural numbers to 0 and successors of natural numbers
01:09:35 <Phantom__Hoover> you know what's annoying
01:09:36 <elliott> @ can just create natural numbers that are not the successor of anything
01:09:40 <elliott> no?
01:09:43 <tswett> elliott: oh, good point.
01:09:56 <elliott> so for instance
01:09:59 <elliott> it could give back 32
01:10:06 <elliott> whereby 32 i mean the number that is not the successor of 31
01:10:13 <tswett> So, 5?
01:10:19 <elliott> 5 is a number
01:10:24 <tswett> If we *do* assume that every natural number is either 0 or the successor of a natural number, though, we simply have to go through all 32! permutations there, and we can show that our system is inconsistent.
01:10:28 <FreeFull> So you get a different set of natural numbers depending on the left side of @
01:10:28 <tswett> And it's not the successor of 31.
01:10:34 <elliott> tswett: but why would you assume that
01:10:40 <elliott> are you trying to break mathematics???
01:10:43 <FreeFull> What is (0@1) + (1@0)
01:10:59 <tswett> elliott: no, I'm trying to bend it as far as it will go without breaking it.
01:11:10 <Phantom__Hoover> you guys are so boring :/
01:12:03 <shachaf> Phantom__Hoover: Let's make things more interesting by defining a new esolang!
01:12:05 <shachaf> I'm thinking it'll have about 8 operations.
01:12:10 <FreeFull> 1@0 could be 0 + aleph
01:12:12 <shachaf> Not quite sure what they'll be yet.
01:12:17 <FreeFull> Then 1@1 would be 1 + aleph
01:12:23 <FreeFull> By aleph
01:12:28 <FreeFull> By aleph I mean aleph zero
01:12:43 <tswett> How about 2@0?
01:12:59 <ion> shachaf: One of them is @
01:13:09 <shachaf> ion: What does @ do?
01:13:19 <elliott> everything
01:13:30 <FreeFull> 2@0 would be 0 + theconstant + theconstant
01:13:38 <FreeFull> Or 0 + 2*theconstant
01:13:56 <kmc> shachaf: no
01:16:07 <Phantom__Hoover> shachaf, supersedes all lesser operating systems and gives you a sensual massage
01:16:07 -!- DH____ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
01:16:34 <tswett> http://pastie.org/5147243 - okay, we've added an axiom and clarified an axiom.
01:16:38 <tswett> This new system is inconsistent.
01:16:39 <shachaf> kmc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_(accordion) are pretty the future, huh?
01:16:41 <FreeFull> 1@0 is larger than any 0@x
01:16:49 <FreeFull> 2@0 is larger than any 1@x
01:16:51 <FreeFull> So on
01:16:56 <elliott> define larger
01:17:15 <shachaf> elliott: It's a type of beer, right?
01:17:15 <FreeFull> tswett: Why are you only going up to 31?
01:17:28 <tswett> FreeFull: well, how high would you go?
01:17:42 <ion> elliott: Like yo momma
01:17:46 <Phantom__Hoover> elliott, suggn. @'s name should be bayan
01:17:52 <FreeFull> tswett: I wouldn't have an upper limit
01:17:54 <elliott> Phantom__Hoover: why
01:18:02 <elliott> FreeFull: you can't just have all the integers.
01:18:08 <Phantom__Hoover> accordion, that's why
01:18:10 <elliott> that's greedy as fuck. people like you disgust me!!
01:18:18 <tswett> Yeah, I mean, you have to stop *somewhere*.
01:18:34 <FreeFull> elliott: I wonder if you could declare 31 as its own successor
01:18:43 <elliott> that's just saturated arithmetic no
01:18:53 <tswett> So let's see, how can we make our system consistent.
01:19:05 <FreeFull> Where is the inconsistency?
01:19:12 <ion> The successor of 31 is 31.5. The successor of 31.5 is 31.75.
01:19:13 <Phantom__Hoover> why use the boring old definition of consistency anyway
01:19:23 <tswett> Currently, it's possible to prove that every natural number is equal to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, or 31.
01:19:36 <tswett> And that none of these numbers are equal to each other.
01:20:15 <FreeFull> And?
01:20:17 -!- DHeadshot has joined.
01:20:18 <tswett> FreeFull: in http://pastie.org/5147243? Given a set of 32 different natural numbers, you can prove that there are no natural numbers different from all of them.
01:20:25 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined.
01:21:01 -!- trout has changed nick to variable.
01:21:09 <FreeFull> Do these rules forbid an x where S(x) = 0
01:21:18 <Phantom_Hoover> yes
01:21:20 <tswett> Yes. Axiom 4.
01:21:22 <Phantom_Hoover> 4. 0 is not the successor of any natural number.
01:21:31 <FreeFull> Ah
01:21:33 <FreeFull> Missed that one
01:21:44 <tswett> Wait, hang on.
01:21:54 <tswett> Maybe these axioms aren't inconsistent after all.
01:22:27 <FreeFull> Maybe you shouldn't be calling them natural numbers
01:22:28 <tswett> Define 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 as the "standard" natural numbers.
01:22:35 <tswett> Okay, let's call them...
01:22:45 <tswett> Chafian numbers.
01:22:54 <shachaf> tswett: You *did* see ion's remark, right?
01:22:58 <tswett> Define 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 as the "standard" Chafian numbers.
01:23:13 <tswett> shachaf: what remark was that?
01:23:14 <FreeFull> Is there any value defined for 1@1
01:23:16 -!- elliott has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
01:23:25 <FreeFull> I think the @ operation needs to be fleshed out further
01:23:28 <shachaf> The natural numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31
01:23:35 <FreeFull> Although
01:23:36 <shachaf> ion: Right?
01:23:40 -!- Phantom__Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds).
01:23:42 <tswett> FreeFull: well, yeah. Axiom 6. There is a natural number a @ b, for all a and b.
01:23:59 <FreeFull> tswett: But that doesn't say what the natural number would be
01:24:27 <tswett> Well, see. Perhaps there exists a natural number, let's call it i, such that iterating the successor function on i never gets you a standard Chafian number, and iterating the successor function on a standard Chafian number never gets you i.
01:25:12 <tswett> I don't think you can disprove that.
01:25:19 <FreeFull> I think you are right
01:25:37 <FreeFull> Let's call the non-standard Chafian number 33
01:25:57 <FreeFull> Or maybe 32
01:26:17 <tswett> I dunno. What would we call the predecessor of its predecessor?
01:26:42 <tswett> I think we should just call it i. Then we can speak of numbers like i + 5, and i - 480, and so on.
01:26:57 <ion> shachaf: Sounds right.
01:27:07 <FreeFull> Hmm, we can't have 32 without 3 and 7 conflicting
01:27:15 <FreeFull> But maybe we could have i
01:27:58 <FreeFull> i would have to be on a different ring
01:28:09 <tswett> So, I think we have a model of these axioms.
01:28:48 <FreeFull> But even with i
01:28:50 <tswett> It's the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 31} union {i + n where n is an integer}, such that 0 and S are defined in the obvious ways, and then @ is defined just however.
01:28:54 <FreeFull> Do you see any inconsistency?
01:29:07 <tswett> No, these axioms are consistent. There's a model of them.
01:29:40 <FreeFull> If there was an axiom stating there were only 32 chafian numbers, then it might be inconsistent
01:29:44 <FreeFull> But as it stands
01:29:48 <tswett> Right.
01:30:35 <tswett> Now, this seems to raise a question: what is i + i? I don't think this model admits a consistent definition of addition.
01:30:59 <tswett> Then again, neither does the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 31}.
01:31:15 <FreeFull> a @ b could be defined as b + a*i
01:31:26 <tswett> But then you need to define + and *.
