00:44:10 [[Talk:MIBBLLII]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174308&oldid=174304 * Blashyrkh * (+209) /* Byte IO is preferrable */ new section 01:59:29 [[User talk:Blashyrkh/Between IJ and SK]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174309&oldid=174231 * PkmnQ * (+447) /* Solution for X x = x (K x) x */ new section 02:02:17 [[User talk:Blashyrkh/Between IJ and SK]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174310&oldid=174309 * PkmnQ * (+26) /* Solution for X x = x (K x) x */ 02:08:36 [[Drw]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174311&oldid=169835 * Phidas * (+3078) Updated to match the new stuff that exists 02:09:57 -!- agl_404 has joined. 02:11:04 -!- agl_404 has left. 02:57:06 -!- ski has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 04:12:37 -!- ski has joined. 04:59:29 -!- ais523 has quit (Quit: quit). 05:08:18 -!- ais523 has joined. 05:22:25 [[User:Dragoneater67]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174312&oldid=174146 * Dragoneater67 * (+11) 05:24:54 [[User:Dragoneater67/issue]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=174313 * Dragoneater67 * (+28) Created page with "#REDIRECT User:Dragoneater67" 05:25:06 [[User:Dragoneater67/issue]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174314&oldid=174313 * Dragoneater67 * (+0) 05:25:45 [[User:Dragoneater67/issue]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174315&oldid=174314 * Dragoneater67 * (+4) Redirected page to [[User:Dragoneater67]] 05:47:30 hmm, I'm trying to find a BF syntax substitution where the commands have consecutive character codes 05:47:54 so far I have found *two* BF equivalents which write the commands as digits of an octal number and then the program is that number converted to decimal, but none that do it directly 05:48:30 (note: this isn't important enough that anyone should be bothered trying to help, was more an out-of-curiosity thing upon thinking about how to golf BF quines) 05:49:08 `unidecode !@#$%^&* 05:49:11 ​[U+0021 EXCLAMATION MARK] [U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT] [U+0023 NUMBER SIGN] [U+0024 DOLLAR SIGN] [U+0025 PERCENT SIGN] [U+005E CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT] [U+0026 AMPERSAND] [U+002A ASTERISK] 05:49:37 close, but apparently the keyboard's drifted too far from ASCII 05:50:39 [[Brainless]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174316&oldid=172370 * Ais523 * (-99) not BF-equivalent (it isn't TC or even capable of a loop) also remove a number of other incorrect categories 05:55:23 [[Self-modifying Brainfuck Sharp]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174317&oldid=114191 * Ais523 * (-35) not BF-equivalent (starting tape is not blank) 05:57:16 OK, https://esolangs.org/wiki/Numberfuck works 06:18:55 `` dc <<<6581840dnP 06:18:57 6581840dnP 06:22:19 (that quine is old but there's a small thematic overlap between it and encoding Brainfuck in octal) 06:26:18 [[User talk:Blashyrkh/Between IJ and SK]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174318&oldid=174310 * Blashyrkh * (+1378) /* Solution for X x = x (K x) x */ 06:32:21 ais523: the UK layout is closer; the old layout used on Commodore 64 and similar machines is even closer 06:32:33 b_jonas: yes 06:32:50 in a way it's weird that the UK layout is closer, given that the A in ASCII stands for "American" 06:33:39 the UK layout also has ¬ and two different vertical bar keys (which are mapped to the same character on my current keyboard, but traditionally were separate characters) 06:33:40 Did anybody else think about Blashyrkh's question? They wonder whether adding *any* cancellative combinator to the aristocratic system results in the complete system. 06:33:55 korvo: I noticed it but didn't put much thought into it 06:33:58 Yes, some old computers such as Commodore 64 and Nintendo Famicom work that SHIFT will toggle one bit 06:34:19 . o O ( Facebook says AI will fix Facebook 3D popularity problem? ) 06:34:31 can there be silly degenerate cases like a cancellative combinator that always returns an infinite loop? 06:34:48 I thought about it for a bit and my position is now "yeah probably true, seems quite hard to prove" 06:35:24 Heh, maybe? 06:35:33 or, well, with closed lambda terms, adding Unlambda's `kv to a non-cancellative basis doesn't seem to help at all 06:36:01 but that proof doesn't generalise to "proper" combinators 06:36:07 (Meanwhile, VRChat still exists. IIUC even Second Life is puttering along...) 