←2006-06-05 2006-06-06 2006-06-07→ ↑2006 ↑all
00:00:25 -!- tgwizard has quit (Remote closed the connection).
00:00:37 <jix> ihope: goedle showed that if you have a formal system(??) that is strong enough(??) there are things that aren't part of the system.. but the negation of the ting isn't part of the system either...
00:03:11 <jix> there is a pair of some_term_a and some_term_b that has the property that neither some_term_a == some_term_b nor some_term_a != some_term_b can be derived(??) from the axioms
00:03:25 <ihope> Ah.
00:04:07 <ihope> So there's an f and an x such that neither f(x) nor not(f(x)) can be proven?
00:04:13 <jix> right
00:05:16 <jix> he showed that by showing that by "writing an interpreter" of the system in itself (he only showed that it is possible) and used this to make an expression (to show that it exists) that says "i am wrong!"
00:05:48 <ihope> Aiee, a Google search for "lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol" turns up results!
00:08:04 <jix> the discussion we had about the grapes and bananas is somehow related to the contents of the book "gödel escher bach" written by Douglas R. Hofstadter....
00:08:19 <jix> i didn't finished reading it yet
00:08:44 <jix> so i don't know everything about gödel's proof...
00:08:54 <jix> but it really is interesting...
00:09:28 <jix> and he is talking about the same problem.. that there is always a next step that is able to solve more problems but you can't have an highest step that can solve everything...
00:12:40 -!- calamari has joined.
00:16:26 <jix> moin calamari
00:16:33 <calamari> hi jix
00:16:35 <lament> a halt-checker for brainfuck is grape one
00:16:41 <ihope> Yep.
00:16:46 <lament> an interpreter for a halt-checker for brainfuck is grape two?
00:16:50 <ihope> Yep.
00:16:55 <ihope> Well.
00:17:01 <ihope> s/interpreter/halt-checker/
00:17:13 <lament> but what about an interpreter.
00:17:19 <lament> a halt-checker is obviously grape two
00:17:28 <ihope> An interpreter for a halt-checker is simply a halt-checker.
00:18:07 <lament> mm
00:18:35 <jix> ihope: that isn't true for brainfuck
00:18:37 <lament> yes
00:18:45 <lament> an interpreter for grape 0 is grape 0
00:18:51 <lament> a halt-checker for grape 0 is grape 1
00:19:09 <ihope> Yep.
00:19:16 <ihope> Unless, of course, your interpreter can halt-check.
00:19:42 <jix> ihope: let's define interpreter as it doesn't check the program for halting but it just runs it...
00:19:49 <lament> but an interpreter for grape 1 cannot be grape 1
00:19:58 <ihope> lament: why not?
00:19:58 <jix> lament: why?
00:20:01 <lament> oh, can it?
00:20:08 <ihope> Yes, it can.
00:20:41 <jix> the problem with brainhype is it is banana-one right? it can check any grape (but not grape-infinity because that would be a LC + will-halt right?)
00:21:14 <ihope> Oh boy...
00:21:15 <lament> grape infinity would be an infinite program
00:21:17 <lament> we don't look at those
00:21:22 <lament> usually
00:21:28 <ihope> Brainhype is the entire grape hierarchy,
00:21:30 <ihope> s/,/./
00:21:42 <lament> a brainhype _interpreter_ is banana-one
00:21:46 <ihope> Yes.
00:22:17 <jix> i have to re-read the brainhype spec...
00:22:32 <jix> i think i've got something wrong...
00:22:43 <ihope> Every Brainhype program is somewhere in the grape hierarchy, and for every place in the grape hierarchy, there's a Brainhype program that can simulate everything in it.
00:23:13 <lament> and that brainhype program is in the same level of the hierarchy.
00:23:25 <ihope> Yep.
00:23:27 <jix> yes i know
00:23:59 <lament> actually i guess it's more appropriate to call a brainhype interpreter banana-0
00:24:03 <lament> since it doesn't halt-check anything
00:24:19 <ihope> It halt-checks the entire grape hierarchy.
00:24:36 <lament> well, apart from that :)
00:24:58 <ihope> Maybe banana 0 is the entire grape hierarchy.
00:25:09 <lament> a brainfuck interpreter is grape 0, it makes sense to make the brainhype interpreter banana 0
00:25:28 <ihope> Eh, make it so, then.
00:26:48 <jix> maybe we shouldn't call it banana 0 but grape-two-0 ... because we can continue that as long as we want
00:27:31 <ihope> Call that the melon hierarchy.
00:27:45 <ihope> Grape = 1-melon, banana = 2-melon, etc.
00:27:58 <jix> shouldn't we start with 0?
00:28:20 <ihope> You were the one who said banana should be number 2...
00:28:34 <ihope> I guess it can start with 0, then.
00:28:36 <jix> ihope: well i do make mistakes...
00:28:43 <lament> i'm still not convinced there IS a banana hierarchy...
00:29:04 <jix> lament: so you think there is a contradiction in the banana hierarchy?
00:29:09 <lament> and i'm certainly not convinced of existence of a hierarchy beyond the banana one
00:29:23 <lament> what would go in that one?
00:29:40 <jix> i think there is nothing behind the grape-0
00:29:42 <ihope> Things that could solve the Halting problems for everything in the banana hierarchy.
00:29:46 <jix> in reallaty
00:30:01 <ihope> jix: well, that's because reality is Turing-complete :-)
00:30:24 <jix> yeah
00:31:12 <lament> there's gotta be a contradiction somewhere :)
00:31:31 <lament> otherwise, we have a gigantic transfinite system of hierarchies
00:32:00 <_wildhalcyon_> What if reality has bounded storage?