01:31:30 <FreeFull> Yeah
01:31:57 <FreeFull> If you defined + in terms of successors
01:31:59 <FreeFull> Hmm
01:32:03 <FreeFull> Then it wouldn't work
01:34:42 <tswett> So, what axioms do we want + to obey?
01:36:01 <tswett> We want 0 + a = a + 0 = a. We want a + b = b + a, and (a + b) + c = a + (b + c).
01:36:17 <tswett> And we want a + 1 = S(a) for all a ≠ 31.
01:37:06 <tswett> Are these new axioms consistent?
01:37:42 <tswett> We can now posit a Chafian number corresponding to every natural number.
01:37:47 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Quit: Leaving).
01:38:02 <tswett> But all Chafian numbers corresponding to natural numbers 32 or greater are non-standard.
01:38:18 -!- augur has joined.
01:38:38 <tswett> Hm, but does this work? 32 is not 0, so it has a predecessor. Call it P(32).
01:39:30 <tswett> P(32) is clearly not 31. This means that P(32) + 1 = 32. However, 31 + 1 = 32 as well.
01:40:38 -!- elliott has joined.
01:40:46 <augur> tswett!
01:40:48 <augur> what are you doing!
01:41:16 <tswett> augur: I'm trying to do as much math as I can with the Chafian numbers.
01:41:26 <augur> chafian numbers?
01:41:39 <tswett> Yeah. "Natural numbers" as defined here: http://pastie.org/5147243
01:41:42 <shachaf> 18:23 <shachaf> The natural numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31
01:42:07 <tswett> So, it's impossible for + to satisfy zero-is-identity, commutativity, associativity, compatibility with the successor function, and bijectivity.
01:42:42 <augur> i dont follow
01:44:05 <tswett> Well, the axioms at http://pastie.org/5147243 are consistent.
01:44:16 <tswett> I'm trying to add more axioms, defining arithmetic and stuff.
01:44:44 <FreeFull> tswett: There is no 31 + 1
01:44:53 <FreeFull> Because there is no S(31)
01:45:27 <augur> im not sure these are truly consistent
01:45:28 <quintopia> tswett: where does the standard Z/32 arithmetic break down?
01:45:50 <tswett> augur: I gave a model of it.
01:45:53 <tswett> < tswett> It's the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 31} union {i + n where n is an integer}, such that 0 and S are defined in the obvious ways, and then @ is defined just however.
01:45:54 <augur> tswett: oh?
01:45:59 <FreeFull> If P(0) was 32 and S(32) was 0 then it would be standard modular arithmetic
01:46:08 <FreeFull> Other than the @ stuff
01:46:28 <tswett> Oh yeah. I said that "32 is not 0, so it has a predecessor", but maybe 32 *is* 0.
01:46:29 <augur> tswett: well i suppose you could define trivial models like {*}
01:46:37 <augur> no that wouldnt work
01:46:41 <augur> {*,31}
01:46:53 <FreeFull> tswett: 32 isn't 0
01:47:09 <tswett> FreeFull: can you prove that?
01:47:29 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined.
01:47:31 <FreeFull> You can't prove either way with these axioms
01:47:55 <FreeFull> Whatever the definition of + is, 16+16 wouldn't be a standard Chafian number
01:48:43 <FreeFull> We could forget about having +
01:48:45 <augur> btw 7 and 4 say the same thing
01:49:06 <augur> well, more or less
01:49:11 <tswett> Aren't you contradicting yourself? You said you can't prove that 16 + 16 ≠ 0, but you also said that 16 + 16 is not a standard Chafian number, didn't you?
01:49:45 <augur> so
01:49:52 <FreeFull> I am contradicting myself
01:49:58 <augur> {0,31} work for S(0) = 31
01:50:03 <augur> it satisfies up to 7
01:50:05 <FreeFull> Obviously + is ill-defined right now
01:50:05 <shachaf> I am contracting m'self.
01:50:11 <FreeFull> So you can't prove anything about it
01:50:15 <augur> 6 is also definable
01:50:30 <augur> but lemme check if any @ can satisfy 8
01:52:06 <tswett> http://pastie.org/5147243 - okay, here are our axioms now.
01:52:20 <tswett> I'm pretty sure we can prove that 31 + 1 = 0.
01:52:43 <FreeFull> You could define addition in following way: x + 0 = x x + y = S(x) + P(y)
01:53:40 <augur> hm
01:53:47 <augur> im confident, actually, that 8 is unsatisfiable
01:54:04 <elliott> howso
01:54:10 <tswett> Let 32 = 31 + 1. Suppose 32 ≠ 0; then, by axiom 7, the predecessor of 32, P(32), exists. By axiom 3, P(32) ≠ 31. Therefore, by axiom 14, P(32) + 1 = 32. This means that P(32) + 1 = 31 + 1, so, by axiom 15, P(32) = 31. This is a contradiction.
01:54:12 <augur> wel
01:54:16 <tswett> Therefore, 31 + 1 = 0.
01:54:17 <elliott> oh hm
01:54:18 <Phantom_Hoover> pigeonhole, no?
01:54:24 <elliott> tswett added 7
01:54:25 <augur> yeah pigeon hole i think will work
01:54:34 <Phantom_Hoover> there are 32^2 pairs of natural numbers (a,b)
01:54:34 <elliott> do you have the necessary infrastructure for pigeonhole though
01:54:41 <elliott> do you have the necessary infrastructure for pigeonhole though
01:54:45 <augur> elliott: yes
01:54:47 <augur> elliott: yes
01:54:50 <FreeFull> tswett: Those axioms don't state what happens when you have something like 3 + 4
01:54:52 <elliott> that was at Phantom_Hoover
01:54:52 <tswett> Axioms 1 through 8 are consistent. You can't prove that there are only 32 natural numbers.
01:55:01 <augur> Phantom_Hoover: actually there arent 32^2 pairs
01:55:02 <Phantom_Hoover> ...ah
01:55:16 <tswett> FreeFull: sure they do. 3 + 4 = 3 + (3 + 1) = (3 + 3) + 1.
01:55:18 <augur> theres (k+1)^2 pairs
01:55:23 <augur> for some choice of k
01:55:32 <augur> actually k+2 sorry
01:55:54 <augur> because the model might identify things that you dont identify in the axioms
01:55:54 <elliott> tswett: so when augur said yes he actuall ymeant no
01:56:01 <augur> elliott: no, i meant yes
01:56:02 <elliott> *actually meant
01:56:03 <FreeFull> tswett: You didn't put anywhere that x + y = x + P(y) + 1
01:56:11 -!- Arc_Koen has joined.
01:56:18 <elliott> augur: well i do not see how you can prove it from those axioms
01:56:25 <tswett> FreeFull: yes, but I put somewhere that x + S(y) = x + y + 1. Axiom 14 says so.
01:56:43 <FreeFull> 14. For all a ≠ 31, a + 1 = S(a).
01:57:00 <augur> elliott: if there are (k+2)^2 pairs of numbers, and @ is an endomap on the (k+2) elements of Nat
01:57:09 <elliott> augur: "if there are (k+2)^2 pairs of numbers"
01:57:09 <tswett> Anyway, I think axioms 1 through 15 are no longer consistent. I think you can prove that i = i + 32, and that i ≠ i + 32.
01:57:10 <augur> then @ is not injective
01:57:14 <elliott> augur: you cannot prove there are only 32 chafian numbers
01:57:15 <elliott> going by those axoims
01:57:17 <elliott> *axioms
01:57:18 <elliott> afaict
01:57:22 <augur> elliott: i never said there were only 32
01:57:25 <augur> thats why i said k+2
01:57:27 <augur> keep up, kid
01:57:31 <tswett> augur: so, there are infinitely many Chafian numbers.