06:36:59 What I imagined is that, for any cancellative combinator, there's a linear combinator which turns it into an extended-rank stack of K by precomposition. So any time that K is required, we can build K by first permuting, then cancelling, then doing the rest of the combinator. 06:37:20 UK layout... oh you must be talking about shift-digit, and shift-2 not being " in the US layout in particular? 06:38:01 the UK keyboard layout moves a few keys around compared to US, but shift-2 and shift-' swapping is one of the most notable changes 06:38:31 The main problem with this reasoning is that it uses the linear system and is too weak. For if this were valid then BCI+K, what the wiki calls BCKI, would be complete; but it's actually the affine system! So this reasoning might work for IJ in particular because of J but it can't go through in general. 06:39:00 there are also a few keys where I don't know where they are on a US layout, like \ (is that to the right of left shift, like on a UK layout?) and ~ 06:39:30 oh, ~ is shift-` 06:39:45 where ¬ is on a UK keyboard 06:39:47 ...Last sentence got double-negated. I should have said that the reasoning *does* work in general, which is too strong; it should depend on properties of J specifically. 06:40:51 I am wondering whether UK keyboards were intended to be able to type all of EBCDIC – IIRC it has a ¬ 06:42:58 ah, I found a US keyboard layout map in my computer settings 06:43:45 I didn't realise that US keyboards had a small Return key, like UK keyboards have (but in the US it's to make room for the \| key, not the #~ key) 06:45:53 `unidecode •· 06:45:55 ​[U+2022 BULLET] [U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT] 06:47:18 It's so funny that we've developed two versions of "small return key". Also annoying. But funny. 06:47:56 `unidecode ||| 06:47:58 ​[U+007C VERTICAL LINE] [U+007C VERTICAL LINE] [U+007C VERTICAL LINE] 06:48:15 …why are there *three* ways of typing that 06:48:32 `unidecode ¦ 06:48:34 ​[U+00A6 BROKEN BAR] 06:48:47 ooh, this one is here too – just in a weird place (altgr-shift-\) 06:50:46 altgr is underrated, having twice as many characters on your keyboard is frequently useful 06:50:57 although the actual selection isn't quite as good as it could be 06:51:20 (it's useful for typing Jelly, which uses 256 different characters but the vast majority of them are typable on this layout) 06:53:12 it's weird, the UK layout has an altgr but the standard keycaps only show altgr combinations for ¦ and € (and the latter was only added fairly recently, the layout predates the euro) 06:53:33 and ¦ isn't even in the same place as the keycaps indicate 06:53:57 € on altgr-4 has been standard for decades now, though 06:54:43 ais523: so traditionally the US 101/104 key keyboard and the UK 102/105 key keyboard differ in two ways: one is that the 102/105 key keyboard has an extra key on the LEFT between left shift and Z, the other is that on the RIGHT the 101 key keyboard has a one-row wider enter and the backslash key is above enter in the QWERTY row, while on 102-key keyboard there's a two-row narrower enter and the 06:54:49 backslash key is in the ASDFG row making enter harder to reach. that both layouts exists on the right is causing me a lot of trouble because I often keep hitting enter the wrong way for whatever keyboard I'm using. the 101-key layout is superior IMO, because both left shift and enter are easier to reach. these days you can find mixed keyboards where the left side and right side are from different 06:54:55 layouts. 06:56:56 well, most of the keyboards I've used were clearly designed so that the only thing you would need to change to change the layout (including 101 vs 102) would be the keys themselves – the sensors and the frame holding them is designed to work in either case 06:57:14 in particular there are appropriately-shaped cutouts to make the keys easy to swap 06:57:37 I assume this is primarily to save on manufacturing costs by allowing most of the components to be shared between keyboards with different layouts 06:57:47 you can use most layouts on either 101 or 102 key keyboards, usually there are third layer codes to enter the characters that would be missing otherwise on a 101-key layout 06:58:38 having # occupy the space where an American would press their Return key is a bit of a flaw, though – it is very common to typo # at the end of the line because you hit # and Return near-simultaneously rather than hitting Return on its own 06:59:03 and it's also somewhat common to typo Return rather than Backspace, placing a key between is helpful for