00:32:01 <jix> once i thought my contradiction could be a valid banana-0 / 1-melon-0 program
00:32:04 <ihope> The contradiction would be at infinity.
00:32:11 <lament> _wildhalcyon_: it does.
00:32:23 <ihope> There is neither a grape-infinity nor a banana-infinity.
00:32:54 <jix> nor an infinity-melon-infinity
00:33:03 <jix> but i think they would be all the same if they would exist...
00:33:08 <jix> they could all solve all problems
00:33:29 <lament> obviously not
00:33:42 <lament> they can only halt-check things that are lower on the hierarchy
00:33:55 <jix> lament: well they are on the highest place of the hierachy
00:34:37 <lament> wait
00:34:53 <lament> what level is a program that can halt-check an arbitrary Brainfuck program?
00:35:01 <jix> grape-1
00:35:08 <lament> are you sure?
00:35:13 <lament> {program} doesn't count
00:35:26 <jix> lament: there is a brainfuck interpreter in branfuck
00:35:38 <jix> {brainfuck-interpreter-that-reads-source-from-memory}
00:35:42 <lament> ohh
00:35:47 <lament> yes
00:35:58 <lament> however, you can't do that with brainhype
00:36:07 <ihope> ?
00:36:30 <jix> lament: you can write an interpreter for grape-1 in grape-2
00:36:39 <lament> yes
00:36:47 <lament> but waht about banana-0??
00:36:58 * lament gets all confused
00:37:15 <jix> lament: well we just defined it can solve all grape halting problems
00:37:15 <ihope> What about banana-0?
00:37:27 <lament> jix: you can write an interpreter for grape-1 in grape-1
00:37:39 <jix> lament: uhm yes
00:37:58 <jix> nargh i always write interpreter
00:38:04 <jix> when i want to write halt-checker
00:38:17 <lament> this is so confusing
00:38:22 * bsmntbombdood wants to know what all these fruits are
00:38:36 <jix> bsmntbombdood: they are different computational classes
00:38:41 <lament> can we get a better understanding of what banana-0 includes
00:38:49 <ihope> They're hierarchies of computational classes.
00:38:50 <lament> apart from (obviously) a brainhype interpreter
00:38:51 <bsmntbombdood> jix: I figured that
00:39:10 <lament> grape-0 includes all Brainfuck programs
00:39:14 <ihope> Should I write a Wiki article on the fruit hierarchies?
00:39:15 <jix> bsmntbombdood: i like some of them... and i dislike some of them... imho banana tates terrible...
00:39:22 <jix> bsmntbombdood: grape is tasty
00:39:34 <lament> grape-42 includes all brainhype programs with up to 42 levels of braces
00:39:38 <lament> what does banana-0 include?
00:39:47 <jix> bsmntbombdood: melon too but i'm allergic against(??) it
00:39:57 <ihope> Allergic to it?
00:40:13 <jix> ihope: yeah i don't know the right wort to fit between allergic and it...
00:40:30 <jix> the german word there would be "gegen" that translates to "against"
00:40:42 <bsmntbombdood> allergic to it
00:40:47 <lament> is banana-0 a computational class at all? does it include anything other than a brainhype interpreter?
00:41:31 <lament> i mean, brainhype interpreter is the only thing in banana-0 that's not on the grape hierarchy somewhere
00:41:44 <ihope> lament: banana-0 is the set of all programs that can build arbitrary Brainhype programs and run them.
00:41:56 <jix> i'm not sure but wouldn't an instruction & added to brainhype that evaluets a finite piece of code stored on the tape be banana-0?
00:42:13 <ihope> jix: I think that would be contradictory.
00:42:24 <ihope> As long as you could put & on the tape, that is.
00:42:40 <jix> ihope: nargh that evaluates a brainhype program stored on the tape
00:42:44 <jix> so no &
00:42:54 <ihope> Okay. That would be banana-0, then.
00:43:08 <jix> ok i want a banana-n language...
00:43:35 <jix> the piece of code on the tape that is going to be evaluated has to be smaller than the current code? is that banana-n complete?
00:43:47 <ihope> Hmm...
00:43:55 <jix> you can nest as many & as you want but not infinite...
00:44:07 <ihope> I think so.
00:44:09 <lament> why can't you nest &, anyway
00:44:22 <jix> ihope: no...
00:44:23 <lament> in lisp, you can nest eval as much as you like
00:44:35 <lament> eval (or &) does not move you up the hierarchy
00:44:37 <jix> lament: but you may not add a will-halt to lisp
00:44:46 <lament> oh
00:44:47 <jix> that would be a contradiction
00:44:53 <lament> hmm
00:45:07 <lament> so you're saying that the presence of {} must be balanced by lack of eval
00:45:12 <ihope> Yep.
00:45:23 <lament> interesting
00:45:26 <ihope> At least, the lack of an unrestricted eval.
00:45:39 <jix> or a lambda calculus like behavior...
00:46:08 <lament> so banana-0 has one level of &, banana-1 two levels of &
00:46:25 <ihope> ...I think so.
00:46:47 <jix> ihope: but the evaluated code must be smaller than the original would throw it into the grape hierarchy...
00:46:51 <lament> which means the next hierarchy (after the banans) would have arbitrary levels of & and therefore would be inconsistent?
00:46:53 <jix> it would limit the numbers of {}...
00:46:56 <lament> *bananas
00:47:23 <jix> lament: arbitrary but not infinity....
00:47:38 <jix> lament: as long as you don' reach infinity you don't have a problem
00:47:59 <bsmntbombdood> I want a stack-based brainfuck type lang
00:48:07 <ihope> bsmntbombdood: BF-PDA?