01:57:32 <elliott> augur: you cannot prove there are only N chafian numbers for any constant N
01:57:41 <elliott> stop being condescending
01:57:58 <augur> elliott: and you need to stop not reading what i say
01:58:10 <elliott> tswett: have fun
01:58:10 <augur> tswett: yes, thats true. if there's infinitely many it might work
01:58:14 <elliott> wow no shit
01:58:19 <tswett> elliott: thanks.
01:58:19 <augur> for finite N it pigeonholes
01:58:20 <elliott> you think there being infinitely many might have been....
01:58:21 <elliott> the point???
01:58:40 <tswett> Proving that i = i + 32. That's easy: i = i + 0 and 0 = 32.
01:58:56 <FreeFull> Where did you prove 0 = 32
01:59:03 <augur> tswett: there is no + in these axioms
01:59:21 <tswett> FreeFull: 21:54:10 EDT.
01:59:28 <tswett> augur: these axioms? http://pastie.org/5147243
01:59:36 <FreeFull> What sort of bullshit time is EDT
01:59:36 <tswett> Axioms 10 through 15 are about +.
01:59:43 <tswett> FreeFull: I have no idea.
01:59:50 <augur> oh, you added some axioms, ok
01:59:52 <tswett> 21:54:10 < tswett> Let 32 = 31 + 1. Suppose 32 ≠ 0; then, by axiom 7, the predecessor of 32, P(32), exists. By axiom 3, P(32) ≠ 31. Therefore, by axiom 14, P(32) + 1 = 32. This means that P(32) + 1 = 31 + 1, so, by axiom 15, P(32) = 31. This is a contradiction.
01:59:52 <augur> i didnt see that
02:00:25 <FreeFull> tswett: 32 doesn't = 31 + 1 though
02:00:43 <FreeFull> Wait
02:00:47 <FreeFull> Let me read the whole thing
02:01:22 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Quit: Leaving).
02:01:57 <tswett> Okay, so, proving that i ≠ i + 32. We know that i + 32 = i + 1 + 1 + ... + 1, where there are 32 1s. Since all of those numbers are undefined, this means that i + 32 is the 32nd successor of i.
02:02:03 <tswett> This means that i is the 32nd successor of itself.
02:02:08 <FreeFull> tswett: You've proven that 32 ≠ 31 + 1
02:02:14 <FreeFull> But not that 32 = 0
02:02:40 <tswett> FreeFull: I said at the beginning, "Let 32 = 31 + 1". I think said "suppose 32 ≠ 0". I then derived a contradiction.
02:03:09 <tswett> I believe this proves that 32 = 0.
02:03:49 <tswett> So, i being the 32nd successor of itself. Is that actually impossible?
02:04:05 <elliott> perfectly possible if 32 = 0, surely
02:04:30 <elliott> tswett: anyway can't i just be S(i)
02:04:36 <FreeFull> tswett: Ok, what you've proven is that either 32 = 0 or that 32 ≠ 31 + 1
02:04:37 <elliott> i don't see that forbidden in the axioms
02:04:49 <elliott> FreeFull: you do not seem to understand what a definition is
02:04:55 <tswett> FreeFull: and 32 = 31 + 1 by definition; therefore, 32 ≠ 0.
02:04:55 <elliott> the sequence of digits "32" has no meaning in itself.
02:05:00 <elliott> tswett defined 32 as meaning 31 + 1.
02:05:06 <tswett> Maybe i can be S(i).
02:05:06 <FreeFull> tswett: The axioms don't state that 32 = 31 + 1
02:05:16 <elliott> ok so you actually do not understand what a definition is
02:05:30 <tswett> FreeFull: okay, replace 32 with 31 + 1 in this entire conversation, forever.
02:05:43 <tswett> What I've proven is that either 31 + 1 = 0, or that 31 + 1 ≠ 31 + 1.
02:05:54 <FreeFull> The axioms don't state anything about what 31 + 1 would be
02:06:08 <elliott> he just proved what it is tho
02:06:10 <elliott> using: the axioms
02:06:12 <tswett> Okay, let me repeat my theorem a third time.
02:06:55 <tswett> Suppose 31 + 1 ≠ 0; then, by axiom 7, the predecessor of 31 + 1, P(31 + 1), exists. By axiom 3, P(31 + 1) ≠ 31. Therefore, by axiom 14, P(31 + 1) + 1 = 31 + 1. This means that P(31 + 1) + 1 = 31 + 1, so, by axiom 15, P(31 + 1) = 31. This is a contradiction.
02:07:05 <FreeFull> If 31 + 1 ≠ 31 + 1 then it could be not a Chafian number
02:07:33 <tswett> Nor could it be anything whatsoever.
02:08:14 <FreeFull> It's late at night
02:08:33 <tswett> So it is.
02:08:47 <coppro> tswett: your theorem has a flaw
02:08:47 <elliott> tswett: how long until you have to specify the logic you're using
02:08:51 <tswett> Let me take two 300-microgram tablets of melatonin.
02:08:54 <tswett> elliott: first-order logic.
02:08:58 <tswett> About six seconds.
02:09:23 <tswett> coppro: it does?
02:10:25 <FreeFull> tswett: Ok, ok, I see it
02:10:49 <FreeFull> It's a contradiction because of axiom 3
02:11:25 <FreeFull> But
02:12:07 <coppro> no wait, you're right
02:12:52 <FreeFull> tswett: Does this mean that all chafian numbers smaller than 0 or larger than 31 are equal to 0?
02:14:15 <FreeFull> Does one of the axioms imply uniqueness or something like that? This might be used to prove that there are only 32 unique chafian numbers
02:14:56 <elliott> define larger
02:15:18 <tswett> Yeah, depends on how you define "larger".
02:15:26 <FreeFull> x + 1 is larger than x
02:15:57 <FreeFull> Actualyl
02:16:08 <FreeFull> It wouldn't prove all chafian numbers are equal to zero
02:16:40 <FreeFull> 31 + 1 + 1 would be the same as 1, not the same as 0
02:17:41 <FreeFull> All assuming 32 = 31 + 1
02:18:09 <FreeFull> Actually, I can still see nonstandard chafian numbers
02:18:37 <FreeFull> Let's see
02:19:24 <tswett> "x + 1 is larger than x" isn't satisfied by any total orders, since 31 + 1 = 0.
02:20:34 <coppro> eh, just well-order the thing
02:21:15 <FreeFull> Suppose i ≠ 0; By axiom 7, P(i) exists. By axiom 2, S(i) exists
02:21:30 <coppro> Not all models of the Chafian numbers have 32 elements, if that's what you're asking
02:21:35 <FreeFull> This can be repeated for the value P(i) and the value S(i), extending infinitely in both directions
02:21:36 <coppro> but there exists a model that does
02:21:42 <elliott> FSVO infinitely
02:21:45 <tswett> And indeed, we're just defining i as "a non-standard number".
02:21:48 <FreeFull> At no point you will encounter a standard chafian number
02:21:52 <elliott> oh, I see
02:21:54 <tswett> FreeFull: right.
02:22:07 <tswett> coppro: doesn't axiom 8 imply that there are no finite models of the Chafian numbers?
02:22:34 <tswett> Along with axiom 6.
02:22:35 <FreeFull> tswett: 0 could be larger than 31
02:23:06 -!- Arc_Koen has quit (Quit: Arc_Koen).
02:23:10 <tswett> FreeFull: yeah, but you can't consistently have... let me have lambdabot tell you.
02:23:16 <elliott> tswett: what is axoim 7
02:23:18 <elliott> *axiom
02:23:20 <elliott> oh
02:23:23 <elliott> it comes after axiom 3
02:23:25 <elliott> and before axiom 4
02:23:26 <FreeFull> Funny, chafian numbers are almost but not quite mod32
02:23:30 <elliott> chafian ordering??
02:23:44 <tswett> > "You can't consistently have " ++ concat [show n ++ " < " | n <- [0..31]] "0."