stopping that too 06:59:21 OTOH, a standard US layout doesn't even *have* a third level shift (AltGt serves that purpose in the UK) 06:59:58 [[EmojiCoder]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174319&oldid=153441 * Dragoneater67 * (-4) remove broken link 07:00:21 there's also the third possible layout, which is like the 102-key but the enter key is big and occupies the union of the 101 and 102 key layout enter, but the backslash key is small and the backspace key goes to the left half of the backspace key in the 23456 row 07:00:42 (the keys a UK layout has that a US layout doesn't are AltGr, £, €, ¬ and ¦ ­– € and ¦ require AltGr, the other keys don't) 07:00:47 which is great because now your right hand 5th finger gets really confused between the three layouts 07:01:17 ugh, I don't like the idea of a smaller backspace, I use it a lot and it's hard enough to hit as it si 07:01:19 * is 07:02:18 yes. smaller left shift, narrower enter, and smaller backspace are all bad ideas, which is why the traditional 101-key layout is the best, where the backslash key occupies the QWERT row part of the enter key, so you can hit enter easily on the ASDFG row. 07:02:56 I guess what you want is a 101-key layout but with a third level shift rather than right alt 07:03:00 but the problem is, the layout where backslash is on the ASDFG row trains your right hand to hit the enter key in the QEWRT row where it's closer, and if you're used to that then on the good 101-key layout you will hit enter wrong 07:03:26 well, that key is #~ on a UK layout, not \| 07:03:52 I don't think I'm usually hitting return on the QWERT row 07:04:19 it's more like between the QWERT row and the ASDFG row 07:04:32 would have to stretch to reach that part of the keyboard, my hands are normally in a position where my fingers can't reach that corner (which is part of the reason I have so much trouble hitting backspace) 07:04:43 and I press return with my little finger but backspace with my ring finger 07:05:04 (because the little finger wouldn't reach) 07:05:15 OK, I hit the top half of Return that time 07:05:20 but given that keyboards differ in properties other than just the layout, I have made some compromises and have keyboards with different layouts 07:05:29 probably because I had already moved my hand to be able to reach Backspace 07:06:10 so I ended up with one layout at home and the other at work, which left my right hand eternally confused 07:07:18 for a while at a past job I was using a French-layout keyboard 07:07:30 presumably because it's what the previous employee using that computer was using 07:07:35 I think I set it to UK layout and just ignored the keycaps 07:07:49 (but I made sure to pick a password which would be the same in both layouts, just in case) 07:08:29 (that password is no longer valid, I wouldn't have specified the basis on which it was picked otherwise) 07:09:30 I always ignore the keycaps, and I'm always confused by other people who *don't* ignore the keycaps and try to buy notebooks or mobile phones in a way where they care a lot about what's written on the keycaps 07:10:20 (what's written on the buttons in the case of a mobile phone) 07:10:57 there is just about enough light from the screen to read the keycaps of the keyboard atm 07:11:15 but I would be very slow at typing if I tried to use them 07:11:36 I think my fingers have them all memorised apart from the punctuation on the numeric keypad 07:12:10 and the spare vertical bar, I consciously know where that one is but have no reason to know it subconsciously because I can just use the main one 07:12:20 yes, I always work in enough light, but that's mostly not because of the keyboard, and even on the keyboard looking at it helps regardless of which layout is written on the keycaps 07:13:38 I remember a story (possibly an urban legend) about someone who could log in to the computer while sitting down, but not while standing up 07:13:50 and it turned out to be because while standing, they looked at the keycaps, and two of the keycaps were wrong 07:13:56 that's quite believable 07:14:30 I can type some passwords fast more easily than slowly, because I know the finger movement more easily than the characters in those passwords 07:14:56 right, that would be the reason for me 07:15:17 and standing just makes typing harder in general, unless you're using an adjustable height desk 07:15:31 some of my passwords have to be particularly long and complex to reduce the risk of brute-forcing, typing them slowly is incredibly hard but I've