00:48:16 <jix> i think really the same thing (applied to formal systems or something like that) was discussed in the book i am reading
00:48:18 <lament> but the level of nesting of & cannot be determined in advance, anyhow
00:48:36 <ihope> I think grape-infinity, banana-infinity, and, in general, n-melon-infinity are all inconsistent.
00:48:44 <ihope> You guys are all confusing me...
00:48:50 <jix> ihope: yes and i think they are all the same
00:50:20 <bsmntbombdood> ihope: kind of like bf-pda
00:50:27 <jix> oh and did i say that Douglas R. Hofstadter started to invent nonsense names for this things too? just to get the reader away from the usual (pre-justiced??) thinking....
00:50:29 <bsmntbombdood> ihope: I will just write my own
00:50:59 <ihope> Grape, banana, and melon all have very complex and meaningful histories. :-P
00:51:37 <lament> seriously
00:51:53 <lament> if banana-0 is brainhype with a & which is not allowed to be nested.
00:51:58 <jix> ihope: but they have NOTHING to do with the things we are talking about
00:52:09 <lament> and banana-1 is brainhype with a & which you can nest only once
00:52:13 <lament> then you're screwed right there
00:52:23 <lament> because you can't tell in advance how many times the & will be nested
00:52:23 <jix> lament: why?
00:52:31 <lament> by looking at the program
00:52:34 <ihope> Banana-0 can't use & for more banana-0, I think.
00:52:48 <ihope> It can use it for any grape, but not for banana-0.
00:52:53 <jix> lament: well you have a nesting count and if the nesting count reaches 2 the instruction & is a NOP...
00:52:54 <lament> ihope: that's what i said.
00:52:59 <lament> jix: hah
00:53:06 <jix> lament: what?
00:53:08 <lament> jix: that feels really dirty. but i guess you're right.
00:53:43 <lament> jix: but it still means the next fruit will be inconsistent
00:53:51 <jix> LOL if someone would stand behind me and read my logs he would think we are all crazy...
00:54:07 <ihope> 2-melon-0 would only be able to use & for bananas.
00:54:30 <lament> ihope: that's also true of bananas
00:54:46 <ihope> Banana-0 can only use & for grapes.
00:54:51 <jix> it would add an instruction / that reads the number of allowed & from the tapes and evaluates code read from the tapes...
00:55:07 <ihope> jix: aiee
00:55:12 <lament> jix: aieee
00:55:21 <jix> -s-s
00:55:25 <jix> we have only one tape right?
00:55:28 <lament> jix: are you SURE that's not equivalent to banana-0 in some way
00:55:39 <ihope> Don't complicate things in your attempts to simplify them...
00:55:49 <jix> lament: no... should i?
00:55:54 <ihope> Anyway, look up "one-banana problem".
00:55:59 <lament> jix: it sounds complex enough that it might be
00:57:05 <lament> i wish i had a banana-0 interpreter to play with
00:57:11 <ihope> :-)
00:58:21 <jix> lament: can't be banana-0 you can write a banana-n interpreter in it
00:58:45 <ihope> You can only write a banana-0 interpreter in banana-0.
00:58:57 <jix> ihope: i'm talking about my 2-melon-0
00:59:03 <lament> you know what.
00:59:04 <_wildhalcyon_> this is a weird convo...
00:59:05 <lament> you're all wrong.
00:59:18 <jix> _wildhalcyon_: go paste it on bash.org
00:59:35 <jix> lament: no...
00:59:54 <ihope> What are we wrong about?
01:00:20 <lament> i dunno
01:00:28 <ihope> Oh...
01:00:59 <_wildhalcyon_> jix, that website is crazy
01:01:24 <lament> i don't like the & instruction
01:01:35 <ihope> Neither do I.
01:01:38 <lament> i want a better banana-0 language
01:01:42 <jix> lament: neither i
01:02:20 <jix> but you get a m+1-melon-0 by taking a m-melon-0 and adding another kind of & instruction that reads the number (n) of the desired m-melon-n from the tape and executes a m-melon-n program from the tape
01:02:42 <jix> thus there is a m-melon-n for every finite but arbitrary high m and n
01:03:26 <jix> and you get a m-melon-n+1 by taking a m-melon-n by allowing to nest the added & kind instruction one level deeper...
01:03:39 <lament> nooooo
01:04:01 <jix> lament: hard to imagine isn't it?
01:04:09 <lament> the problem with this
01:04:16 <lament> er, nevermind
01:04:17 <jix> there is one?
01:04:19 * lament thinks
01:04:40 <lament> i guess there isn't
01:05:39 <lament> it's still ugly
01:05:47 <jix> but what is when we want a interpreter for an arbitrary m-melon-n ? lets say m-melon-n is the same as 0-basket-of-m-melon-n 1-basket-of-0-melon-0 is able to interpret all m-melon-n... is this possible?
01:05:49 <jix> lament: i know...
01:05:58 <lament> i want a better x-melon-y language
01:06:06 <jix> lament: we all want it..
01:06:18 <ihope> Whee.
01:06:24 <ihope> Yes, there can be baskets.
01:07:21 <lament> jix: see, this "basket" thing
01:07:29 <lament> jix: like i said, this just leads to a transfinite hierarchy
01:07:40 <ihope> What does "transfinite" mean?
01:07:56 <lament> jix: you can assign an ordinal number to every class
01:08:14 <jix> lament: i don't understand that.. my english isn't good enough...
01:08:15 <lament> 0 is TC
01:08:28 <lament> 1 in brainhype with 1 level of braces
01:08:37 <lament> 1 is brainhype with 1 level of braces
01:09:16 <ihope> Oddly enough, this is all related to some thing I had once...
