00:00:02 Yes, "Word" is like "Int" except unsigned. 00:00:18 oh, I didn't know that. in that case, weird. 00:00:50 λ> unsafeCoerce (256 :: Word16) :: Word8 00:00:52 256 00:01:34 It’s almost as if unsafeCoerce is somehow unsafe. 00:01:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoI3hB4IiM the way everything is recorded now is really weird O_o 00:02:03 is it using the wrong instance dictionary or something? 00:03:10 > -5 :: Word8 00:03:11 251 00:03:17 ion: That one is a bit less surprising. 00:03:21 Bike: @_@ are those like, compressed gas canisters? 00:03:21 ok. 00:03:28 shachaf: I see what you did there. 00:03:28 Fiora: yep 00:03:44 Fiora: tagged 'lab safety' 00:04:01 Bike: there's a thing where russian cars all have recorders in them for insurance stuff or something? 00:04:09 Bike: it's nice how it's going "oooeeeoooeoeo" while everything is blowing up 00:04:14 at least that's what I keep hearing when people ask why there are so many videos of russian traffic accidents 00:04:22 elliott: I think it's called dashcam and yes that is the case 00:04:29 elliott: yeah 00:04:35 elliott: is that "insurance" by the youtube mafia 00:04:53 yorick: personally i like how the second half of the video is the driver backing up their car as far as they can 00:05:07 oh god russian dashcams 00:05:07 Bike: while the actual gas tanker is parking in front of it :P 00:05:11 you know why this is a thing? 00:05:11 love the soundtrack 00:05:15 kmc: fraud 00:05:20 -!- |_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:05:25 yeah, insurance fraud / scams 00:05:33 elliott: There are claims i haven’t verified that you don’t get insurance moneyz if you didn’t get a police officer to make a report about the accident, and which participant’s bribe is greater determines the content of the report if you don’t have evidence. 00:05:43 elliott: stop drop and DANCE 00:06:07 Bike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkIZR-CE3iY summary of the last half of the video 00:06:15 this is now my second favorite russian crash video 00:06:20 second? 00:06:34 the favorite being the one where the truck falls over, releasing a bunch of cows, which stand up and moo at everything and wander around 00:07:03 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CNR2bAh3Y 00:07:19 -!- |_ has joined. 00:07:49 Bike: it's weird how they're all pretty much fine 00:07:55 I mean they slide across the road quite a bit 00:08:07 well they are cows. 00:08:36 it's hard to hurt a cow. they're really quite solid. 00:09:06 -!- sacje has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 00:09:16 They’re partially gas, though. 00:09:28 -!- madbr has joined. 00:09:31 oerjan: is it a thing about ss(ssss......ssss)sss? <-- how should i know 00:09:57 Bike: geez 00:10:27 I like how the cows only seem bothered for a second 00:10:32 and then they're just like welp time to start walking 00:10:36 hmm, I think I figured out how to do a cpu that does 1 opcode per cycle but has complex opcodes like add d2, [a0 + d0] 00:11:23 (provided you have at least an instruction cache, even a really simple one like the 68020's 256 byte cache) 00:12:27 separate address registers from data registers like on the 68000, and have address calculations use address registers only, or optionally an address register plus d0 (first data register) 00:12:43 or possibly a choice of d0 or d1 00:12:50 Bike: holy fuck 00:13:04 at which one 00:13:07 cows 00:13:10 cows. 00:13:18 don't fuck with cows man 00:13:27 i learned that the hard way 00:13:32 used to be that every year or so the neighbors' cows would get out and wander all over my neighborhood 00:13:38 i got memories man. memories. bad memories 00:13:41 -!- augur has joined. 00:18:42 -!- |_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:18:57 -!- |_ has joined. 00:22:44 "It can be argued that the term ‘categorification’ should be reserved for vertical categorification, since we can use ‘oidification’ for the horizontal concept." 00:24:40 categorifornication 00:24:49 -!