00:04:07 -!- Slereah_ has joined. 00:11:42 -!- RedDak has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 00:30:56 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 00:37:37 a 00:37:37 a 00:48:10 hey 00:48:16 b 00:48:16 b 00:53:51 -!- lilja has quit ("KVIrc 3.2.0 'Realia'"). 01:00:01 -!- psygnisf_ has joined. 01:00:01 -!- psygnisfive has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 01:24:40 -!- tusho has quit. 01:51:39 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 03:29:57 i<3NFAs 03:36:50 -!- psygnisf_ has changed nick to psygnisfive. 03:54:05 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 04:16:35 -!- calamari has joined. 05:34:55 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Connection timed out). 05:43:37 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 09:00:50 The NFA is no more powerful than a DFA and is more of a hassle to program. 09:09:15 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 09:14:12 dbc, this is esoteric, what did you expect ;P 09:14:52 Good point. 09:15:01 I'm working on MD5 in brainfuck at the moment :) 09:18:58 dbc: i prefer NFAs 09:19:04 i dont see how theyre more of a hassle to program, either 09:19:09 you're just weeb 09:19:10 .. 09:19:11 weak 09:19:15 like my spelling 09:23:14 They're "nondeterministic", so you either have to convert them to a DFA, or you have to keep track of a list of possibilities which is almost as much work as converting them to a DFA. 09:48:09 hm? 09:48:17 dbc, md5 in brainfuck 09:48:18 hahaha 09:51:35 -!- Dewi has quit (clarke.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 09:51:38 -!- Dewi has joined. 10:39:33 -!- tusho has joined. 12:04:32 * tusho tries to make os x forget about a domain's ip so his hosts entry will take effect 12:23:31 tusho, easy on Linux you know 12:23:37 as on OS X. 12:23:40 one command. 12:23:44 you said "tries" :P 12:23:46 lookupd -flushdns 12:23:51 AnMaster: Because I didn't know the command. 12:23:51 k 12:23:54 I see 12:48:09 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tiyk/not_just_me_then_wordpress_development_process_is/c04tsb4 "Ode" to WordPress 13:34:25 tusho: heh 13:36:48 Meanwhile, there are no decent blogging systems. 14:16:28 -!- MikeRiley has joined. 14:29:52 -!- AnMaster has quit ("thunderstorm"). 14:45:51 -!- pikhq has joined. 15:01:40 you about Deewiant??? 15:02:01 aye 15:02:33 working on documentation at the moment,,,,which fingerprints would you like to see better defined???? besides how R,L, and M work in STRN.... 15:03:00 well in general you should say what the parameters mean :-) 15:03:20 sometimes it's clear but (a b -- c d) generally isn't :-) 15:03:48 for FRTH, not everyone is familiar with Forth so you might want to explain the operations... 15:04:02 ok, on FRTH i can do that... 15:08:28 BTW, in general, RC/Funge-98 doesn't seem to use storage offsets for instructions that want vectors 15:08:36 if that was intentional (and if so, why??) document it 15:10:02 actually,,,it should use them,,,,if it is not,,,then those would be considered bugs.... 15:10:24 I think I checked the source and approximately none of them use it 15:10:33 that is possible..... 15:10:38 :-D 15:11:28 you might want to say it explicitly in the doc anyway: "Where vectors pointing to Funge-Space are used, the IP's storage offset should be applied" or whatever 15:12:38 good point.... 15:14:06 oh...I added a D command to the FILE fingerprint,,,,,to delete a file.... 15:18:14 Deewiant: 15:18:18 stack diagrams are pretty simmple 15:18:23 swap = (a b -- b a) 15:18:29 drop = (a b -- a) 15:18:32 dup = (a -- a a) 15:18:32 etc 15:18:37 stack before -- stack after 15:18:54 the Rc/Funge-98 manual does use stack diagrams for most all fingerprints... 15:40:45 tusho: I did not say they are hard to understand 15:40:58 but what does f = (a b -- c d) do? 15:41:14 Deewiant: well, duh, obviously you need more docs in that case 15:41:25 tusho: and that was my point. 15:41:27 OK 15:41:55 made not also that FNGR alters how the fingerprint stack works.... 15:42:26 MikeRiley: try not to mess with existing fingerprints too much, it's hard to support a moving standard 15:43:47 i agree,,,just clarifying mainly,,,only altered fingerprint so far is FILE, with an additional command... 15:44:34 otherwise, just clarifying what my intents were.... 15:44:40 good :-) 15:45:01 which may still be foggy when i am done.....but at least a bit less foggy!!! eheheheheehheeheh 15:47:41 so now you can impliment FNGR!!! since its spec now defines how the fingerprint stack works if it is loaded... 