01:09:22 <ihope> I think it was called F-TR1.
01:09:23 <lament> omega_0 is 1-melon-0
01:10:11 <lament> omega^omega is, probably, 1-basket-of-0-melon-0
01:10:17 <lament> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_numbers
01:11:55 <jix> lament: yes you're right
01:13:15 <jix> ihope: is he?
01:13:25 <ihope> Um, lemme see...
01:14:57 <ihope> Eh, I don't know.
01:15:01 <jix> lament: wait isn't omega^2 1-basket-of-0-melon-0?
01:15:46 <jix> i think omega^omega would give you a contradiction
01:16:06 <jix> because that would be 1......<infinite>....0-baslet-of-0-melon-0
01:16:24 <ihope> How do you know it's infinite and not arbitrary?
01:16:44 <jix> nargh i don't get this anymore...
01:16:48 <jix> i should go to bed instead
01:17:17 <ihope> Me too.
01:17:18 <lament> heh
01:17:25 <jix> it's 2 am here...
01:17:50 <jix> (that's night right?)
01:17:52 <ihope> This discussion started about 2 hours ago.
01:17:58 <jix> i always confuse am and pm...
01:17:58 <ihope> jix: either that or morning :-)
01:18:37 * ihope tries to think of a good mnemonic
01:18:49 <jix> a is after and p is past...
01:18:51 <jix> uhm wait?
01:19:00 <ihope> Well, A comes before P in the alphabet.
01:19:04 <lament> a is "antes"
01:20:57 <lament> or maybe not :)
01:21:07 <ihope> Isn't it?
01:21:42 <lament> it should be
01:23:22 <_wildhalcyon_> anybody have non-constructive criticism on my crawl post?
01:24:08 <jix> like L0l n00b h0w ST00p4T??
01:24:31 <lament> _wildhalcyon_: YOU SMELL!!!
01:24:46 <_wildhalcyon_> well.. slightly more constructive than that
01:24:51 <_wildhalcyon_> lament is on the right track
01:25:12 <lament> _wildhalcyon_: GO TAKE A SHOWER!! no, that's constructive
01:25:24 <_wildhalcyon_> lol, I suppose it is
01:25:40 <bsmntbombdood> Is brainscrambler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainscrambler turing complete?
01:26:23 <jix> it seems to
01:26:41 <ihope> bsmntbombdood: I'm pretty sure it is.
01:26:49 <lament> i like this line: "You must have 3 infinitely (within reason) long stacks"
01:27:06 <bsmntbombdood> would it be turing complete with only one stack?
01:27:12 <ihope> Nope.
01:27:29 <ihope> But with two, it would be.
01:30:36 <jix> HAHA lemonlimeskull: You know you've been chatting too long when you think C:/> is some kind of depressed Arab smiley.
01:30:51 <_wildhalcyon_> lol, that's... sad
01:31:13 <lament> C:/> IS a depressed arab smiley.
01:31:23 <lament> C:\> is command prompt when you're on drive C:
01:31:34 <bsmntbombdood> ihope: are you User:Ihope127 on wikipedia?
01:31:35 <jix> lament: i copy&pasted from bash.org
01:31:38 <ihope> bsmntbombdood: yep.
01:33:41 <_wildhalcyon_> :-D <Polytope> tetris is so unrealistic
01:37:22 <Asaph> yeah when I drop blocks I can't change their direction and position mid-fall
01:37:28 <Asaph> gah.
01:37:30 -!- Asaph has changed nick to Robdgreat.
01:45:12 <jix> tetris rules
01:45:17 <jix> oh and i should go to bed
01:46:14 <_wildhalcyon_> alright, g'night jix
01:50:53 <ihope> Dang, I keep mistyping "define" as "defube".
01:58:01 <jix> oh and i should go to bed
02:03:37 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving").
02:05:35 <jix> oh and i should go to bed
02:16:31 * ihope contemplates an IRC server with only three channel names, but infinite channels
02:17:15 <ihope> Joining a channel would simply create a new one, but being invited to a channel would put you into the existing one.
02:18:04 <jix> LOL
02:19:54 <_wildhalcyon_> <malaclypse> The general rule on about people on IRC seems to be "Attractive, single, mentally stable: choose two"
02:21:33 <ihope> Alternatively, channels wouldn't have permanent names: you'd join a channel, and if you've seen a channel with that name before, you join it; otherwise, a new channel is created.
02:21:45 <ihope> Inviting someone to a channel would allocate a random channel name.
02:22:10 <ihope> I suppose there would have to be some sort of service to keep you from "losing" channels... call it A.
02:22:39 <jix> ihope: oh and you don't have nicks..
02:22:44 <ihope> Oh my.
02:22:46 <jix> the first person you see is going to be A
02:22:49 <jix> the 2nd person B....
02:23:08 <jix> oh and i should go to bed
02:23:13 <ihope> Eh, maybe A would always be the service bot, but nicks would be given randomly.
02:23:46 <ihope> Well, maybe not randomly.
02:23:55 <jix> nargh gn8
02:23:56 <ihope> It'd start with 0, then go to 1, 2, 3, 4...
02:24:00 <ihope> Good night.
02:24:02 -!- jix has quit ("HAHAHAHAHAHA").
02:24:05 <_wildhalcyon_> I prefer the random idea
02:24:22 <_wildhalcyon_> I think it would be lots of fun to receive a new random name every time
02:24:57 <ihope> Yeah, it would be.
02:25:00 -!- _wildhalcyon_ has changed nick to random.
02:25:27 <random> Yay!