- yorick has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:27:07 shachaf: :| 00:27:10 where is that from 00:28:13 it's the first time in my life that I've seen the term "oidification" 00:29:08 madbr: It's what you do when you go from "group" to "groupoid". h 00:29:10 th 00:32:58 -!- NihilistDandy has quit (Quit: NihilistDandy). 00:35:57 which one of these is the monoid -> monad thing 00:36:24 monoids are misnamed :( 00:36:35 they should be called cats, and categories should be called catoids. 00:36:40 shachaf : what happens when your categories are not really vertical or horizontal? 00:36:50 alternatively mons, and categories would be monoids 00:37:06 what's the etymology of "monoid" again 00:37:26 mon, oi dunno 00:37:34 forced 00:37:36 bravo 00:38:03 Bike: the mon is jamaican hth 00:38:36 and the oi is british hth hand 00:40:12 bravoid 00:40:31 bravod 00:40:37 bravad 00:48:52 Bike: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/156952/why-the-terminology-monoid 00:48:55 (nobody knows) 00:50:09 fuck 00:50:22 `pastelogs 156952 00:50:24 No. 00:50:28 ok 00:50:34 (what) 00:50:39 `cat bin/pastelogs 00:50:40 #!/bin/bash \ cd /var/irclogs/_esoteric \ \ pasterandom() { \ if [ "$1" -gt 150 ]; then \ echo "No." \ exit \ fi \ for i in $(seq "$1"); do \ file=$(shuf -en 1 ????-??-??.txt) \ echo "$file:$(shuf -n 1 $file)" \ done | paste \ } \ \ if [ "$1" ]; then \ if expr "$1" + 0 >/dev/null 2>&1; then \ 00:50:50 try ()ing the number 00:51:00 `pastelogs (156952) 00:51:13 http://codu.org/projects/hackbot/fshg/index.cgi/raw-file/tip/paste/paste.14019 00:51:54 knew i'd seen it before 00:52:37 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/thats-not-plagiarism-its-an-administrative-error/ retractionwatch is so ridic 01:02:09 good hackego 01:05:51 -!- sacje has joined. 01:07:42 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 01:09:40 -!- augur has joined. 01:30:40 -!- |_ has quit. 01:34:20 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 01:38:36 Bike: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/category/by-author/diederik-stapel/ oh gosh, they always use th same picture 01:39:44 -!- Bike_ has joined. 01:39:46 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 01:43:27 18:38 < Fiora> Bike: 01:43:28 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/category/by-author/diederik-stapel/ oh gosh, they always use th same picture 01:44:01 well this is the guy who nearly got his phd taken away, which is apparently a thing that can be conceived of 01:44:04 Serious Business 01:44:05 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 01:45:07 gosh it's like he's smirking at me 01:46:57 http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/4/819 evopsych is one hell of a drug 01:57:58 I should try to coauther with him 02:06:46 http://bogost.com/blog/oauth_of_fealty.shtml one of the more colorful "fuck your api" posts i've seen 02:21:44 the api deserves 02:21:46 it 02:23:19 -!- augur has joined. 02:31:21 rocking the eee pc 900 crapbook 02:32:04 the kbd is small enuf that i can hold the sides and type with my thumbs 02:32:57 hey is anyone in #python 02:33:23 or is it logged somewhere 02:34:24 nobody is in #python 02:34:29 python does not exist 02:34:33 k 02:34:37 you imagined it during one of your episodes 02:34:44 but also, why? 02:35:18 because i'm curious if someone is spamming #python in the same way they're doing in #lisp 02:35:41 imo quotes 02:35:55 also I just bit my tongue aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh 02:35:56 what are they spamming 02:36:00 elliott: D: 02:36:21 not even on a manageable spot like the front or something it's right at the back to the side ow ow ow 02:36:27 it's not funny or anything, they just came in and linked their super cool new web thing nobody cares about, and claimed it was in lisp when somebody pointed out this was dumb 02:36:39 link 02:36:43 said it's based on the implementation from the 80s when pressed 02:36:45 what, to the thing? 