02:23:45 <lambdabot> Couldn't match expected type `[GHC.Types.Char] -> [GHC.Types.Char]'
02:23:45 <lambdabot> ...
02:23:53 <tswett> > "You can't consistently have " ++ concat [show n ++ " < " | n <- [0..31]] ++ "0."
02:23:53 <FreeFull> tswett: Ok, how about this
02:23:55 <lambdabot> "You can't consistently have 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 < 7 < 8 < 9 < 10 < 1...
02:24:02 <FreeFull> tswett: S(x) is larger than x
02:24:07 * tswett nods.
02:24:17 <FreeFull> Since there is no S(31), there is no number larger than 31
02:24:17 <tswett> Yeah, that seems consistent.
02:24:27 <tswett> i could be larger than 31.
02:24:41 <coppro> tswett: totally forgot about those ><
02:24:52 <coppro> ok, so yeah, you definitely have nonstandard ones
02:25:07 <coppro> actually
02:25:13 <coppro> your axioms are stupid
02:25:22 <quintopia> finally someone speaks sense
02:25:26 <coppro> S(0) = 31 is allowable as a model of the Chafian numbers
02:25:52 <tswett> FreeFull: wait, no, that's not consistent. Every nonstandard number is the 32nd successor of itself.
02:25:53 <shachaf> Y'all're still talking about this?
02:26:01 <coppro> tswett: not necessarily
02:26:01 <FreeFull> coppro: Not with the axioms disallowing it
02:26:02 <tswett> coppro: 31 is defined as the 31st successor of 0.
02:26:07 <coppro> tswett: no it's not
02:26:28 <tswett> Fine, I'm adding another axiom saying it is.
02:26:56 <tswett> http://pastie.org/5147243
02:27:00 <tswett> 16. 1 = S(0), 2 = S(1), 3 = S(2), ..., and 31 = S(30).
02:27:07 <tswett> shachaf: yes.
02:27:36 <FreeFull> Why are the axioms numbered weirdly?
02:28:01 <tswett> Because I want them to be presented in a logical order, but I don't want to renumber any of them.
02:28:21 <tswett> Agora Nomic gets along well that way.
02:28:51 <FreeFull> Can you show that i would be the 32nd successor of itself?
02:30:05 -!- QuaeroVeritatis has joined.
02:30:24 <QuaeroVeritatis> hello all
02:30:35 <elliott> `welcome QuaeroVeritatis
02:30:40 -!- QuaeroVeritatis has left.
02:30:46 <HackEgo> QuaeroVeritatis: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on irc.dal.net.)
02:30:48 <elliott> well fuck you
02:31:31 <shachaf> `welcome shachaf
02:31:34 <HackEgo> shachaf: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on irc.dal.net.)
02:31:40 <shachaf> HackEgo: thx :')
02:31:45 <shachaf> No one's ever welcomed me before.
02:40:23 <FreeFull> `WELCOME shachaf
02:41:14 <tswett> `wELCOME tswett
02:41:16 <HackEgo> ​/home/hackbot/hackbot.hg/multibot_cmds/lib/limits: line 5: exec: wELCOME: not found
02:41:22 <tswett> i FEEL SO UNWELCOME.
02:42:19 <elliott> hi
02:42:45 <FreeFull> tswett: Can you show i = S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(i))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
02:42:58 <tswett> FreeFull: I don't believe so.
02:43:27 <FreeFull> Ok
02:44:04 <FreeFull> So i is the 32nd successor of itself only if by 32 you mean the chaffian number 31 + 1
02:44:20 <tswett> You used 16 Ss there, not 32 of them.
02:44:44 <elliott> but hey, what's the difference
02:44:45 <tswett> By "32nd successor", I mean the successor iterated 32 times, where "32" is the ordinary natural number 32.
02:45:04 <elliott> didn't we just establish 32 wasn't a natural number hours ago
02:45:27 <tswett> We did, but then we changed our definition of "natural number" to be not stupid.
02:45:35 <tswett> Actually, I'm not sure we really have a definition of "natural number".
02:45:42 <FreeFull> tswett: Woops
02:45:57 <tswett> After all, there's no definition of "natural number" in first-order logic that does not also admit things that aren't the natural numbers.
02:46:10 <FreeFull> S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(i))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
02:46:32 <tswett> I guess they're perfectly definable in second-order logic, aren't they? But I don't know what the semantics of second-order logic are.
02:46:41 <FreeFull> Is there a number that isn't a surreal number?
02:46:52 <elliott> define number
02:47:00 <tswett> Imaginary numbers are not surreal numbers.
02:47:22 <tswett> Cardinal numbers are only sometimes identified with ordinal numbers.
02:47:54 <coppro> cardinal numbers are ordinal numbers
02:48:11 <coppro> but not all ordinal numbers are cardinal numbers
02:49:43 <FreeFull> You're right about imaginary numbers not being surreal numbers I think
02:49:43 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
02:49:52 -!- DH____ has joined.
02:49:53 <FreeFull> Hmm
02:50:34 -!- ssue has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
02:50:41 -!- ssue has joined.
03:03:48 -!- Sgeo|web has joined.
03:04:25 <Sgeo|web> hibye im alive
03:04:54 <elliott> Sgeo|web: are you drunk
03:05:22 <Sgeo|web> was in a rush
03:05:44 <coppro> that's worse
03:05:45 <elliott> this is the second time we have been told Sgeo|web is alive recently
03:05:58 <elliott> try not to die
03:06:32 <Sgeo|web> not in any danger. except for crossing streets.
03:06:56 <shachaf> don't cross sts Sgeo|web
03:07:50 -!- Bike has joined.
03:08:49 <tswett> Hi, Bike.
03:09:23 <shachaf> Hike.
03:09:24 <Bike> hi, tsett.
03:10:53 -!- Sgeo|web has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
03:13:02 <elliott> is it bad if i can't stop laughing at sgeo right now
03:13:25 <tswett> Yes.
03:13:34 <elliott> what kind of bad
03:13:46 <tswett> Hm...
03:13:46 <shachaf> Sgeo crossed a saint.
03:13:51 <shachaf> You don't want to do that.
03:13:52 <tswett> A couple dozen millihitlers.
03:14:06 <tswett> Between 40 and 50.
03:14:16 <tswett> But yes, as I was saying.
03:14:18 <tswett> Hm...
03:14:54 <tswett> You know how there's no computable set of axioms that uniquely defines the natural numbers? And, in particular, the Peano axioms, in first-order logic, admit multiple models?
03:14:57 <tswett> Only one of those models is computable.
03:15:12 <tswett> You can kind of define the natural numbers as "the computable model of the Peano axioms".
03:15:56 <elliott> but i hear there's no computable set of axioms that uniquely defines the natural numbers
03:16:05 <tswett> True.
03:16:17 <tswett> And, in particular, the Peano axioms, in first-order logic, admit multiple models.
03:16:21 <Bike> dumb question time: a model is computable if it's a recursive set?
03:16:22 <tswett> But only one of those models is computable.
03:16:35 <tswett> Bike: that's the meaning I had in mind, yeah.
03:19:59 <Bike> cool
03:19:59 <elliott> tswett: a computable set of axioms that uniquely defines the booleans
03:19:59 -!- Jafet1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
03:19:59 -!- glogbot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
03:20:05 -!- esowiki has joined.
03:20:09 -!- esowiki has joined.
03:20:10 -!- esowiki has joined.
03:20:11 -!- glogbot has joined.
03:20:28 -!- glogbackup has joined.
03:21:26 <tswett> elliott: yeah, those exist.
03:22:08 <tswett> There exist Booleans x and y such that x ≠ y. There do not exist Booleans x, y and z such that x ≠ y, y ≠ z, and x ≠ z.
03:22:25 <elliott> tswett: well then!