02:25:56 <ihope> Right after you choose a nick, it'd say nick!user@hostmask NICK :Hedral or something.
02:26:41 <random> That would work
02:28:31 <ihope> I regularly tomato eat lampshades...
02:58:20 <GregorR> <malaclypse> The general rule on about people on IRC seems to be "Attractive, single, mentally stable: choose two"
02:58:23 <GregorR> ^ Not true.
02:58:27 <GregorR> It's usually choose zero.
03:02:04 * SimonRC goes
03:03:46 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out).
03:07:31 <random> good point gregor
03:08:07 <bsmntbombdood> some one have any brainscrambler programs?
03:12:00 <bsmntbombdood> I just wrote an interpreter and I need to test it
03:52:47 -!- rhudson has joined.
03:53:16 <rhudson> Hi All!
03:54:02 -!- rhudson has quit (Client Quit).
03:54:32 -!- rhudson has joined.
03:54:54 <rhudson> Um Hi all again
03:55:25 -!- rhudson has changed nick to ronhudson.
03:55:45 * ronhudson peers about looking for real people
03:56:03 <ronhudson> Hi EgoBot
03:58:43 <ronhudson> Hmm did I do that? Hey anybody see my new toy language on the esolangs wiki?
04:00:48 -!- ronhudson has quit ("Xirc - MacOSX").
04:01:03 -!- rhudson has joined.
04:01:24 <rhudson> hello again?
04:01:54 <rhudson> I don't quite have the hang of XIRC yet.. Is anyone out there?
04:02:48 <bsmntbombdood> yes
04:03:01 <rhudson> If you all are talking, I can't hear you?
04:03:22 <bsmntbombdood> well then you're screwed
04:03:30 <rhudson> Oh bsm I see you
04:04:02 <rhudson> Are you interested in computer languages?
04:07:07 <bsmntbombdood> that's why I'm here
04:07:35 <rhudson> Did you design one of your own? or do you use one of the others?
04:08:17 <bsmntbombdood> I've invented a few toy languages
04:08:43 <rhudson> Does my text actually look blue on yellow to you, should I pick better colors?
04:09:12 <rhudson> I am building a small language myself, it's called Tiny.
04:09:12 <Robdgreat> how about default
04:09:50 <rhudson> Now black on white.
04:10:00 <rhudson> Hi Robgreat
04:10:15 <Robdgreat> strange. on my black background everyone else's text shows as white.
04:10:28 <Robdgreat> but yours shows as black (i.e. invisible)
04:11:18 <rhudson> Ok, a light blue visible on both white and black backgrounds.:^)
04:11:47 <rhudson> What languages have you built BSM?
04:12:11 <bsmntbombdood> nothing you have heard of
04:14:24 <rhudson> There's a write up of tiny on the esolang wiki, another guy did a good re-write after
04:14:38 <rhudson> I wrote a terse entry.
04:16:49 <rhudson> It's slow here.
04:17:22 <rhudson> How many of those 22 users are bots?
04:17:50 <bsmntbombdood> one i think
04:18:41 <rhudson> Rob have you written any languages I may have heard of?
04:18:46 <Robdgreat> no way
04:18:53 <Robdgreat> I just idle here because it's entertaining
04:19:49 <rhudson> I wrote tiny just recently, I think I am just about finished and have almost everything working.
04:21:04 <rhudson> so I am trying to get people to comment on it.
04:21:32 <rhudson> It's about equivalent to a "tiny basic"
04:22:51 <rhudson> Well, I have to travel tomorrow. So I gotta getup early.
04:23:00 <rhudson> night all! :^)
04:23:07 -!- rhudson has quit ("Xirc - MacOSX").
04:58:05 -!- calamari has joined.
05:15:40 -!- Arrogant has joined.
05:37:58 -!- lindi- has quit (Remote closed the connection).
05:50:04 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
05:56:00 -!- puzzlet has joined.
06:04:37 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection).
06:06:20 <lament> ugh, colored fonts
06:06:46 -!- ChanServ has set channel mode: +o lament.
06:06:54 -!- lament has set channel mode: +c.
06:06:58 -!- lament has set channel mode: -o lament.
06:07:22 * lament likes exercising his tyrannical op powers
06:08:49 -!- puzzlet has joined.
06:09:50 <Arrogant> tyranny
06:10:42 <lament> yep
06:14:59 <random> noooooooooooo
06:15:37 -!- random has changed nick to wildhalcyon.
07:14:31 <Arrogant> Hmm. Single inheritence.
07:15:22 -!- Arrogant has quit ("Leaving").
07:15:22 <wildhalcyon> uh huh?
07:15:24 <wildhalcyon> what about it?
07:20:47 <lament> it sucks.
07:52:20 -!- sedimin has joined.
07:53:01 <sedimin> hi there
07:59:29 <GregorR> 'lo
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:18:15 -!- sedimin has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
08:22:01 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving").
08:55:57 -!- CXI has quit (Connection timed out).
09:34:45 -!- CXI has joined.
11:57:32 -!- sedimin has joined.
11:58:34 -!- tgwizard has joined.
12:07:02 -!- ihope_ has joined.
12:07:13 -!- ihope_ has changed nick to ihope.
12:23:18 -!- jix has joined.
12:23:25 <sedimin> hey
12:23:26 <sedimin> jix
12:25:46 <jix> moin
12:33:27 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection).
13:46:04 <ihope> Hmm, how do I turn word wrap off in a text box?
13:50:45 <sedimin> in what?
13:51:00 <sedimin> in what framework or gui toolkit?
13:51:03 <ihope> A multiline text box in a web browser.
13:51:07 <ihope> Firefox, on Windows.
13:51:11 <sedimin> in html, so?