02:36:48 yes. 02:36:55 I have a ~hunch~ 02:37:04 wow am i like second-order spamming here. 02:37:08 http://www.leapfm.com/ 02:37:23 hunch was wrong 02:37:32 this uh 02:37:36 looks like the hacker news software 02:37:47 yeah weird right 02:37:48 " Sure, I chose CMUCL because it works well with cloud development and various unix systems that I work with. Has a good native code compiler but most importantly it's freely redistributable with full source code" 02:37:52 ok but the html source doesn't 02:37:55 vaguest description possible 02:37:56 so I guess it's not actually Arc 02:38:41 does Bike have arcpinions 02:39:13 i stopped paying attention to arc when graham said about it that he was glad to have finally gotten rid of the "extra parentheses" in cond 02:39:24 because that's the most banal thing i can imagine. 02:39:56 itt Lisp doesn't have syntax 02:40:03 getting rid of those parentheses was a deep semantic change 02:40:20 like god CL is a fucking heap but you're not going to fix it if you seriously think that's important 02:40:37 basically imagine me saying "imo uuuuuuugh" for two minutes straight. 02:42:59 -!- Bike_ has joined. 02:45:02 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 02:45:21 so unrelated 02:45:30 i tried to print some medical records 02:45:38 and an #esoteric log came out? is coming out 02:45:39 help. 02:45:50 we'er you're family now, Bike_ 02:47:25 oh god they're still coming 02:47:33 https://twitter.com/zanu_pf/status/363977016086765568 stupid future 02:47:37 what the FUCK did i do 02:47:49 we want you to know EVERYTHING, Bike_ 02:48:04 ten years of #esoteric. they're all yours now 02:48:09 oh man i got a vintage MEANWHILE IN R/BITCOIN here 02:48:12 gonna frame this 02:48:30 kmc: marriage between people who want babies, like, to collect them. baby enthusiasts 02:48:43 does Mugabe still exist 02:48:48 yeah 02:48:51 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 02:49:00 why the fuck is this happening. 02:49:21 what I like now is that you have to shred them 02:49:27 because otherwise what if someone finds your printed #esoteric logs 02:49:30 how the hell do you explain that?? 02:49:52 -!- NihilistDandy has joined. 02:50:02 i think i'll put them in a binder and donate them to the local library 02:54:33 -!- Bike_ has joined. 02:54:42 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 02:56:00 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 02:56:43 kmc: getting rid of those parenthesis is basically the difference between an alist and a plist 02:56:46 http://24.media.tumblr.com/26c6ef77e28f105a837df9a3af56d7af/tumblr_mr6ysuGwKn1r7tprao1_1280.jpg 02:56:55 i'm seriously, i can't even comprehend what just happened to me 02:57:25 you printed out a log? 02:57:48 no wait 02:57:52 that's actually irssi 02:57:53 lol 02:57:55 looks like 02:57:55 yeah 02:57:58 an actual terminal screencap 02:58:13 from like, weeks ago though 02:58:14 Bike: please frame this 02:58:18 of course 02:58:30 a friend once attempted to print something 02:58:35 the printer decided to turn off postscript 02:58:40 and just printed the raw source as a text file 02:59:17 Bike: did you maybe press a weird key at 17:42 weeks ago 02:59:53 the other logs end at different times 03:00:20 but uh is there some way i can destroy my print history easily to make it stop 03:04:19 -!- CADD has joined. 03:07:32 shhh don't let CADD know we're here 03:09:02 ??? 03:10:13 this is some horror movie shit 03:10:38 wait until it starts printing logs from the future talking about vaguely specified catastrophe 03:12:43 this is horror movie stuff 03:12:48 < elliott> wait < elliott> what happened to shachaf < FreeFull> idris........... < elliott> FUCK[log cuts off] 03:13:08 I AM BECOME DEATH, THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS 03:13:30 actually the conventional translation is time rather than death 03:13:43 but not the famous one 03:13:45 at the end of the channel is elliott, alone 03:13:49 trapped in his matrix of solidity 03:13:51 with real dimensions 03:14:35 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Bubblewrap matrix). 