03:22:28 <elliott> tswett: just do the same thing for naturals
03:22:44 <elliott> there exist naturals x and y such that x =/= y. there exist naturals x and y and z such that x =/= y =/= z. there exist ...
03:24:24 <tswett> There do not exist naturals a_0, a_1, ..., a_n such that a_0 ≠ a_1, a_0 ≠ a_2, ..., a_0 ≠ a_n, a_1 ≠ a_2, a_1 ≠ a_3, ..., a_1 ≠ a_n, ... ... ..., a_(n-1) ≠ a_n?
03:24:30 <tswett> For some uncountable natural number n?
03:24:35 <elliott> tswett: yes.
03:24:58 <Bike> I still don't understand "uniquely", is this something with ordinals
03:26:05 <tswett> Bike: if a computable set of axioms has the natural numbers as a model, then it also has other things as models.
03:26:27 <Bike> Other things like what?
03:27:56 <tswett> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic
03:27:57 <tswett> Those.
03:28:15 <Bike> oh, those things that I don't understand... thanks.
03:28:17 <shachaf> tswett: did you know:
03:28:22 <shachaf> there's no computable set of axioms in first-order logic that uniquely determines the natural numbers
03:28:25 <shachaf> ?
03:28:32 <Bike> probably I should just read more boolos or somefin
03:28:34 <shachaf> "tru fax"
03:28:48 <tswett> shachaf: hm. I think I remember somebody saying that before.
03:28:55 <Jafet> Shadow fax
03:31:19 <tswett> I wonder what the Peano axioms + the negation of Goodstein's theorem is like.
03:31:44 <shachaf> What about the Peano axioms + the negation of Godwin's law?
03:31:50 <shachaf> Nah, that's unthinkable.
03:36:12 <Jafet> It's like the Peano axioms + the negation of Goodstein's theorem
03:39:46 <tswett> Let i be the smallest number such that the Goodstein sequence G(i) is infinite.
03:41:17 <tswett> i must be very large, of course.
03:41:29 <Jafet> O kay
03:41:36 <tswett> So large, in fact, that ZFC tells you there's no such thing.
03:41:46 <tswett> But let's ignore the fact that i doesn't exist. Is it even or odd?
03:42:19 <Jafet> Obviously neither is provable in peano arithmetic
03:42:34 <Jafet> Unless adding the axiom made it inconsistent, in which case both are provable
03:42:50 <tswett> That doesn't seem obvious to me.
03:42:57 <elliott> `addquote <tswett> But let's ignore the fact that i doesn't exist. Is it even or odd?
03:43:00 <HackEgo> 874) <tswett> But let's ignore the fact that i doesn't exist. Is it even or odd?
03:43:05 <tswett> Maybe Goodstein's theorem is trivial for odd numbers or something.
03:43:36 <Jafet> You can prove that for any n, G(n) is a natural number
03:43:55 <Jafet> So you can't prove anything about i, because it doesn't exist
03:44:13 <tswett> Yeah, but what can you prove about it within the Peano axioms?
03:44:30 <Jafet> Nothing, it doesn't exist
03:44:47 <tswett> On the contrary, you can prove that it's greater than 3.
03:44:56 <Jafet> Okay, yes.
03:45:01 <tswett> Rather: that if it exists, it's greater than 3.
03:45:25 <Jafet> Since its existence is somehow an axiom, you don't need that bit
03:45:33 * tswett nods.
03:45:38 <Jafet> I guess it might be possible to prove it even or odd
03:45:47 <Jafet> Proving it to be both would be interesting
03:46:21 <tswett> That would mean that your system is inconsistent. And it isn't.
03:46:48 <Jafet> Well, it could be inconsistent
03:46:49 -!- quintopia has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
03:46:58 <Jafet> I don't think anyone knows
03:47:08 <Bike> couldn't it only be inconsistent if peano was inconsistent?
03:47:19 <tswett> The Kirby–Paris theorem states that it is, in fact, consistent.
03:47:38 <Bike> or that...
03:47:44 -!- quintopia has joined.
03:47:52 <Jafet> In the sense that it is neither provable nor unprovable in peano arithmetic
03:47:56 <elliott> well PA could be inconsistent
03:48:09 <Jafet> Not in the sense that adding it or its negation won't cause the new axioms to be inconsistent
03:48:32 <Jafet> Gentzen showed that PA is consistent, sort of
03:48:39 <elliott> yes the "sort of" is the rub
03:48:59 <elliott> Edward Nelson had an attempted proof of PA inconsistency recently
03:49:06 <elliott> but it turned out to be flawed
03:50:39 <tswett> elliott: do you know if you've exceeded my little brother in age yet?
03:50:55 <elliott> i don't know, how old is he
03:51:29 <elliott> "Theorem: Nelson's proof can't be right.
03:51:29 <elliott> Proof: The formal system within which Nelson carries out his proofs requires a theory of syntax. This theory is surely at least as strong as PRA. So:
03:51:29 <elliott> (1) If Nelson's proof is right, then it follows that Nelson's proof is wrong."
03:51:29 <elliott> heh
03:52:11 <Jafet> But you have consistent proofs in an inconsistent logic
03:52:22 <Jafet> You just have to be really careful, probably
03:52:43 <elliott> i wonder what would happen if PRA got proved inconsistent overnight
03:53:25 <Jafet> The total and irrevocable collapse of civilisation
03:53:28 <tswett> elliott: uh, I think he's like 17 or something.
03:53:36 <elliott> edward nelson is one of my favourite wacky mathematicians
03:53:41 <elliott> IIRC he doesn't believe exponentiation is total
03:53:54 <elliott> I forget his argument, although ISTR it's at least vaguely compelling
03:54:17 <tswett> Hey, Nelson is the guy that developed internal set theory.
03:54:38 <Jafet> http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=103
03:54:52 <elliott> Jafet: yes! I love that anecdote
03:55:19 <shachaf> Everyone loves that anecdote.
03:59:35 <kmc> i love that anecdote
04:00:09 <kmc> ∀p. ♥(p, A)
04:02:17 <ion> > 2^100
04:02:22 <lambdabot> mueval-core: Time limit exceeded
04:02:32 <ion> > 2^100
04:02:37 <lambdabot> mueval-core: Time limit exceeded
04:02:40 <ion> k
04:02:41 <Bike> guess that proves that.
04:02:47 <ion> QED.
04:02:51 <shachaf> > 2^100
04:02:56 <lambdabot> mueval-core: Time limit exceeded
04:02:58 <shachaf> > 2^100
04:03:01 <lambdabot> Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect':
04:03:01 <lambdabot> Use -v to see a list of the...
04:03:06 <Bike> I have to ask what the time limit is...
04:03:07 <shachaf> > 2^100
04:03:11 <lambdabot> Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect':
04:03:11 <lambdabot> Use -v to see a list of the...
04:03:15 <shachaf> Something weird is going on with lambdabot recently.
04:03:16 <shachaf> > 1
04:03:19 <lambdabot> Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect':
04:03:19 <lambdabot> Use -v to see a list of the...
04:05:23 <tswett> > 1
04:05:27 <lambdabot> Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect':
04:05:27 <lambdabot> Use -v to see a list of the...
04:05:47 <Jafet> > ∀p. ♥(p, A)
04:05:52 <lambdabot> mueval-core: Time limit exceeded
04:08:28 <shachaf> > 1
04:08:32 <lambdabot> mueval-core: Time limit exceeded
04:08:35 <shachaf> > 2^100
04:08:38 <lambdabot> Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect':
04:08:38 <lambdabot> Use -v to see a list of the...
04:09:19 <tswett> 1267650600228229401496703205376
04:13:42 <elliott> thanks tswett
04:20:03 <Jafet> `run echo '2^100' | bc
04:20:06 <HackEgo> bash: bc: command not found
04:20:46 <Jafet> `run echo '2 100^p' | dc
04:20:49 <HackEgo> 1267650600228229401496703205376
04:47:29 -!- Nisstyre has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
04:51:54 -!- Nisstyre has joined.