muscle-memorized typing them quickly 07:15:51 also I have to feel the keyboard under my fingers to type at all, not just passwords but words, otherwise my fingers get very confused and don't know where to press anything 07:16:25 when I was a Wikipedia admin, I used a Wikipedia password so complex that I could only successfully type it 1 time in 3 even with the help of muscle memory 07:16:47 the clearest demonstration for this was when I tried a keyboard with a rectangular layout, that is, the rows aren't staggered horizontally and Q is right above A: I could barely type on it even though in theory I just have to hit the keys almost the same as on a normal keyboard 07:16:50 (this was before two-factor auth was introduced for admins) 07:17:19 the staggering exists for typewriter purposes, I think, so that the levers don't hit each other 07:18:17 that's the traditional explanation, but I don't understand how it works, because it doesn't explain why the QWERT row is moved one quarter key to the left but the ZXCVB row one half key to the right 07:18:44 wouldn't that put the 23545 keys straight above the ZXCVB keys so the levers collide? 07:19:06 as in, if it was a typewriter 07:20:43 left to right it's QA2ZWS3XED4C, etc., on this keyboard 07:21:07 although this is a good point, I hadn't previously thought about the digits also needing to be in the sequence 07:21:24 looking at the keyboard closely, though, all four rows do seem to be offset relative to each of the others 07:21:34 b_jonas: no? You have W in the middle of 2 and 3, then S in the middle of W and 3 and Z in the middle of 2 and W. 07:21:38 (the bottom row doesn't count because space doesn't have a lever) 07:22:14 this probably also means that the digits need to be taken into account when thinking about lever jams (i.e. two adjacent levers being hit at the same time, which QWERTY was designed to avoid) 07:23:08 int-e: ok, but then wouldn't it have been more convenient to shift each row one quarter key to the right from the row above, with 2 one quarter key to the right of Z, so that the rows are more closely aligned and your fingers can reach the ZXC keys more easily without colliding into the previous finger on the same hnd? 07:23:22 * ais523 recalls that early typewriters didn't have a 0 or 1 key, you were supposed to use O and I instead 07:25:06 so the levers would be ordered like QAZ2WSX3EDC4 instead of QA2ZWS3XED4C 07:25:14 now I'm wondering whether the fact that I and O can be interpreted as either "input" and "output" or "1" and "0" is a coincidence that's somehow useful for creating an esolang 07:26:10 b_jonas: I don't know whether there's a mechanical advantage to having even spacing for pairs of rows. 07:26:35 I do remember that it's a false-friend mnemonic for standard file descriptors (in that 0 is standard input and 1 is standard output rather than the other way round, which would fit the numbers better) 07:27:37 b_jonas: oh, I've figured it out, keys on the Q row and Z row basically can't be hit simultaneously anyway (you would have to put your hand in a weird position) so staggering them next to each other has no downside 07:28:08 I wonder maybe when they designed the QWERTY layout then QWERT was supposed to be the home row, not ASDFG, and so the ZXCVB row is moved more to the right so that you're supposed to hit Z with your W finger and X with your E finger 07:28:19 the most potentially dangerous combinations are nu and mi and although I *can* hit those simultaneously it is not a natural thing to do 07:28:51 there's a story, possibly an urban legend, that QWERTY is designed such that the QWERT row has all the keys for the word "typewriter" which is what vendors would type in a demo 07:29:18 it does contain all the letters of "typewriter", the odds of that being a coincidence are fairly low 07:29:34 although it may be that someone realised it had most of the letters naturally and tweaked the layout to put the rest in 07:30:59 ais523: again the downside is that because ZXC are farther to the right from ASD, when you reach down to Z with your 5th finger while keeping your 4th finger on S then you have to reach farther to the right so your 5th and 4th finger collide more 07:31:14 if they did want to put all the letters of "typewriter" on the same row, the home row would seem to be a more natural place (so that it would have eirt which are all very common) 07:31:28 maybe the standard typing technique hadn't been invented yet at the time? 07:33:31 ais523: yes, that's what I'm saying, that they concieved QWERT as the homerow. and you could say that that's why the AZERT layout tries to improve on it by putting one more vowel into that homerow and move away the less common Q and W from it, but then why would it put the also rare Z there? 