03:15:29 I thought it was pi dimesions 03:16:52 pi is real. pi is all around us. 03:19:53 Bike: help 03:20:17 sorry shachaf i future logged it 03:20:21 in the future you're already dead 03:20:43 p. sure this channel has a no future logging policy 03:21:03 if it did that would have to be indicated in the topic 03:21:05 freenode rules 03:21:42 Bike: it sure does 03:21:57 yes 03:22:22 Bike: interesting about pi, it was almost legislated to be a finite fraction at one point.. imagine what would have happened to math if it passed? 03:22:51 nothing, because everyone would ignore a dumbassed state law in the same way botanists don't give a fuck what the SCOTUS said tomatos were 03:23:19 cant find the reference, but it was something like 237/74 03:24:07 > 237/74 :: Float 03:24:08 3.2027028 03:24:30 im pretty sure its not exacty that fraction. but it was something close 03:24:34 exactly* 03:24:46 i'm pretty sure that pi is exactly that fraction 03:24:58 exactly 03:25:08 well, i was just reading the wiki article on pi 03:25:17 this reminds me that i don't actually have an intuitive idea of why pi is irrational 03:25:20 sucks imo 03:25:23 newton came up with an infinite sum of fractions that approaches pi 03:25:40 im pretty sure the wiki article could shed some light on that 03:26:23 irrationals are crazy 03:26:28 ikr? 03:26:38 transcentenals even more so 03:26:40 ew, pun 03:26:44 yup 03:26:44 oh, you were serious 03:26:45 lol 03:26:54 i didnt even see that as a pun 03:26:54 oh heh 03:26:57 nice catch Bike 03:27:57 between every two numbers there's an infinity of transcendentals that are uncalculatable 03:28:13 yup 03:28:19 surreal numbers are amazing 03:28:20 even if you could do any infinite series or solve anything 03:28:23 Between any two reals there is an infinite number of rationals. 03:28:54 bike: yes but that's a countable infinite 03:28:59 unless you include infinitesimals 03:29:32 even the infinitesimals are infinitely small compared to the reals 03:29:49 oh wait 03:29:51 nevermind 03:30:41 most numbers you will never ever be able to reach 03:31:28 Can you think of an uncomputable number that isn't the limit of a sequence of computable numbers? 03:32:00 yes w 03:32:22 and w^2 03:32:51 BB(1000)? 03:33:24 bike: has to exist 03:33:40 sequences of computable numbers are countable 03:34:17 fiora: wouldn't any busy beaver be just as uncomputable any other? 03:34:19 so numbers that you can reach by sequence are only an infinitely small part of the reals 03:34:28 doesthiswork: BB(4) is computed, though, I think? 03:34:57 like, the halting problem only says "some programs can't be proven to halt", not "all programs can't be proven to halt" 03:35:03 can Bike think of a number that even he could not compute? 03:35:12 I meant an example. 03:35:15 fiora: got it 03:35:25 and like, the small busy beaver ones are pretty easy or something 03:35:41 It's pretty easy to construct a computable sequence that has a busy beaver number as its limit. 03:35:58 also they're all, like. natural numbers. 03:36:42 but what if BB(1000) is uncomputable? 03:36:52 like, if you don't know what it is, howcould you converge to it? 03:37:12 Dovetail running every relevant Turing machine 03:37:15 bike: smallest number that is part of a nonterminating collatz sequence 03:37:36 What makes you think that? 03:37:58 but like.... dovetailing turing machines can only find you a lower bound, right? 03:38:15 A sequence of lower bounds. 03:38:46 -!- Nisstyre has quit (Quit: Leaving). 03:38:59 that makes sense... I guess... 03:39:11 untill you have proved that every one of those machines that hasn't halted, will not halt it isn't computed 03:39:24 I asked for a sequence. 03:39:32 hmm 03:39:39 I thought you asked for a number 03:39:56 I asked for a number not the limit of a sequence. 03:39:58 a number that can't be reached through sequence 03:40:00 Fiora: but taking you the limit gets you a perfect lower bound 03:40:05 since the lower bounds are constantly improving 03:40:16 that's vague but. anyway. 03:40:25 I bet Bike would explain it better. 03:40:32 -!- CADD has changed nick to CADD|away. 03:40:38 not sure I can think of any 03:40:42 it's pretty hard 03:41:50 busy beaver is pretty much the prototype of uncomputable 03:41:51 infinite sums are out ofc, same for solutions to anything (since you can infinite-newton-raphson it) 03:42:00 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specker_sequence Another nonexample. 