04:52:32 -!- evincar has joined.
05:06:12 <kmc> this machine has sda1 through sdo1
05:06:16 <kmc> more than half way through the alphabet
05:08:25 <elliott> sdz9
05:08:31 -!- monqy has joined.
05:08:32 <elliott> what comes after sdz
05:08:36 <elliott> monqy: hey
05:08:52 <kmc> st:ds9
05:08:59 <monqy> hi
05:09:05 <kmc> is next i think
05:12:25 <Jafet> 9 STDs
05:12:58 <kmc> i'm not sure i can even name 9 STDs
05:13:15 <Jafet> You'd need to be as debauched as five Babylons
05:13:21 <kmc> -_-
05:13:32 <kmc> i mean if you have sex with someone who has a cold, you might get a cold
05:13:34 <kmc> does that count
05:14:02 <kmc> what about sexually transmitted crazy
05:14:45 <Jafet> I think it's only used for things that are transmitted only through sex
05:14:57 <kmc> well HIV is not transmitted only through sex
05:14:59 <Jafet> Like national secrets
05:15:13 <kmc> i think all STDs are possible to catch some other way
05:15:15 <kmc> if you get creative
05:15:30 <Jafet> Depends on how phallic you think needles are
05:15:57 <kmc> fair point (no pun intended (pun very much intended))
06:09:34 <shachaf> kmc: My flag shirt arrived today.
06:09:51 <shachaf> "Time Sensitive Material"
06:10:14 <shachaf> Seems a higher-quality shirt than the last one.
07:11:57 -!- evincar has quit (Quit: leaving).
07:31:05 -!- Bike has quit (Quit: leaving).
07:36:12 -!- epicmonkey has joined.
08:26:49 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
08:43:39 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined.
09:02:55 -!- opgrop has joined.
09:03:13 -!- opgrop has left.
09:21:29 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds).
09:22:16 -!- elliott has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
09:26:30 -!- carado has joined.
09:31:07 -!- DH____ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
09:32:56 -!- epicmonkey has joined.
09:42:41 -!- elliott has joined.
09:43:20 -!- elliott has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
09:43:46 -!- elliott has joined.
09:52:13 -!- nooga has joined.
09:52:19 <nooga> gur
09:55:23 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
10:02:02 <elliott> gur
10:07:30 -!- carado has joined.
10:08:47 -!- nooga has quit (Quit: leaving).
10:14:53 <shachaf> rug
10:15:43 <shachaf> elliott: Please /nick to enlightening
10:15:46 <shachaf> And then back to elliott.
10:15:54 <shachaf> So my /query window gets renamed.
10:15:56 <shachaf> "thx"
10:16:13 <elliott> no
10:16:32 <shachaf> elliott: :'(
10:16:44 <shachaf> elliott: Alternatively, tell me how to rename an irssi /query window.
10:18:06 <elliott> idk
10:18:14 <elliott> try not using irssi
10:18:52 <shachaf> elliott: how about you try
10:18:56 <shachaf> BEING SAD
10:19:52 <elliott> no
10:23:42 -!- Arc_Koen has joined.
10:26:38 -!- DHeadshot has joined.
10:31:35 <Arc_Koen> so here's an idea for a language
10:31:54 <Arc_Koen> its only way of branching would be to use lazy evaluation of boolean expressions
10:32:31 <Arc_Koen> (for instance, assuming x always return true, "if (b) {x} else {y}" can be written "(b AND x) OR y")
10:33:01 <Arc_Koen> but this language would do its best to do minimalist; in particular, its only logic gate would be the universal logic gate XOR
10:34:15 -!- AnotherTest has joined.
10:34:21 <AnotherTest> Hello
10:36:37 <Arc_Koen> hello
10:42:32 -!- carado has quit (Quit: Leaving).
10:45:12 -!- mean has joined.
11:08:05 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined.
11:36:25 <elliott> mean: are you mean
11:37:23 <Jafet> /mode +median mean
11:37:23 <fizzie> Sounds likely; the average person is mean.
11:40:14 -!- fungot has joined.
11:41:10 <mean> =))
11:41:29 <mean> i noticed they don't have this mode
11:41:32 <mean> on freenode
11:41:35 <mean> like undernet
11:41:35 <mean> why
11:41:36 <mean> ?
11:42:15 <mean> to hide my ip
11:45:42 <elliott> sounds like you want a cloak
11:45:53 <elliott> you can get one for asking for one in #freenode
11:45:55 <elliott> meanwhile,
11:45:56 <elliott> `welcome mean
11:46:06 <HackEgo> mean: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on irc.dal.net.)
11:46:21 <elliott> (asking in #freenode after reading http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#cloaks, ofc)
11:46:32 <mean> yep
11:46:33 <mean> cloak
11:46:55 <mean> great
11:46:57 <mean> thanks
11:47:42 -!- sivoais has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
11:54:28 -!- this has joined.
11:54:28 -!- this has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
11:55:16 -!- mean has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
11:59:14 -!- impomatic has joined.
12:04:17 <elliott> pikhq: hey you know things about wayland right
12:05:17 -!- sivoais has joined.
12:21:40 -!- ais523 has joined.
12:32:35 -!- atriq has joined.
12:35:14 <FreeFull> When I try to start thunar, I get (thunar:27545): GVFS-RemoteVolumeMonitor-WARNING **: invoking List() failed for type GProxyVolumeMonitorUDisks2: Method `List' returned type `(a(sssbbbbbbbbuasa{ss}sa{sv})a(sssssbbssa{ss}sa{sv})a(sssssbsassa{sv}))', but expected `(a(ssssbbbbbbbbuasa{ss}sa{sv})a(ssssssbbssa{ss}sa{sv})a(ssssssbsassa{sv}))' (g-io-error-quark, 13)
12:35:21 <FreeFull> Isn't that the weirdest error
12:40:05 <elliott> FreeFull: i think that's a dbus type thing
12:41:22 <fizzie> You seem to be expecting three s too many.
12:52:15 -!- atriq has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
13:02:05 <FreeFull> Logging out and back in fixed it
13:05:52 -!- atriq has joined.
13:12:17 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
13:12:23 -!- ais523_ has joined.
13:14:15 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais523.
13:14:26 <atriq> elliott, you were right
13:15:00 <fizzie> Elliott was right?! Uh, I mean, of course.
13:15:15 <elliott> atriq: but of course!
13:15:42 <atriq> Brogue is very fun
13:17:53 -!- impomatic has quit (Quit: http://RetroProgramming.com).
13:31:49 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
13:32:04 -!- ais523 has joined.
13:38:11 -!- nooga_ has joined.
13:38:27 -!- ais523_ has joined.
13:38:27 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
13:39:18 <nooga_> i've finally found the best reason to use OS X
13:39:42 <atriq> Go on...?
13:39:48 <nooga_> ehttp://cl.ly/image/3N1V131H2Z1B
13:39:56 <nooga_> http://cl.ly/image/3N1V131H2Z1B
13:42:11 -!- Frooxius has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
13:42:45 <Jafet> http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=50107
13:45:20 -!- Frooxius has joined.
13:51:35 -!- ogrom has joined.
13:56:24 -!- ogrom has quit (Client Quit).
14:13:09 -!- nooga_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
14:37:05 -!- pikhq_ has joined.
14:37:36 -!- pikhq has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
14:39:56 -!- nooga has joined.
14:40:13 <Arc_Koen> uh, how do I get rid of this horrible scroll bar if my <pre> </pre> is too large?