15:47:56 I don't think I will anyway >_< 15:48:27 too much work to rewrite most if not all of the fingerprint handling 15:49:41 yeah,,,it messes with the interpreter quite a bit....but much of my funge-98 software uses it... 15:50:04 what for? 15:51:14 when using multiple fingerprints in a program it makes it much more convenient to switch around the fingerprints without having to keep loading and unloading the ones you need as you need them... 15:51:53 with FNGR you can now use something like 1( to specify which loaded fingerprint you want to use... 15:52:03 I don't know, it's just 8 instructions to pick a new fingerprint :-) 15:52:10 instead of something like "OMAR"4#v( 15:52:11 "FOOB"4($$ 15:53:02 not that verbose considering how terse Befunge is in general ;-) 15:53:55 just a matter of preference i guess...i just like being able to switch among fingerprints with fewer instructions... 15:54:14 not to mention with FNGR you can custom make a fingerprint using commands from others to create a combined fingerprint to use.... 15:54:29 that was handy, yeah 15:54:40 in which sometimes i do not even need to switch between them, just copy the needed commands into a new fingerprint id... 15:55:05 maybe you should make a FING or whatever which incorporates as much as FNGR as possible without changing the way fingerprints works 15:55:19 hmm 15:55:23 I can't type today :-/ 15:55:28 interesting idea.... 15:55:34 s/as much as/as much of/; s/fingerprints works/fingerprints work/ 15:57:58 with that one could even add a command to remove a single semantic rather than entire fingerprint's worth... 15:58:08 yep 15:58:16 the funge fingerprint stack is strictly more powerful, I think :-P 15:58:22 or push the semantic again,,,such that when it is removed by another unload, it would still be there.... 15:58:35 interesting idea....i think i will formalize the definition of this,,,,could be usefull... 15:59:42 then for example you could load ROMA folloed by MODU, then unload just the M so that the rest of MODU is there and the M from ROMA would act for M.... 15:59:47 yep 15:59:57 i like the idea.... 16:00:14 that's what I thought you would have done instead of changing FNGR to be feral :-) 16:00:29 FNGR to me was more usefull for what i was doing... 16:00:45 but this new fingerprint has its uses as well... 16:01:41 would you prefer something like 'AP to pop off the A semantic or something like 0P to pop off the A semantic, 1P to pop of b,,,etc... 16:02:03 why not both? :-) 16:02:18 if in range A-Z, that, if in range 0-25, that + 'A', otherwise reflect 16:02:24 yea,,,i suppose both could be done,,,sine the number ranges would not overlap, would be possible to detect... 16:05:31 -!- Ilari has quit (""Won't be back for a while...""). 16:05:34 starting ideas: 16:05:38 D - Duplicate all semantics 16:05:38 E - Duplicate single semantic (0-25 or A-Z) 16:05:38 O - Pop off single semantic (0-25 or A-Z) 16:05:38 P - Pop off all semantics 16:05:38 M - Map semantic from one location to another (within top of each stack) 16:05:39 C - Copy semantic from one fingerprint to tos of another semantic 16:06:59 so M pops before pushing the new semantic to the target instruction? 16:07:14 either do it that way, or push it on.... 16:07:35 i like the idea of pushing it on 16:07:41 could have another instrution to replace it? 16:07:55 not really necessary since you can just do a O then 16:08:04 true.... 16:09:03 and C would be like "AMOR"4'X'AC so that A now does what X in ROMA does, or what? 16:10:21 if you loaded ROMA and then MODU but wanted the M from roma, and the M from from MODU, you could do something like 'M'AC making A act like the M from roma... 16:10:49 before the 'M you would need the fingerprint id on teh stack as well (like what ) uses) 16:11:13 so it's exactly what I said? :-P 16:11:20 yes!!! eheheheheehheeh 16:11:51 where as 'M'AM would make A act like the M from MODU... 16:13:33 what else would you like to see in it??? 16:14:24 maybe FRTH-like deep access commands for the individual fingerprint stacks? 16:15:11 something that takes the nth semantic and brings it to the top, something that swaps the nth and the top one... 16:15:14 good idea.... 16:15:49 S - Swap nth semantic with top 16:15:49 K - Copy nth semantic to top 16:16:03 R - Roll semantic stack 16:16:45 W - Swap top two semantics 16:17:07 roll should work both directions,,,so negative number rolls in reverse... 16:17:26 -!- Corun has joined. 16:17:35 just remember to document what roll does, at least by pointing to FRTH :-) 16:17:43 i can do that!!! eheheeheheheh 16:18:39 L - Clear all semantics in a given stack 16:19:32 Z - unload all fingerprints 16:20:01 hmm, P is just shorthand for "LLUN"4) 16:20:28 maybe,,,depending on how things are implemented.... 