03:42:30 (though maybe a solution to something discontinuous and nonconverging) 03:43:30 transcendental numbers? 03:43:38 Bike: wow, that's an evil sequence 03:43:42 It is. 03:44:17 It also means the computable reals aren't compact, so, that kinda blows. 03:45:27 bike: woa this is remarkably hard 03:45:46 Isn't it? 03:46:03 How about another question: An uncomputable function that is continuous. 03:46:26 hm 03:46:35 Bike: trivial. 03:46:42 coppro: Yeah? 03:46:45 busy beaver with linear interpolation 03:46:46 Bike: take the busy beaver function, connect the dots 03:46:51 maybe just the fourier transform of an uncomputable series 03:47:26 incidentally, the best proof I've been taught in a class was 03:47:35 "Proof. Draw the graph on sufficiently fine grid paper." 03:48:09 any 3 points make a straight line give a wide enough pen 03:48:17 How about differentiable? 03:48:31 the integral of the previous answer 03:48:43 boring. 03:49:34 doesthiswork: this was a serious proof 03:49:42 I'll let you puzzle over what theorem 03:50:55 coppro: yes, I can imagine things that would be proven by that 04:20:57 "We write α ∶ F ≅ G, if α is a natural isomorphism. As an example, the identity is a natural isomorphism of type F ≅ F." 04:21:07 is this the worst example 04:21:32 Maybe. 04:37:59 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0371 So like, searching in constant time. 04:38:01 What the fuck? 04:40:47 in the classical algorithm? 04:40:55 ah, quantum one. 04:41:23 Not that i understand what "nonlinear quantum model" means here in a nontrivial way, but 04:41:31 Bike: and it's not the constant time, it's rather like O(n^(1/4)). 04:42:11 i read that but wikipedia summarized it as "constant" so i dunno 04:42:42 it is a long known fact that the quantum computer can do unstructured searching in sublinear time (Grover's algorithm, O(n^(1/2))) so it is not that crazy one 04:42:56 though I'm not aware of details 04:43:12 well grover's is also crazy. 04:43:27 every quantum algorithm is crazy ;) 04:43:32 they figured how to make some part of it constant 04:44:02 but some other part has grown in requirements so the overall growth is O(n^(1/4)) 04:44:02 it seems that Grover's algorithm is the optimal one of that kind though 04:44:12 that's what I can read from what they're saying 04:44:45 (the optimality of the number of unitary operators U_\omega?) 04:45:01 the number of applications of unitary operator* 04:45:16 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 04:45:50 lifthrasiir: yeah grover's is the fastest "linear" 04:46:02 again i have no real idea what this means 04:59:08 -!- mnoqy has joined. 05:09:43 mnoqy: do you find that you check super mega less now that it has a regular update schedule 05:10:23 i actually probably check it the same amount 05:10:34 what if it updates out of schedule! what then 05:10:41 i have to be on top of things like this 05:12:06 -!- Bike_ has joined. 05:12:16 mnoqy: JohnnySmash wouldn't do that would he 05:12:33 but what if he did........... 05:13:11 what if someone held johnnysmash at gunpoint to make comics on wednesdays too without telling anyone about it 05:13:29 -!- Bike has quit (Disconnected by services). 05:13:31 hang on that could actually happen 05:13:37 maybe i better check on wednesdays too 05:13:41 and on weekends 05:13:43 -!- Bike_ has changed nick to Bike. 05:13:53 and even mondays 05:14:02 I assume johnnysmash is an intelligence agent, and Super Mega is coded messages. 05:18:53 -!- sacje has quit (Quit: sacje). 05:19:16 -!- CADD|away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 05:22:10 " Can you think of an uncomputable number that isn't the limit of a sequence of computable numbers?" even the rationals (which are computable) are dense among reals, so there are no such numbers 05:23:30 " BB(1000)?" BB(1000) is a computable number, as it is an integer. this particular representation of it might be impossible to evaluate, but that is irrelevant. 05:24:16 take all my fun why doncha 05:24:30 oklopol : "dense" ? 