14:41:10 <AnotherTest> overflow:
14:41:17 <Arc_Koen> (that is, how do I tell mediawiki that it should let my browser display a newline if the line is too large for the screen)
14:41:17 <AnotherTest> using CSS, that is
14:41:56 <AnotherTest> oh, mediawiki
14:42:02 <AnotherTest> nevermind in that case
14:42:11 <Arc_Koen> thanks anyway :)
14:42:34 <Arc_Koen> of course I could insert newlines my self but that sounds like a bad way to deal with the problem
14:42:57 <Arc_Koen> especially if not everyone has the exact same screen I have
14:43:48 <fizzie> The obvious solution is of course to mandate same screens for everyone.
14:44:23 <Arc_Koen> yes I was thinking about sending a mail to the president of computers
14:45:17 <tswett> Lessee, which US federal executive department would that be?
14:45:52 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais523.
14:46:12 <tswett> The Department of... Energy?
14:46:42 <ais523> don't the chamber of commerce run the internet?
14:46:58 <fizzie> Does US have a Department of Conservation of Energy?
14:47:18 <ais523> you don't normally need government departments to enforce the laws of physics
14:47:32 <fizzie> Just in case.
14:47:39 <tswett> That's have to be an agency of the Department of Things We Have No Control Over.
14:48:11 -!- Phantom__Hoover has joined.
14:48:15 <atriq> fizzie, nah, the Democrats are in power and they're liberal
14:48:25 <atriq> They've got a Department for the Liberation of Energy
14:48:33 <Arc_Koen> are you saying there the president of physics is not needed?
14:48:42 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
14:48:45 <Arc_Koen> I don't think he would like hearing that
14:48:51 * pikhq_ votes for a Department of Entropy
14:51:04 <ais523> can we compromise on a department of enthalpy?
14:51:20 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds).
14:53:53 <tswett> I demand that it be a Department of Enormity.
14:53:58 -!- pikhq has joined.
14:53:59 -!- pikhq_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
14:54:03 <tswett> I will not settle for anything less.
14:54:31 <atriq> I wonder if I could apply for US citizenship on the basis that my gran was born in California
14:54:44 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
14:55:04 <tswett> I wonder what would happen if I applied for US citizenship.
14:56:13 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
14:56:31 -!- ais523 has joined.
15:02:58 <Arc_Koen> so, hum, anyone knows how to get rid of the scroll bar?
15:04:08 -!- nooga has joined.
15:05:39 <elliott> scroll bar?
15:06:39 -!- DHeadshot has joined.
15:07:25 <Arc_Koen> elliott: if I have a long line in a <pre> block, it all stays in one line, with a horizontal scroll bar to see what's out of the screen
15:07:43 <Arc_Koen> instead of displaying automatic newlines as is done with normal text
15:08:28 <elliott> oh. ask oerjan :P
15:08:35 <elliott> oh i see
15:08:38 <elliott> right that is intentional
15:08:47 <elliott> you can change the pre-wrap style thing but i forget how right now
15:10:34 -!- MoALTz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
15:11:14 -!- MoALTz has joined.
15:22:07 <nooga> baa
15:44:20 -!- nooga_ has joined.
15:45:02 <atriq> Is "Sherlock" a real name?
15:45:17 <atriq> Oh, it appears to be a surname that exists
15:45:25 <atriq> So it could presumably be used as a first name
15:45:39 <atriq> (cf. Robson Green et al)
15:45:55 <atriq> (who incidentally was from Hexham)
15:46:42 <nooga_> hex ham
15:46:49 <atriq> `? hexham
15:46:52 <HackEgo> Hexham is a European town. There are nine people in Hexham, and at least two of them are in this channel. Taneb looks after the ham.
15:47:11 <nooga_> i know what's Hexham, atriq
15:47:27 <atriq> Robson Green doesn't
15:47:30 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
15:47:37 -!- nooga_ has changed nick to nooga.
15:48:02 <Phantom__Hoover> what about at riq
15:48:05 <nooga> Octham
15:53:04 -!- atriq has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
16:09:41 <nooga> after playing with this PDP8/e
16:10:06 <nooga> I don't get how they could use it for something useful back then
16:18:18 <Jafet> Spoiled by Gordon Moore.
16:21:03 <nooga> he didn't really predict anything
16:22:21 <nooga> IMHO management divisions just learned about his predictions and ordered enginieers to fulfill them
16:25:05 <Jafet> He should have predicted faster chips then!
16:25:31 <nooga> yeah
16:26:18 <nooga> but there is another law
16:26:56 <nooga> that limits the speed of electrons :F
16:29:20 -!- ais523 has quit.
16:29:50 <Phantom__Hoover> Also the size of components.
16:30:00 <Phantom__Hoover> I thought the size restrictions were the harsher ones.
16:30:10 <Phantom__Hoover> And the thermal ones too, I guess.
16:31:02 <Jafet> Smaller components get hotter because they have to move more electrons, which makes it harder to move electrons around, which makes it necessary to make the components smaller
16:31:10 <Jafet> It's a wonder that these chips ever get made
16:32:04 <Phantom__Hoover> Don't modern chips generate more power per unit volume than a nuclear reactor?
16:32:10 <Phantom__Hoover> s/power/heat/
16:32:42 <Jafet> Well, nuclear reactors can probably generate more if they turned all the safeties off
16:39:51 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
16:40:28 -!- augur has joined.
16:41:51 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
16:43:29 <Arc_Koen> Jafet: in which case they would be called nuclear bombs
16:43:53 <Phantom__Hoover> Arc_Koen, no they wouldn't
16:44:22 <Arc_Koen> do you mean there would be nobody left to call them anything?
16:44:25 <Phantom__Hoover> nuclear reactors aren't even close to being able to properly explode.
16:44:30 <Arc_Koen> oh
16:44:48 <Arc_Koen> I thought if you removed the control bars the reaction would chain exponentially
16:44:58 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
16:45:08 <Phantom__Hoover> Not enough to actually blow up.
16:45:20 <Arc_Koen> I'VE BEEN LIED TO
16:45:32 <Phantom__Hoover> They tend to melt through the containment vessel or cause heat-related explosions.
16:46:19 <kmc> the only reason you get so much power out of a nuclear bomb is that you shove all the stuff together at high speed in a very precise way
16:46:19 -!- lambdabot has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
16:46:37 <Phantom__Hoover> Not just that, the stuff has to be a lot purer than fuel.
16:46:45 <kmc> which keeps it from flying apart just long enough to go crazy
16:46:47 <kmc> yeah that's true
16:49:38 <Phantom__Hoover> Although a criticality excursion might count as a tiny nuclear explosion? Anyway, not enough to fit into what everyone thinks of as a nuclear explosion.
16:49:49 <kmc> yeah, the manhattan project had originally planned to use a gun-type bomb with plutonium
16:50:06 <kmc> but they couldn't make plutonium pure enough at scale to prevent it from spontaneously fizzling during the detonation process
16:50:31 <kmc> so they had to use the much more complex implosion design for Pu
16:54:14 <Arc_Koen> what if you mix naquida in the fuel?
16:54:47 <Phantom__Hoover> depends, is it fissile
16:54:54 -!- elliott has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
16:57:07 <Arc_Koen> I honestly have no idea. They usually just link it to some random ship they found, using copper and a lot of tape, and it generates enough power to travel across the galaxy (and sometimes outside)
17:00:02 -!- atriq has joined.
17:13:44 -!- atriq has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
17:15:38 -!- augur has joined.
17:27:00 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
17:31:11 -!- Vorpal has joined.
17:42:21 -!- ais523 has joined.
17:47:27 -!- gippi has joined.
17:48:24 -!- gippi has quit (Client Quit).
18:01:39 <Phantom__Hoover> I have an email notifying me of a "female movable feast".
18:02:49 <FreeFull> o.o
18:03:22 <Phantom__Hoover> It's run by RBS so doubtless the name will be the most interesting thing about it.