13:51:24 <ihope> From within the browser.
13:51:46 <sedimin> and the text box is contained in a page, right?
13:52:34 <ihope> Yep.
13:52:40 <sedimin> hm
13:52:44 <sedimin> I came to this:
13:52:52 <sedimin> Attribute for <TEXTAREA ...>
13:52:53 <sedimin> WRAP = SOFT | HARD | OFF
13:53:21 <sedimin> but it could be done only by editing the html source, I don't think there is easy workaround to do so within the browser
13:58:30 <fizzie> Giving on the address bar an "address" like javascript:document.getElementById('id_of_the_textarea').setAttribute('wrap', 'off'); (or 'soft', 'hard') might work; apparently for mozilla you need to follow that with javascript:document.getElementById('...').style.display = 'none'; ...display = ''; to get it to update.
13:58:48 <ihope> !
13:58:51 <EgoBot> Huh?
13:59:31 * ihope slaps EgoBot
14:00:17 <sedimin> hm
14:00:43 <sedimin> that's great idea :)
14:02:33 <fizzie> Actually, if you happen to have the DOM inspector component installed, you can just point-and-click at the box and edit/add the "wrap" attribute there.
14:05:03 <fizzie> That thing is so very fancy; now if they'd just allow drag-n-dropping the DOM nodes in the tree.
14:05:59 <fizzie> Actually, scratch that; seems that you can right-click-cut/copy/paste, which is almost as good.
14:08:59 -!- ihope_ has joined.
14:26:35 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
14:31:48 <SimonRC> foo
14:31:51 <SimonRC> yuk
14:33:50 * SimonRC goes
15:00:06 <sedimin> bbl
15:14:08 <ihope_> ?
15:20:16 -!- sedimin has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
15:40:41 -!- kipple has joined.
16:20:00 <SimonRC> mmmh
16:24:28 <ihope_> "Watson automatically finds and delivers results. Can your search box do that?"
16:24:31 <ihope_> Um, yes, it can.
16:25:05 <SimonRC> erm, no
16:25:22 <SimonRC> I have to type a query into my search box before it gets results for me
16:34:15 <ihope_> Ah, right.
16:34:39 <ihope_> Well, what's that one Google thing called?
16:34:44 <ihope_> The psychic one?
16:35:13 <poiuy_qwert> psychic google? wher?
16:50:01 <ihope_> Really bad CAPTCHA: encode all the important stuff in ASCII in the least significant bit of each pixel, and display a random image on top.
16:50:21 <ihope_> That way, ONLY automated spambots would get in :-)
16:52:54 <SimonRC> heh
16:54:47 <ihope_> Now, how come when we think "futuristic", we think of flying cars and aliens and artificial intelligence and all that?
16:55:55 <ihope_> Would a guy from the 70's ever guess people would be using slate-blue-and-black laptops with touchpads and DVD drives?
16:56:41 <ihope_> Or these silver ones, even?
16:57:56 <SimonRC> heh
16:59:13 <ihope_> Hey, maybe a guy back then would have thought computers would be like little marbles that we'd just hold next to ourselves to use.
16:59:48 <SimonRC> true
17:00:42 <ihope_> Or maybe that computers would be edible: just eat a computer, and you can do arithmetic with huge numbers and such in your head.
17:01:24 <ihope_> If you want to upgrade, just eat another one.
17:02:08 <ihope_> For parallel computation, buy the really tiny ones and eat a bunch of them.
17:02:27 <SimonRC> :-D
17:05:58 <jix> but i'm allergic to apples!
17:06:08 <jix> (that's true...)
17:06:17 <jix> so i can't eat my computer...
17:06:39 <SimonRC> *groan*
17:14:43 <poiuy_qwert> anyone know perl regex?
17:15:06 <jix> a bit
17:17:37 <lament> eww perl
17:19:33 <jix> i'm only used to the ruby regexp engine...
17:19:56 <poiuy_qwert> im trying to match something like <?:*> where ? is one of yMdhms and * can be anything
17:20:06 <poiuy_qwert> /<([yMdhms])\:([^>]+)>/g
17:20:10 <poiuy_qwert> that is what i have right now
17:20:20 <poiuy_qwert> but its not working correct
17:20:35 <jix> what is the problem?
17:21:07 <poiuy_qwert> well, if i test that regex on "test<d:test> and <y:with multiple> occurences?"
17:21:11 <poiuy_qwert> i get
17:21:18 <lament> has anybody made a good x-melon-x language yet?
17:21:19 <poiuy_qwert> d:test> and <y:with multiple> occurences?
17:21:21 <poiuy_qwert> and d
17:21:25 <lament> x-melon-y
17:22:12 <jix> but you specified [^>] that shouldn't mach >....
17:22:31 <poiuy_qwert> yes, i dont get it either
17:22:38 <SimonRC> lament: "x-melon-x" ??!
17:22:44 <lament> x-melon-y
17:25:10 <SimonRC> lament: "x-melon-Y" ??!
17:25:24 <jix> SimonRC: read the logs
17:25:52 <lament> SimonRC: the language i'm still not sure exists
17:26:12 <SimonRC> oh, yeah
17:30:24 * SimonRC goes
17:47:57 <lament> In order to move beyond the grape hierarchy, we have to be able to halt-check arbitrary pieces of code (given dynamically).
17:48:17 <lament> What if a piece of code has a syntax error?
17:49:24 <lament> I guess to simplify things we could use a language without syntax errors.
17:53:26 <lament> Or assume that a program with a syntax error always halts.
18:04:19 <lament> anyway
18:04:24 <lament> consider Scheme
18:04:59 <lament> and a hierarchy of languages built on top of Scheme, each of which adds a new form of instruction H to the previous one.