16:20:38 NULL would push on the new semantics... 16:20:44 P is more like ) 16:20:48 that was a )... 16:21:00 except ) requires a fingerprint P does not... 16:21:18 well, I think it's fair to assume that if something implements this fingerprint it also implements NULL :-P 16:21:27 very likely.... 16:21:44 so P is just a one-character "LLUN"4) 16:21:48 which means P is just a 1 character command to do it... 16:21:51 yes... 16:22:36 yes... 16:22:37 F - Copy all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack 16:22:47 eh? 16:22:50 actually, push them,,, 16:22:58 isn't that exactly (? :-P 16:23:17 so for example,,,,load ROMA, load MODU then F would allow you to take all of ROMA's semantics and place them above MODU.... 16:23:29 so, isn't that exactly the same thing as ( 16:23:45 maybe,,,,,could define it as copy instead of push??? 16:23:57 which replaces all the MODU ones that are the same... 16:24:10 hm 16:24:16 so 16:24:24 that's "LLUN"4) followed by ( 16:24:28 or P followed by ( 16:24:33 no.... 16:24:41 how not 16:24:50 since whatever semantics that ROMA did not implement,,,,would still work with MODU... 16:25:02 oh, right 16:25:04 so it's 16:25:11 "AMOR"4) followed by "AMOR"4( 16:25:19 yes....that would be more like it.... 16:26:39 and I'm not sure how useful that is :-P 16:26:40 B - Create a blank semantic on top of all A-Z 16:27:04 eh? 16:27:09 "LLUN"4( ? 16:27:26 would push the transparent on top of all the stack entries.... 16:27:47 so, isn't that the same as D? 16:27:50 then you could use C to fill it in... 16:28:14 yes and no....in D there will be 2 copies of all the semantics...with B there is one with a layer of transparent above it... 16:28:30 transparency makes it feral again 16:28:40 hmmmmmmmm 16:28:45 good point... 16:29:08 actually,,,,,why would it make it feral??? 16:29:26 still remains re-entrant for all IPs..... 16:30:01 it's feral in that you have to mess with the fingerprint implementation 16:30:22 hmmmmmmmm,,,,,maybe yours,,,not mine....eheheheheheheheehheeheheh but understand your point... 16:30:37 well, if you only have a standard fingerprint implementation 16:31:02 how do you implement transparency in your Mycology-passing one :-P 16:31:08 when my fingerprint implementation was made, i allowed for transparent entries from the start....so no change in mine.....but i see you point.... 16:31:14 removing B from spec... 16:31:55 in my fingerprint stacks,,,anything that is 0 is transparent and falls through to the next entry on the stack... 16:32:13 ah, so if somebody implements a fingerprint with the id 0, that breaks :-) 16:32:21 nope,,,it would not.... 16:32:29 or oh, right 16:32:36 misthought 16:32:41 no problem,,,, 16:33:03 using the transparent entries allowed me to implement FNGR.... 16:33:19 as far as executing fingerprint commands,,,the zeros do not exist.... 16:33:30 that is why it can pass Mycology now... 16:33:53 my fingerprint mechanism has not changed,,,,i just changed how the unload works if FNGR is not loaded.... 16:36:49 in past version, doing an unload of a fingerprint removed all the corresponding stack entries for the given fingerprint,,,,now it removes them individually from each semantic,,,, 16:37:04 so works like the spec,,,but still implemented in a way that FNGR can still work... 16:42:30 officially i am calling the new fingerprint FING... 16:44:32 C - Copy semantic from one fingerprint to tos of another semantic 16:44:32 D - Duplicate all semantics 16:44:32 E - Duplicate single semantic (0-25 or A-Z) 16:44:32 F - Copy all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack 16:44:32 K - Copy nth semantic to top 16:44:33 L - Clear all semantics in a given stack 16:44:35 M - Map semantic from one location to another (within top of each stack) 16:44:37 O - Pop off single semantic (0-25 or A-Z) 16:44:39 P - Pop off all semantics 16:44:41 S - Swap nth semantic with top 16:44:43 R - Roll semantic stack 16:44:45 V - Move all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack 16:44:47 W - Swap top two semantics 16:44:49 Z - unload all fingerprints 16:45:50 V? 16:47:18 how does it work? 16:47:25 like F but moves the entries... 16:47:32 instead of copying them... 16:47:33 er... 16:48:11 I'm not seeing it 16:48:29 if "AMOR"4F is the same as "AMOR"4)"AMOR"4( what is "AMOR"4V? 16:48:34 would be like roll,,,,except by fingerprint id instead of a stack location... 16:48:51 what if ROMA was deeper in the stack???? 