18:03:39 -!- nooga has joined.
18:04:42 <nooga> what?
18:05:12 <Phantom__Hoover> <Phantom__Hoover> I have an email notifying me of a "female movable feast".
18:05:14 <Phantom__Hoover> that's what
18:06:39 <nooga> what's "female movable feast"?
18:07:44 <Phantom__Hoover> no idea
18:07:53 <Phantom__Hoover> It involves investment banking though.
18:31:11 -!- epicmonkey has joined.
18:47:16 -!- AnotherTest has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
19:06:18 -!- monqy has quit (Quit: hello).
19:10:59 -!- zzo38 has joined.
19:12:20 -!- lambdabot has joined.
19:17:20 -!- Bike has joined.
19:23:35 <zzo38> Do you know what speed the ARMv2a-compatible Amber core can run at? Do you know how to make some of kind of modifications such as hardwiring the cacheable areas and supervisor areas and so on?
19:27:52 <zzo38> I might need to make the computer at first using FPGA, later on it may be replaced with open-source FPGA and/or ASIC components.
19:34:04 -!- nooga_ has joined.
19:37:15 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
19:42:28 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
19:43:03 -!- augur has joined.
19:43:42 <zzo38> Do you like this chess/shogi variants? http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSkirachesskiras
19:47:34 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
19:51:49 -!- FreeFull has quit (Quit: Time to lose consciousness).
19:52:50 <Arc_Koen> If your opponent's Kira is a knight's move away or one space orthogonally away
19:53:03 <Arc_Koen> zzo38: what do you mean by "one space orthogonally away"?
19:54:48 <Arc_Koen> also I don't understand the thing about double wins
19:57:38 <zzo38> Arc_Koen: I mean what is sometimes called the "Wazir"; from c3, it can capture on c2, c4, b3, and d3, for example.
19:58:09 <Arc_Koen> ok
19:58:21 <zzo38> Double wins is just for scoring, you count as 2 wins instead of 1
19:58:31 <Arc_Koen> yes but when does it occur?
19:58:50 <Arc_Koen> from what I understand, you win when both special pieces of your opponents are out
19:58:59 <zzo38> yES.
19:59:38 <Arc_Koen> so when do you double-win?
20:00:14 <zzo38> But if you win due to your opponent's L dies from your Kira when they have no Kira, then you win, this is a special win count as double. Same if your L capture opponent's Kira when they have no L, it is win so it count as a double win.
20:00:18 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
20:00:45 <zzo38> Is this understandable to you, or not?
20:03:23 <Arc_Koen> well yes but it that case it's only possible to double-win, is it not?
20:03:48 <Arc_Koen> I mean, a win occurs when both L and Kira are dead... but for that, you have to kill one of the two, then the second
20:04:03 <Arc_Koen> and you're saying that when the second dies, if the first was already dead, it's a double-win
20:04:10 <zzo38> Yes, in those cases it is only possible to double win; if the second is captured normally though, then it is a single win.
20:04:10 <Arc_Koen> so it looks to me like it's always a double-win
20:04:19 <Arc_Koen> oh
20:04:21 <kmc> 'Did U know that 1-877-SAF-RAIL dials directly to our Transit Police dispatch center? Put it in ur contacts. #potontrain #crimesinprogress'
20:04:24 <kmc> HASHTAG POT ON TRAIN
20:04:35 <Arc_Koen> I might be confusing "killing" and "capturing"
20:05:49 <Arc_Koen> so what exactly is the propoer vocabulary? "killing" for the death note, "capturing" for regular chess captures, and "eliminating" when not making the distinction?
20:06:12 <zzo38> I suppose so.
20:06:30 -!- Bike has joined.
20:07:13 <zzo38> I can add that to the notes section.
20:10:00 <Arc_Koen> ohhhh I get it
20:10:30 <Arc_Koen> if you eliminate your opponent's second special piece using your special power, then it's a double-win
20:10:37 <Arc_Koen> did I get it right?
20:13:32 <zzo38> Yes.
20:16:44 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
20:28:30 <kmc> '...physics doesn't really need sophisticated stats (unlike biology and medicine) because your data isn't crap. Nobody approves a billion-dollar supercollider because somebody was just slightly able to exclude the null hypothesis at two sigma with a chi-square. People do approve billion-dollar pills that way.'
20:29:36 <pikhq> Isn't the frontier of physics actually based in sophisticated stats? :)
20:30:15 <Bike> don't anger the nerds
20:30:28 <Bike> "rational drug design" being a distinct thing is pretty funny, though.
20:30:48 <kmc> who's angering what nerds
20:31:12 <kmc> i think in physics you are just expected to get more data until your conclusions are relatively clear
20:33:13 <pikhq> kmc: Well, yes, physics does expect a ton of data. The higgs boson result recently was "5 sigma confirmation of the existence of *a* boson that happens to be consistent with the Higgs boson hypothesis.", no?
20:47:43 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
20:50:25 <kmc> yeah i think so
20:50:30 <kmc> i
20:51:01 <kmc> it sounds like you are emphasizing a distinction between "the higgs boson" and "a boson that happens to be consistent with the higgs boson" and I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction
20:51:45 -!- sivoais has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
20:52:14 <zzo38> I don't think they would be different anyways; if it has the properties of the Higgs boson then it must be the Higgs boson isn't it?
20:52:15 -!- sivoais has joined.
20:52:30 <Phantom__Hoover> kmc, sure it is.
20:53:26 <Phantom__Hoover> If you detected an unknown particle and you only knew it had a charge of -1 it would be consistent with an electron, but it could well be something else.
20:53:52 <zzo38> Yes the electron has more properties than just its electric charge.
20:54:13 <kmc> fair enough
20:54:41 <pikhq> kmc: I'm saying that the physicists themselves are making that distinction. In the name of being careful.
21:07:29 <kmc> 'What does a $1.6 million explosion sound like? We'll have to ask Fisker Automotive. Sixteen of the luxury carmaker's $100,000 Karma hybrid sports sedans caught fire, blew up and then burned to a crisp after being submerged during Hurricane Sandy. '
21:17:14 <ion> ‘Not a lot of people know this, but the “B” in Benoît B. Mandelbrot’s name stands for “Benoît B. Mandelbrot”.’
21:18:44 <pikhq> ♥ Mandelbrot
21:27:02 -!- copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.).
21:37:15 -!- Lumpio- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
21:40:30 -!- augur has joined.
21:42:57 <kmc> if only Unicode had a Mandelbrot Set character :/
21:43:40 <Arc_Koen> pikhq: actually for one of the two experiments it was actually 4.9 sigma :)
21:50:32 <Arc_Koen> (which is not really relevant at all, except very enjoyable for those who were part of the other experiment that got 5.1)
22:02:57 -!- Vorpal has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
22:14:27 -!- Lumpio- has joined.
22:22:18 -!- FreeFull has joined.
22:46:57 -!- boily has quit (Quit: Poulet!).
22:48:13 -!- copumpkin has joined.
23:00:05 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
23:11:31 -!- nortti has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
23:11:40 -!- nortti has joined.
23:23:02 -!- copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.).
23:25:52 -!- MoALTz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
23:26:31 -!- MoALTz has joined.
23:55:44 -!- ais523 has changed nick to ais523\unfog.
23:55:45 -!- ais523\unfog has changed nick to ais523\unfoog.
23:57:57 <zzo38> I have had idea before, of a + | ^ operator (these being the C operators), which is allowed only if all are the same result, and its opposite being the - &~ ^ operator.
23:58:15 <zzo38> It could be usable for optimization in some cases, I guess.
23:59:27 -!- pikhq_ has joined.
23:59:28 -!- pikhq has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
←2012-10-31 2012-11-01 2012-11-02→ ↑2012 ↑all