07:34:04 now I'm trying to remember how common Z is in French 07:34:40 it's more common than in English, but even so it's not as common as S which could go there 07:35:28 (or N or M) 07:36:29 one thing I'm really curious about is the German layout – how did it end up being almost the same as the English layout for the English-alphabetical keys, but with Y and Z swapped? 07:37:28 this conversation has made me realise how bad I am at typing QWERTY, the word is not a good fit for my typing style at all 07:39:55 Wikipedia has some older versions of the QWERTY layout in the article about it, one of them is similar but swaps A and Z and swaps R and . 07:41:38 about Y and Z, what keeps confusing me is that there are three letters that are common in hungarian but rare in english, namely KÁÉ, and two more that are uncommon in hungarian but rare in english, namely ZY, but only one letter that is common in english and rare in hungarian, H, and one that's uncommon in english but rare in hungarian, W, and no letters that are common in english but uncommon in 07:41:44 hungarian, so it seems like the total frequency can't work out, hungarian must have more than 100% total frequency of letters intuitively if english has 100% 07:43:41 one way to resolve this paradox is that A and E are common in both english and hungarian, but they're like even more common in english than in hungarian, so they are what give up some of that frequency 07:43:57 but this seems unintuitive because A and E seem common enough in both languages so this is hard to imagine 07:45:14 "the" throws off the statistics a lot 07:45:32 it makes t and e super-common and is responsible for a significant part of the frequency of h 07:46:28 maybe 07:50:09 in the statistics I collected from Google Ngrams, there are around 467 billion tokens, of which around 23½ billion are "the", so it's around 5% of all tokens on its own (and both words and punctuation marks count as tokens here – comma has a similar frequency to "the") 07:51:26 "The" with a capital T makes up another 2.7½ billion 07:57:17 korvo: I assume that you've seen https://esolangs.org/wiki/User_talk:Blashyrkh/Between_IJ_and_SK 07:58:32 (the question what a combinator is rears its ugly head once again ;-) ) 08:19:06 int-e: I think what birds exist is deliberately left open, we just have some axioms and prove some things from it but we don't know the full picture. in particular we don't assume that there aren't birds that can't be built from S and K because they examine other birds structurally rather than only by their effect on other birds, or birds that reliably solve computational problems that Turing-machines 08:19:12 can't 08:21:34 b_jonas: There are at least three variants of what you can consider a "combinator": 1) application of combinator to variables reduces to nested applications of variables. 2) like 1) but you also allow combinators in addition to variables, and 3) combinators abbreviate lambda terms 08:24:17 Hmm, are 2) and 3) actually different? If the combinators you're allowed to use are combinatorially complete... 08:25:13 notably, iota doesn't fit into the first category of combinators 08:29:49 (there's a big formal distinction between 2) and 3) of course; 2) is a first-order rewrite system, whereas 3) relies on embedding stuff into lambda calculus which is not) 08:31:18 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 08:31:36 int-e: so (1) would exclude combinators like \y.(y(\x.x)) ? 08:31:42 yes 08:32:32 so what does the (2) definition mean exactly? it's a recursive definition, do you take the smallest fixed point? 08:32:47 and would it allow a combinator where if you apply anything to it it always diverges? 08:33:05 Ah, my intention was that it's non-recursive when it comes to referring combinators. 08:33:28 So no Y f = f (Y f) 08:33:38 But it would cover iota. 08:34:44 no, I'm thinking more of \p.((\x.xx)(\x.xx)), because then it diverges even if invoking p would have some side effect 08:34:56 But you could allow that Y definition. So there are more distinctions to make. 08:35:23 like non-local exiting out from your combinator with unlambda c 08:35:56 b_jonas: I'd have no issue with W x = x x, then M p = W W 08:36:39 (I'm not using lambda because pretty much the whole point of 2) is to not use lambda calculus) 08:38:47 One of the questions you'd have to ask is whether you want the set of combinators to be closed under application. 