16:49:07 a fingerprint is never in the stack 16:49:15 the semantics for it are... 16:49:25 yeah, and not necessarily completely 16:49:37 suppose you had ROMA, TURT, IIPC, MODU 16:49:56 and wanted to move ROMA to the top,,,V will do that giving TURT, IIPC, MODU, ROMA 16:50:09 removing the semantics from the stack where it originally was.... 16:50:22 F would have given: ROMA, TURT, IIPC, MODU, ROMA... 16:50:23 but how do you know where it originally was 16:50:30 it is impossible 16:50:31 easy....look at the stack entry... 16:50:39 no, this is feral again 16:50:45 i do not think so.... 16:50:58 it is easy to look at the stack entries to see which fingerprint a semantic belongs to... 16:51:06 not in my interpreter it isn't :-P 16:51:14 I just store function pointers 16:51:20 0xdeadbeef, quick, is it ROMA or MODU? ;-) 16:51:23 why not??? even if they are funtion pointers,,,you can still tell... 16:52:13 in mine it is really easy because i use function numbering rather than references,,,,but even with function pointers it would still be possible to tell.... 16:52:24 well yeah... loop through the stack for 'A', and compare the pointers to each fingerprint's 'A'... 16:52:29 you just now have to compare the function references against the funtions and see which one it belongs to.... 16:52:44 yes....loop through the stack... 16:52:52 so then, how about if you've got ROMA and then unloaded MODU 16:53:00 so you've got a semi-ROMA at the bottom of the stack 16:53:11 if you lose semantics, obviously they would still be lost.... 16:53:22 then you will be moving a semi ROMA to the top... 16:53:32 what if you have two different semi-ROMAs on the stack 16:53:42 e.g. you have I and X from ROMA at depth 5 and V at depth 6 16:53:43 would take the first one encountered... 16:54:02 do you get only I and X, or do you traverse all the way to the bottom of each stack? 16:54:04 if V was not in the one at 5,,,,,it would get copied from the one at 6... 16:54:27 i would traverse until you found all the relevent semantics,,,once one is found, it does not look deeper in that stack... 16:54:30 see, this is the kind of stuff you need to document ;-) 16:54:40 yeah,,,,i agree!!!!!! 16:57:15 technically,,,even FNGR could be made to work using this scheme....but will stick with the new FING for doing this kind of thing... 16:58:13 any other functions you would like in this fingerprint??? 17:00:25 I still think that's feral though 17:00:37 because you're essentially putting an additional constraint on the fingerprint implementation 17:00:37 which??? 17:00:47 namely, that you need to be able to compare two semantics for equality 17:00:58 V 17:01:13 then so would F.... 17:01:24 not if V is equivalent to ) followed by ( 17:01:27 er 17:01:27 F 17:02:00 but using ) would remove semantics from another fingerprint if the one you are trying to copy is below it... 17:02:13 that's what I originally thought you meant :-P 17:02:17 and they share the same command... 17:02:21 but if not, then yes, F is also feral 17:02:37 i disagree that it is feral... 17:02:49 does not change how the fingerprint stacks work.... 17:03:04 it's reasonable that you're working in a language or environment in which you can't compare functions for equality 17:03:24 just that the code to do it needs to be able to do F or V needs to be able to determine which fingerprint a semantic in the stack belongs to...does not change the implementation of the fingerprint stacks themselves... 17:03:24 then you could have implemented CCBI fully, but not this FING 17:03:39 yeah, but that can change the implementation of the fingerprint stack 17:04:09 i do not see why... 17:04:35 tusho: was it you who asked about HRTI and TRDS together? from the spec of HRTI: "This timer is not affected by 'time travel' contrivances." 17:04:46 MikeRiley: well, you need to store additional data there 17:04:56 maybe we're disagreeing about what feral means 17:05:42 maybe you need to store additional data,,,maybe you do not...in mine,,,you do not....if it is coded in c...you do not....if you are writing an interpreter then it is easy to be able to use fingerprint mechanaism that can deal with this... 17:05:57 possible we may have different meanings for it... eheheheeheheh 17:06:02 hmm, I see now, I was using a wrong meaning of 'feral', yes 17:06:17 okay, so then it's not feral 17:06:20 :-P 17:06:23 from my reading of the spec, feral refers to something that changes how the interpreter interprets something....like FNGR's changing ( and ) 17:06:36 yeah, evidently 17:06:45 FING does not change how anything works... 