05:25:08 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_set doot 05:25:55 so just pack BB(n) in order into a real 05:25:57 Since any real has a rational of any distance you want by it. 05:26:38 mhm 05:26:48 So for any real we can construct a sequence etc etc converges to etc etc etc and so on etc 05:27:09 which means that... yeah if you can get an approximation 05:27:29 computables are also dense, so, bla bla analogy etc left as an exercise etc bla blatc 05:27:30 but that's a contradiction 05:27:35 What? 05:27:52 hmm 05:27:59 or I might be wrong 05:28:23 but I have this intuition that sequences approaching a given limit are countable 05:28:37 -!- copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 05:28:42 That the set of all sequences approaching a given limit is countable 05:28:43 *? 05:29:06 -!- copumpkin has joined. 05:29:22 hm 05:29:39 the set of all countable sequences approaching a given limit 05:29:44 uh 05:29:49 Because that's not the case. Take any sequence approaching the limit that isn't bla bla, multiply it elementwise by some real, you get another sequence 05:29:51 the set of all computable sequences approaching a given limit sorry 05:30:51 nobody said the sequence had to be computable itself, though. 05:31:06 admittedly i did intend that, but yeah. 05:32:57 by definition, they usually are 05:33:04 oh okay i was scrolled up 05:33:12 oh, duh 05:33:53 because rationals are dense over reals, that meach every real must be reachable by successive iteration 05:34:42 except for numbers involving non-computable parts, this means this successive iteration can be defined by a computer program 05:35:02 computer programs are countable 05:35:39 Computable numbers are countable, yes, but (countably) infinite sequences of members of a countable set are well, not. 05:36:14 -!- mnoqy has quit (Quit: hello). 05:36:36 my proof: real numbers are iso to digit sequences, then think a lil 05:36:44 why did you say that the specker sequence is a nonexample? 05:37:00 well 05:37:09 Because it's a sequence of computable numbers with an uncomputable limit? 05:37:42 i may have changed your question 05:37:59 It wasn't a very good question. 05:39:02 are there numbers that can't be computably successively approximated? 05:39:47 well like oklopol said there's always a sequence of rationals or computables or whatever the hell. 05:40:14 oh I see 05:40:14 there are like, functions that aren't semicomputable, though? probably 05:40:18 if a single program needs to output the sequence though, this is more interesting 05:40:30 yeah. 05:40:35 I reread the specker sequence thing 05:41:19 essentially some digits of the maximum of the sequence are uncomputable 05:41:44 so the maximum of the sequence can't be successively approximated 05:41:49 clever 05:49:14 if you do specker with a subset X of naturals, and you have a program that outputs a sequence of rationals that converges to it, then X is necessarily recursively enumerable, presumably by the proof in the specker article 05:49:57 so if you do specker with a set that is not recursively enumerable, then that number cannot be approximated by a computable sequence of rationals, in a somewhat interesting sense 05:52:00 you sorta can't force it to converge 05:52:18 interesting 05:52:42 well not sure i get your intuition there 05:53:14 well, if you have a rule that you must always converge to at least distance N of the real number 05:53:26 with N being divided by 2 on each step 05:53:41 then a given step might loop infinitely of course 05:54:24 here, the property of a real a we are interested in is "is there a turing machine that, given n, outputs a rational r_n, such that r_1, r_2, ... converges to a" 05:55:13 right 05:56:06 hmm 05:56:57 okay actually perhaps "is there a turing machine that, given n, outputs a rational r_n, such that r_1, r_2, ... converges to a, and |r_i - a| is decreasing" 05:57:17 because otherwise i don't know if X needs to be r.e. 05:57:49 I was thinking of having the difference exponentially decreasing 05:58:30 well isn't the number computable then 05:58:43