08:39:22 If you do, you get a very liberal version of 2) (or just go straight to 3) = lambda calculus) 08:41:36 int-e: I'm not sure how explicit it is on this, but I think the bird book take is that birds are closed under application, even if an application would diverge in traditional lamdba calculus it gives a bird as result, and I think there's a proof outside that you can make a consistent extension to lambda calculus like that (even while some specific pairs of birds are distinguishable) 08:42:04 TBH I don't really care about the bird book. 08:42:29 the book explicitly says that bird sociologists can always find birds from their name in finite time, but I don't know if it is explicit in that birds always answer in finite time when you invoke them 08:43:08 ok, but this is still the problem that you get if you want combinators to be closed under application, unless you make them always terminate with a type system trick 08:46:38 Sure but you could also just accept that not all terms are combinators. 08:47:23 . o O ( I didn't make the rules, I just picked the ones I liked. ) 08:52:10 ok, the way I read the book it does say that a bird always gives an answer when invoked. 08:55:29 in retrospect it has to say that, because that's how it can prove any of the several existence theorems 08:55:39 like that all lambda terms exist as a bird 08:56:17 but I think it doesn't require that birds give consistent answers, so eg. there could be birds that read mutable global variables, and other birds that write them 08:57:42 or maybe they do have to be consistent? I don't know 10:37:18 [[User talk:Blashyrkh/Between IJ and SK]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174320&oldid=174318 * Blashyrkh * (+141) /* Solution for X x = x (K x) x */ 10:52:49 Hi 12:30:39 is combinator equality even decidable? 12:41:45 I suspect it's semidecidable – it seems hard/impossible to prove that two combinators are equal when they are, but you should be able to brute-force find a proof of inequality when they're different 12:49:15 -!- SGautam has joined. 13:35:33 [[Talk:]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174321&oldid=174243 * Yayimhere2(school) * (+15) add lowercase 13:35:42 [[Talk:]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174322&oldid=174321 * Yayimhere2(school) * (-1) 13:41:53 -!- amby has joined. 13:46:50 -!- ais523 has quit (Quit: quit). 14:16:01 -!- ais523 has joined. 14:42:29 [[Brainfucker]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174323&oldid=169409 * Kaveh Yousefi * (+1582) Introduced a section elucidating the memory model, improved the command table's formatting, supplemented further example programs, and added a hyperlink to my interpreter implementation, concomitant to the Implemented page category tag. 14:55:46 [[Talk:]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174324&oldid=174322 * Yayimhere2(school) * (+164) /* turing completeness? */ 16:11:46 [[Category talk:Zero-dimensional]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=174325 * Yayimhere2(school) * (+170) Created page with "this doesnt seem well defined, can somebody explain? --~~~~" 16:35:46 Yeah, it's semi-decidable. Sometimes combinators have different ranks, for example. Invariants allow for decisions. 16:38:01 b_jonas: After last time, I hacked up the page [[closed lambda term]] for documenting the difference between combinators and lambda terms. That should clear up (3). 16:38:49 When we say "complete" here, we mean that any other object *which exists* is constructible from primitives. SK is complete for combinators which really exist: they have to have rank, they have to generate an applicative tree, they have to cleanly rewrite. 16:39:47 Bases for closed lambda terms are able to generate any legal closed lambda term. It doesn't imply that the base encodes every Turing machine, for example. 16:41:03 int-e: I've been watching, mostly. I need to clean up [[Lazy K]] and [[Crazy J]] at some point. 17:10:19 [[Special:Log/newusers]] create * Terrapixel * New user account 17:17:29 [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174326&oldid=174278 * Terrapixel * (+189) /* Introductions */ 17:19:27 -!- impomatic has joined. 17:25:24 -!- ClarityMonkey has joined. 17:25:39 -!- ClarityMonkey has left. 17:38:32 -!- SGautam has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 17:49:30 -!- xelxebar_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 17:49:40 -!