17:06:55 everything works the same... 17:06:58 I was thinking that feral includes stuff that requires you to change internal interpreter data structures 17:07:04 or may require you to, as the case may be 17:07:20 we do have different definitions!! eheheheheehhe 17:07:29 back shortly,,,breakfast calls... 17:07:33 yeah, and your definition is what the spec says so you're right I suppose :-) 17:12:58 Back 17:13:16 was it you who asked about HRTI and TRDS together? 17:13:17 no 17:14:08 meh 17:19:07 idea: 17:19:15 an esolang designed to reduce memory fragmentation 17:20:02 (other than one where all pointers are at knonw locations) 17:24:12 back 17:25:35 -!- timotiis has joined. 17:25:56 -!- Sgeo has joined. 17:35:11 SimonRC: cool 17:35:49 SimonRC: brainfuck? :-) 17:36:16 or I guess that fails your criterion 17:41:01 brainfuck is not good for the speed, which is what I wanted the reduced memory fragmentation for 17:41:29 actually, I have been giving a little thought to pointer-free datastructures 17:43:05 e.g. pointer-free trees 17:43:18 lots of lengths and offsets rather than pointers 17:43:41 Deewiant: i started to implement FING in Rc/Funge-98....now you are going to have to think about adding it to Mycology!!! eheheheheheh 17:44:17 not necessarily :-P 17:44:33 the fingerprints in Mycology are just a bonus, the core is what matters :-) 17:44:35 true,,,there are other extensions you do not test... 17:44:55 still very surprised you wrote a test for TRDS!!! 17:44:58 tree = branch (length, tree tree) | leaf (length, data) 17:44:59 hmm 17:45:18 well I had to given that I was insane enough to implement it :-P 17:45:52 eeheheheheheheh i never figured anybody would ever try to implement that one!!! 17:46:11 and yet you wrote a spec and did a half-assed implementation yourself :-P 17:46:19 as it was,,,i only partially implemented it.... 17:46:27 if your implementation had just worked properly, maybe I wouldn't have done it myself ^_^ 17:46:52 how does it handle user input? 17:46:55 yeah,,,,,but my implementation was nowhere near complete...and i knew it!!!! 17:48:10 waitamo, I can see a problem with HRTI 17:48:30 HRTI would be inconsistant when used with TRDS... 17:48:43 the two probably should not be used together... 17:48:47 oh, wait, I was reading it wrong 17:48:53 but then,,,,you could deal with that as well... 17:49:28 in that case, S doesn't look too useful. 17:49:32 SimonRC: essentially, doing input in a program that uses TRDS is undefined. :-P 17:50:03 S would certainly not effect results from HRTI, but its intent was to allow an IP to do something while all other IPs were frozen... 17:50:50 MikeRiley: maybe you should have appended to the TRDS specs "this is a half-implemented joke, please ignore it" ;-) 17:51:23 eheheheheheheheeheheheheheheheheheheh 17:51:37 but in theory....it is implementable!!! 17:51:47 yes, somewhat 17:51:55 as written,,,,it should be possible... 17:51:56 I have one or two hacks of which I'm not at all sure though 17:52:14 can't remember the details but there are a few 50-line comments in CCBI :-P 17:52:20 no, I meant HRTI's S 17:52:54 what about HRTI's S??? 17:54:03 well, it doesn't have an instruction to get the whole number of seconds 17:54:28 what do you mean? 17:54:41 whole number of seconds since the last second? ;-) 17:54:45 true it does not.....use TIME to get the seconds... 17:54:53 MikeRiley: or just the y command... 17:54:59 and if the whole number of seconds and fractional seconds are read by two instructins, the fractional result could roll over between them, giving you bogus results 17:55:02 that works too... 17:55:09 true... 17:55:21 if you are trying to time something,,, then use M and T 17:55:21 yeah, I never really understood the point of S 17:55:38 I think it's just so that you can give a more accurate measure of what the current time is 17:55:43 by combining it with y 17:56:04 yeah,,,not real sure what the real intent for S was... 17:56:21 another Cat's Eye spec that is a bit ambiguous.... 17:56:36 no, that's quite clear actually :-P 17:56:48 it doesn't tell you what you should do with an instruction but it's quite explicit about what it does 17:57:04 yep... 17:57:46 hey! 17:58:29 NFA's arent THAT hard to program.. 