18:05:06 <lament> instruction H performs halt-checking.
18:05:23 <lament> Scheme is also known as scheme-0
18:05:48 <lament> scheme-1 adds instruction (H0 <code>) that halt-checks scheme-0
18:06:10 <lament> scheme-2 adds instruction (H1 <code>) that halt-checks scheme-1
18:06:34 <lament> note that this is different from Brainhype because the code is given dynamically.
18:07:06 <lament> but, unlike Brainhype, the code is not written in the same language.
18:09:45 <lament> Then of course we have a language scheme-1-0 with an instruction (Hn <code>) that halt-checks scheme-n for any n
18:14:05 <lament> s/Hn/H0-n
18:14:28 <lament> then of course we have a language scheme-1-1 with an instruction (H1-n <code>) that halt-checks scheme-1-0
18:14:57 <lament> Big question: how does all this relate to brainhype?
18:15:06 <lament> Is scheme-x-y x-melon-y?
18:17:41 <lament> brainhype can typecheck itself (although statically), whereas no "higher scheme" can ever typecheck itself.
18:17:46 <lament> s/typecheck/haltcheck
18:30:11 <jix> yeah but brainhype isn't ONE computational class but it's grape-n...
18:30:27 <jix> and if it is grape-n it can't haltcheck grape-n but only grape-n-1...
18:31:42 <wildhalcyon> Where did the fruit terminology come from?
18:32:23 <jix> dunno
18:32:28 <lament> jix: well, in the specification it simply says that brainhype can halt-check brainhype.
18:32:59 <lament> jix: but of course since the code is given statically, every inner level being halt-checked has fewer braces so belongs lower down on the grape hierarchy.
18:33:27 <lament> yeah, i guess it makes sense that scheme-x-y is x-melon-y
18:36:22 <lament> now, instead of stupid names like H1-n
18:36:28 <lament> we just use ordinal numbers.
18:36:43 <lament> H0, H1, .... Homega, etc
18:37:44 <lament> I assume 1-melon-0 is Homega+1
18:38:16 <lament> i guess that fully solves this problem :)
18:38:36 <lament> (by reducing it to a previously solved problem of "what the hell are ordinal numbers")
18:49:16 -!- sedimin has joined.
18:49:25 <sedimin> omg
18:49:37 <kipple> rofl
18:51:27 <kipple> sedimin: your new language has become quite popular lately :)
18:52:04 <sedimin> oh really? :)
18:52:05 <sedimin> finally i did something good :)
18:55:04 <lament> Anybody feels like writing a brainhype interpreter in scheme-omega? should be trivial
18:55:32 <lament> (and, of course, impossible in any lower scheme)
18:57:03 <lament> actually
18:57:16 <lament> you never need Homega to interpret a brainhype program
18:59:14 <lament> sedimin: help!!!
19:00:12 <lament> I thought that scheme-X (for ordinal X) is the entire hierarchy of halt-checking classes
19:00:18 <lament> but
19:00:55 <lament> to halt-check brainhype, you need a language less powerful than scheme-omega, but more powerful than scheme-N for any natural N
19:02:23 <lament> oh, i got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19:02:38 <lament> weeeeeeeeeee
19:02:42 <lament> omega is a limit ordinal
19:03:05 <lament> scheme-X for a limit ordinal X does NOT add a new instruction
19:03:23 <lament> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_ordinal
19:03:56 <lament> there is no H-omega
19:04:11 <lament> scheme-omega simply incorporates instructions Hn for any natural n
19:04:34 <lament> however, scheme-omega+1 incorporates an instruction Homega+1 which can halt-check scheme-omega
19:10:17 -!- sedimin_ has joined.
19:10:34 <sedimin_> lament - what was it?
19:28:21 -!- sedimin has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
19:41:21 -!- sedimin_ has changed nick to sedimin.
19:41:35 -!- sedimin has left (?).
19:41:38 -!- sedimin has joined.
19:42:26 -!- sedimin has left (?).
19:43:07 -!- sedimin has joined.
19:43:28 <sedimin> lament, you had some problem?
19:44:31 <sedimin> /msg nickserv identify
19:44:35 <sedimin> oops
20:05:09 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined.
20:12:42 -!- ihope has joined.
20:12:49 <ihope> Ugh, web client.
20:15:08 <bsmntbombdood> why not just use a real client
20:22:31 <ihope> I don't want to download anything.
20:22:58 <ihope> This is a Windows machine. Do they come with any programs other than telnet that are usable as IRC clients?
20:23:19 <bsmntbombdood> windows doesn't come with anything
20:23:32 <bsmntbombdood> unless you want to play solitaire
20:24:16 <ihope> It comes with telnet.
20:24:23 <ihope> That's usable as an IRC client.
20:25:28 <bsmntbombdood> only if you want to learn the protocol
20:25:31 <ihope> I did.
20:25:42 <fizzie> There's not much to learn if you just want to chat.
20:26:07 <ihope> True, but the problem with Windows telnet is that it doesn't seem to support line buffering.
20:26:23 <ihope> It sends each character right away, so there's no backspace.
20:26:34 <fizzie> Don't make mistakes, then.
20:26:37 <bsmntbombdood> I've noticed that before, it's extremley annoying
20:26:44 <ihope> Meh.
20:26:54 <bsmntbombdood> I mean on the server end
20:27:02 <fizzie> Many Windows machines come with MS Office; I guess that's usable as an IRC client if you just write some visual-basic-for-applications or what's-it-called to do it.
20:27:32 <ihope> Eew.
20:28:07 -!- _ihope has joined.