- FireFly has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 17:49:53 -!- xelxebar has joined. 17:50:07 -!- ursa-major has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 17:50:08 -!- ManDeJan has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 17:51:45 -!- FireFly has joined. 17:52:59 -!- ursa-major has joined. 17:53:27 -!- ManDeJan has joined. 17:54:06 -!- Thelie has joined. 18:10:19 -!- korvo has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 18:18:07 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=174327 * A() * (+470) Created page with "[[User:A()]] created a monster, a monster of brackets. == Syntax == A+1=(A)A 1 = () == Expansion == First, we have two brackets: () Then we expand: (())() And we can keep expanding, forever. Until your computer crashes. We had one pair, then we had a 18:21:04 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174328&oldid=174327 * A() * (+83) Stuff 18:22:58 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174329&oldid=174328 * A() * (+33) More Equations 18:32:48 [[User:Aadenboy]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174330&oldid=174139 * Aadenboy * (-17) change gradient 18:40:25 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174331&oldid=174329 * A() * (+370) 18:45:34 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?/Large Group of Pairs]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=174332 * A() * (+4131) Created page with "Here is a large group of pairs: :''((((((((((())())(())())((())())(())())(((())())(())())((())())(())())((((())())(())())((())())(())())(((())())(())())((())())(())())(((((())())(())())((())())(())())(((())())(())())((())())(())())(( 18:47:09 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174333&oldid=174331 * A() * (+71) 18:47:48 [[User:A()/How Big Can We Go?]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174334&oldid=174333 * A() * (+3) 18:48:55 [[User:A()]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174335&oldid=174033 * A() * (+34) /* Non-esolang pages */ 19:10:24 -!- Thelie has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 19:20:16 -!- ais523 has quit (Quit: quit). 19:40:33 -!- Lord_of_Life_ has joined. 19:41:18 `olist 1339 19:41:18 -!- Lord_of_Life has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 19:41:21 olist : shachaf oerjan Sgeo boily nortti b_jonas Noisytoot 19:41:52 -!- Lord_of_Life_ has changed nick to Lord_of_Life. 20:03:57 [[Special:Log/newusers]] create * LavaSalt402 * New user account 20:06:25 [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174336&oldid=174326 * LavaSalt402 * (+115) I made my first edit 20:07:43 [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174337&oldid=174336 * LavaSalt402 * (+95) I fixed a mistake of mine 20:09:26 [[User:LavaSalt402]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=174338 * LavaSalt402 * (+72) Created page User:LavaSalt402 20:10:40 [[User:LavaSalt402]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174339&oldid=174338 * LavaSalt402 * (+41) 20:22:39 -!- mich181189 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 20:22:44 -!- ProofTechnique_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 20:22:47 -!- jgardner has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 20:22:57 -!- tetsuo-cpp has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 20:22:58 -!- sorear has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 20:23:32 -!- mich181189 has joined. 20:23:36 -!- jgardner has joined. 20:23:39 -!- ProofTechnique_ has joined. 20:23:50 -!- sorear has joined. 20:23:53 -!- tetsuo-cpp has joined. 20:31:29 -!- Sgeo has joined. 21:12:21 -!- ais523 has joined. 21:12:27 `olist 1339 21:12:30 olist : shachaf oerjan Sgeo boily nortti b_jonas Noisytoot 21:40:51 -!- ais523 has quit (Quit: quit). 21:52:36 [[Category talk:Zero-dimensional]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174340&oldid=174325 * Ractangle * (+182) 21:54:54 Good Night 22:13:54 [[Category talk:Zero-dimensional]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174341&oldid=174340 * Aadenboy * (+364) 22:37:03 [[Special:Log/newusers]] create * Restruct. * New user account 22:40:57 [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174342&oldid=174337 * Restruct. * (+269) introduced myself 22:46:05 [[User:A()]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174343&oldid=174335 * A() * (+89) 22:48:33 -!- impomatic has quit (Quit: Client closed). 23:00:52 [[User:A()]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=174344&oldid=174343 * A() * (+4) /* Stuff about me */