17:58:58 especially if you have some set operations available 17:59:13 and converting to a DFA isnt THAT hard either 17:59:43 how does this spec look: 17:59:44 FING 17:59:44 C (fp n src dst -- ) - Copy semantic from one fingerprint to tos of another semantic 17:59:44 D ( -- ) - Duplicate all semantics 17:59:44 E (n -- ) - Duplicate single semantic (0-25 or A-Z) 17:59:44 F (fp n -- ) - Copy all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack 17:59:46 K (sem n -- ) - Copy nth semantic to top 17:59:48 L (sem -- ) - Clear all semantics in a given stack 17:59:50 M (src dst -- ) - Map semantic from one location to another (within top of each stack) 17:59:52 O (sem -- ) - Pop off single semantic (0-25 or A-Z) 17:59:54 P ( -- ) - Pop off all semantics 17:59:56 S ( sem n -- ) - Swap nth semantic with top 17:59:58 R ( sem n -- ) - Roll semantic stack 18:00:00 V (fp n -- ) - Move all of given fingerprint's semantics to top of stack 18:00:02 W (sem -- ) - Swap top two semantics 18:00:04 Z ( -- ) - unload all fingerprints 18:00:06 fp n - same as used for ( command 18:00:08 sem - Semantic (A-Z or 0-25) 18:00:10 src - Semantic (A-Z or 0-25) 18:00:12 dst - Semantic (A-Z or 0-25) 18:00:56 well, I do hope you'll explain more about CFKMRV than just that :-) 18:01:08 i will.... 18:01:12 for Z, I'd rather say "clear all semantic stacks" or something 18:01:20 -!- sebbu2 has quit ("@+"). 18:01:25 ok,,,, 18:01:36 Z ( -- ) - Clear all semantic stacks 18:01:37 and maybe be explicit about that 0-25 map to A-Z 18:01:51 ok, hold on.... 18:01:53 otherwise people will be confused about what the 0-25 is about 18:02:39 When semantics are used the value can either be the Ascii values of A through Z directly 18:02:39 specifying which command is being worked on or the number 0-25, where 0=A, 1=B, etc. 18:02:49 how is that?? 18:03:16 a bit of a run-on sentence but fine :-) 18:03:29 english was never my strongest subject!!! eheheheheehheeh 18:04:32 -!- timotiis has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 18:06:37 V and F: These commands expect a fingerprint in the same form as the ( command. 18:06:37 These commands will then search through all semantic stacks for commands belonging 18:06:37 to the requested fingerprint. V will then move the found entry to the top of the 18:06:37 semantic stack moving all others down. F will copy the semantics to the top of 18:06:37 the stack leaving the originals where they are. Both of these commands overwrite 18:06:38 what is currently on the top of the stack. Thse commands work on the semantic stacks 18:06:40 for all the instructions A-Z. 18:06:40 -!- Hiato has joined. 18:10:07 M: This command allows you to map a semantic from one command to another. This command 18:10:07 only works on the semantics that are on top of the stack. The first value popped off 18:10:07 of the stack specifies which semantic is being remapped. The 2nd value specifies which 18:10:07 semantic is to assign. The A-Z or 0-25 methoed of specifying the semantic is valid 18:10:07 for this instruction. Example: 'A'BM would map the B semantic to A such that when 18:10:08 A is executed in the program it will perform the function of B. 18:10:47 MikeRiley: that makes M sound like IMAP 18:11:15 "when A is executed in the program it will perform the function that B had when M was executed" or something would be better IMO 18:11:26 it is very similar to imap....except that it is not mapping, it is copying the actual semantic code to the destination.... 18:11:38 yes, I know 18:11:45 but that makes it sound as though it does exactly what IMAP does 18:12:03 ok how about: 18:12:09 Example: 'A'BM would map the B semantic to A such that when 18:12:10 A is executed in the program it will perform the function previously assigned to B. 18:12:41 no, I still don't think that makes it clear that when B gets new functionality or loses its old, A remains the same. :-) 18:13:34 B did not change,,,A did.... 18:13:48 A was changed to have B's function 18:13:55 yes, exactly 18:13:59 ok,,,hold on 18:14:12 but that doesn't make it clear that if you then unload B, A remains doing what B used to do 18:14:23 ok,,,,just a sec 18:15:09 -!- sebbu has joined. 18:15:33 Example: 'A'BM would assign the semantic associated with B to the 18:15:33 A command such that when A is executed it would execute the function that was assigned to 18:15:34 B when the M command was executed. Unloading B would not affect the new definition of A. 18:15:45 better :-) 18:15:58 C: This command is similar to the M command in that it allows you to change how the top 18:15:58 semantic on a stack works. The difference is that C takes the semantic from another 18:15:58 fingerprint rather than the top of semantic stack specified by the source. 18:18:38 just thought of a major problem with this fingerprint.... 