20:28:11 -!- ihope has quit ("Today is a good day to chat.").
20:28:23 <_ihope> Hmm, this is odd.
20:28:41 <_ihope> Freenode seems to like telnet better than actual IRC client.
20:28:49 <_ihope> Clients, even.
20:29:09 <_ihope> If I choose a bad nick, it tells me.
20:29:33 <_ihope> And once I send the NICK and USER commands, it pops right into the fully functional whatever.
20:29:54 <_ihope> No wating for the ident to fail.
20:38:25 <sedimin> f
20:38:31 <sedimin> I use Opera for IRC
20:38:44 <sedimin> cos i'm lazy to install Miranda plugin
20:55:47 -!- _ihope has quit (Remote closed the connection).
21:17:18 -!- calamari has joined.
21:18:32 -!- sedimin has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
22:44:54 -!- cp has quit (Remote closed the connection).
22:49:55 -!- cp has joined.
23:05:39 <lament> ihope_: am i not a genius?
23:15:54 <poiuy_qwert> what in your opinion is the best language to write a dos window interpreter?
23:22:40 <calamari> poiuy_qwert: the other dos emulators don't work for ya? :)
23:22:51 <poiuy_qwert> ?
23:23:04 <calamari> ??
23:23:14 <poiuy_qwert> i dont know what you are talking aobut
23:23:23 <calamari> <poiuy_qwert> what in your opinion is the best language to write a dos window interpreter?
23:23:32 <poiuy_qwert> yes
23:23:49 <poiuy_qwert> and i dont know what "other dos emulators" is
23:24:12 <calamari> hmm.. well what is a "dos window interpreter"? maybe I misunderstand
23:24:38 <poiuy_qwert> like an interpreter that is run in a dos like window. something like Turbo Pascal
23:25:34 <calamari> well, if you can write it in ansi c, then it would also be portable to *nix
23:26:14 <poiuy_qwert> and ansi c is good for writing interpreters?
23:26:27 <fizzie> C and the curses API is a classic; there's pdcurses to run it on windows, and all *nix-alikes have it. (Isn't it part of POSIX anyway?)
23:26:37 <calamari> or are you trying to get full screen, colors, menus, mouse, etc?
23:26:58 <poiuy_qwert> curses is what i mean
23:27:07 <poiuy_qwert> i hmm i read curses is for python too
23:27:30 <calamari> poiuy_qwert: python is also a good choice, didn't know that ran in plain dos tho
23:27:58 <poiuy_qwert> yeah im running it on windows now
23:28:06 <fizzie> I would assume quite a lot of environments have curses bindings. Perl certainly does, and at least one Scheme interpreter. (Or was it a compiler?)
23:28:15 <calamari> if you have python available, I'd choose that over ansi c..
23:28:48 <jix> fizzie: ruby has curses bindings
23:29:07 <calamari> you lose a little speed, but it is a better lang overall
23:29:15 <poiuy_qwert> too bad i dont have cureses and cant find it for python
23:29:22 * calamari needs to get a ruby book
23:29:42 <jix> calamari: http://ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/ << this is the (free) 1st edition
23:29:46 * jix has the 2nd one at ome
23:30:03 <fizzie> http://flangy.com/dev/python/curses/
23:30:06 <calamari> jix: what is the style of the book.. reference?
23:30:08 <fizzie> "Curses for Windows for Python"
23:30:18 <jix> calamari: tutorial + reference
23:30:19 * calamari dislikes chatty books.. I like to look things up
23:30:24 <calamari> jix: cool
23:30:29 <jix> calamari: skip the first parts
23:31:10 <poiuy_qwert> (fizzie) nice, ty
23:31:11 <jix> i think the first 2 or 3 chapters are really boring because they explain to much obvious things... but the other part is really great
23:39:57 -!- kipple has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
23:42:58 <lament> poiuy_qwert: why the hell are you using ods?
23:43:00 <lament> dos
23:43:33 <poiuy_qwert> becuase if the language only has simple imput and output, why use something else?
23:43:46 <jix> i think he isn't using plain dos
23:44:01 <jix> because he said a dos window interpreter....
23:44:10 <jix> and in plain dos you don't have a dos window...
23:44:11 <poiuy_qwert> well cureses seems to give a special window so its not really dos
23:44:30 <jix> poiuy_qwert: i think you confuse the term dos with something else...
23:44:30 <lament> poiuy_qwert: because liunx is nice.
23:44:35 <lament> linux
23:44:36 <jix> dos is disk operating system...
23:44:43 <lament> and yes, i don't think dos means what you think it menas
23:44:44 <lament> *means
23:44:51 <poiuy_qwert> maybe im confusing it with cmd prompt :x
23:44:56 <jix> poiuy_qwert: right!
23:45:15 <poiuy_qwert> i just group dos and cmd as dos
23:45:24 <poiuy_qwert> i guess thats bad
23:45:30 <jix> poiuy_qwert: but dos allows you to use VGA graphics!
23:45:38 <poiuy_qwert> i see
23:48:44 <calamari> you can do anything with dos.. really :) even if that involves starting linux with loadlin ;)
23:50:23 <calamari> I use dos networking progs on my laptop to connect to my main system via ssh.. way faster than loading linux or windows to do the same thing. and, I can turn off the computer whenever I want to
23:54:27 <poiuy_qwert> :)
23:55:35 <jix> isn't there a SSH-OS ... has support for A LOT of network cards and maybe a WIFI scanner and a build in ssh client... would be cool
23:55:54 <jix> put it on a floppy or USB stick and access your computer from everywhere...
←2006-06-05 2006-06-06 2006-06-07→ ↑2006 ↑all