18:18:58 with it loaded,,,most of the remapping commands are going to be working on its own commands rather than the ones below it!!!! 18:19:11 :-) 18:19:29 maybe you should make it smaller, then ;-) 18:19:30 hmmmmmmmmmmmm 18:20:31 or,,,,(not terribly wild about this idea,,,just a thought) it operates on teh semantic stacks as if the FING semantics were not on them.... 18:21:10 that'd mean it can't operate on itself at all 18:21:25 exactly....did not say it was a good idea...just a thought.... 18:21:54 this is probably why FNGR works off the () commands,,,to avoid this problem.... 18:22:15 but that is definitely feral behaviour... 18:23:18 actually,,,it could operate on itself....first duplicate all the semantic stacks,,,,perform whatever operation and then pop off FING.... 18:23:47 but of course,,,it needs FING's duplicate all command!!! so that will not work.... 18:24:05 hmm, that would work, wouldn't it? 18:24:18 because of course it can still execute the duplicate all command :-P 18:25:03 but if it were executing duplicate all as if FING was not on the stack,,,it would be duplicating everything underneaht it... 18:25:03 hey guyssss 18:25:20 oh yeah, true 18:25:24 actually,,,you could load it twice.... 18:25:34 then it would be duplicated without using FING to do it... 18:26:17 let me ask you somfing 18:26:23 when you hear the word "formalism" 18:26:33 e.g. "formal language", "formal grammar", etc. 18:26:41 what do you think of, what does it mean to you? 18:26:54 to me it would meaned it is an accepted standard... 18:28:22 anyone else? 18:28:59 by doing "GNIF"4(:1( you could now use FING to modify the FING copy underneath it,,,,then drop off the first one and now you have a modified one to use... 18:29:41 psygnisfive: computer parsable 18:29:48 instead of just an informal, roughly-specified, humans-only 18:29:57 not ad hoc 18:30:01 MikeRiley: (: wouldn't work, it'd have to be ($: 18:30:25 well,,,you get my meaning... 18:30:37 yes 18:30:57 tusho: elaborate on your distinction between "formal" and "informal" 18:31:03 psygnisfive: no 18:31:08 :( 18:31:08 that's as much as i can give 18:31:11 ok. 18:32:14 to me,,,formal would indicate it adheres to a specified standard, nothing added, nothing removed... 18:34:00 brb 18:41:23 -!- calamari has joined. 18:47:40 back 18:49:31 All FING commands operate as if FING were not on the semantic stacks. The equivalent 18:49:31 operation would be as: 18:49:31 i=SemPop(semantic) 18:49:31 do useful work 18:49:31 SemPush(semantic,i) 18:49:32 In order to actually modify commands within FING you would need to load two copies as in: 18:49:34 "GNIF"4)$:1) 18:49:36 Make the modifications and then drop off the top copy with ) 18:51:06 or else: FING operates on the sos downwards instead of the tos.... 19:05:11 -!- AnMaster has joined. 19:06:59 MikeRiley, hi again 19:07:13 hello!!! 19:07:40 been hashing out a new fingerpritn to make people's lives miserable!!! eheheheheeheheheh 19:09:07 it seems the lang-o-meter has swung from brainfuck to befunge in the last few monthes 19:09:29 i bet it swings all over the place in cycles.... 19:10:46 SimonRC: it hasn't been brainfuck for ages. 19:10:47 years. 19:11:22 no, months 19:11:39 when was the big PEBBLE and co surge? 19:12:34 co? 19:12:37 oh 19:12:37 hm 19:12:42 that was 2007 19:12:46 really? 19:12:52 I thought it must have been early 2008 19:13:09 It spanned from 2006 to 2007, IIRC. 19:13:32 doesn't time fly 19:13:38 And since when was it PEBBLE and co? :p 19:13:38 -!- atrapado has joined. 19:13:39 especially when one is using TRDS 19:13:47 eheheheheeheheheheheh 19:14:09 i still want trdsfuck 19:14:12 actually 19:14:14 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 19:14:17 how about a lang that requires TRDS to be tc 19:15:15 well, you could remove any non-constant jumps except those through time? 19:15:29 shrug 19:15:34 or through spaceime 19:15:43 ooh 19:15:44 i'd like that 19:16:46 gottit! 19:16:52 you have a train 19:17:30 and some of the switches pointone way by default, but point the other way when there is a train in a certain other position 19:18:11 then you can only make decisions by timing your jump right to switch your earlier self to go another way or not 19:18:37 intersting concept!!! eheheheheheeh 19:19:19 SimonRC: wow. 19:19:20 actually, I wonder if one can use the signalling rules from OTTD to make a turing-complete machine 19:19:20 uh. 19:19:28 (without the time-travel) 19:19:31 SimonRC: what is an infinite loop in that? 19:19:33 invent a syntax 19:19:35 one instruction per char, of course 19:19:37 it's a tarpit 19:19:39 ;) 19:19:41 I'm more of an ideas guy 19:19:46 awwww 19:34:22 -!- olsner has quit ("Leaving"). 19:34:56 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 19:48:04 -!- MikeRiley has left (?). 19:49:27 -!- oklopol has joined. 19:50:15 SimonRC, nice idea with switches 19:50:52 tusho, anyway you code it 19:51:46 AnMaster: why? 19:51:55 i was curious about his idea 19:52:03 so I asked him what an infinite loop would look like 19:52:42 hrrm 19:52:51 tusho, you would lay the track in a circle? 19:52:54 that could work 19:52:59 AnMaster: that doesn't involve time travel 19:53:00 :P 19:53:13 tusho, well changing the switches does 19:53:20 anyway infinite loop then is easy 19:53:25 just jump to now -2 19:53:27 or whatever 19:53:34 and you get an infinite loop 19:53:46 tusho, see what I mean? 19:53:49 yes 19:53:54 but I was hoping for something a bit more contrived 19:53:54 :P 19:54:01 an infinite loop would just be a loop of track actually 19:54:02 to actually demonstrate the changing history part 19:54:05 well I'm not much of an idea guy 19:54:05 it has no condition 19:54:48 it's only conditional jumps that require switches, which require the possibility of a seond train, which requires time-travel 19:54:53 it should use an XML format IMO, just to piss of everyone 19:54:54 19:55:10 19:55:16 err wait 19:55:35 19:55:37 even 19:55:41 then of course: 19:55:43 19:55:49 oh wait 19:55:50 switches too 19:55:51 hrrm 19:56:03 or you could use a sane format if you wanted :P 19:56:31 SimonRC, go and implement it! 20:00:51 -!- Corun has joined. 20:04:39 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 20:10:17 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 20:18:46 i stand before you with dry balls 20:20:05 line 1: The reference "balls" is abmiguous. 20:20:33 Please disambiguate. 20:20:45 ABMIGUOUS 20:28:55 DISABMIGUATIONIFIXATION COMPLETE 20:29:42 SimonRC: when i say something obscure, it's usually means either nothing, or is a south park quote 20:32:04 ok 20:33:01 -!- Comtech2 has joined. 20:33:09 -!- Comtech2 has left (?). 20:33:42 -!- ihope has joined. 20:33:48 -!- MikeRiley has joined. 20:34:03 tusho, you have no sisters. 20:34:08 Yes, I'm being sexist. Sorry. 20:34:19 ihope: err 20:34:20 what 20:35:31 You do have a sister? 20:36:04 eh? 20:36:18 (maybe she got a brother though?) 20:36:19 * AnMaster runs 20:38:23 Actually, would it be sexist to mostly-jokingly guess that nobody on #esoteric has any sisters? 20:38:26 * ihope shrugs 20:40:30 tusho, I need to ask you a question as a OS X user 20:40:38 tusho, wtf is the command "ditto" on OS X 20:40:38 yes, AnMaster? 20:40:43 uh 20:40:43 beat sme 20:40:49 To install the results, become root and do 20:40:50 ditto build/dst / 20:40:50 let's see 20:40:52 on OS X 20:40:54 dude 20:40:55 it's a bsd command 20:40:56 not os x 20:40:57 command not found here 20:40:58 fortunately, google knows all 20:40:59 http://www.google.com/search?q=man%20ditto 20:41:00 tusho, ah! 20:41:06 from what I can tell 20:41:11 NAME 20:41:11 ditto -- copy files and directories to a destination directory 20:41:11 ditto -- copy directory hierarchies, create and extract archives 20:41:23 hmm ok 20:41:26 seems to be os x 20:41:27 ah 20:41:27 but whatever 20:43:15 tusho, I'm trying to finally build LLVM 20:43:27 to try it out 20:43:56 but as it is coded in C++ this will take ages heh 20:49:56 vacuuming fruit flies = the stuff 20:50:23 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooook 20:58:32 oklopol! :D 20:58:33 <3 20:59:02 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 21:02:32 ! 21:05:05 -!- lilja has joined. 21:15:06 -!- MikeRiley has left (?). 21:20:37 -!- Hiato has quit ("Leaving."). 21:41:58 sup oklopol 21:42:00 hows it goin 21:42:33 well it's pretty high up in the classical sense 21:42:40 :p 21:42:47 i mean 21:42:48 oklopol 21:42:50 goin fine 21:42:52 when you hear the words "formal", "formalism", etc. e.g. "formal language", "formal grammar", etc. what do you think of, what does it mean to you? 21:43:03 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 21:43:09 it's a visual thought with lots of pretty graphs 21:43:17 ?? 21:43:22 lol 21:43:38 what do you believe formalism means, in that usage? 21:43:42 lol yourself hotboy :| 21:44:04 -!- olsner has joined. 21:44:14 hotboy huh 21:44:44 err, what it means? umm, i assumed like a formal grammar generation ruleset. 21:44:58 "formalism" doesn't strike as anything specific to me 21:45:09 right but what qualifies something as formal, as opposed to informal 21:45:10 err 21:45:16 grammar isn't usually generated of course 21:45:32 i meant a formal language generation ruleset, which is really cookietalk for formal grammar 21:45:45 psygnisfive: i honestly don't know 21:45:48 ok 21:45:59 do tell 21:46:07 i will, eventually. :p 21:46:13 so awesome 21:46:18 "hotboy"? 21:46:23 :) 21:46:36 lilja! :D 21:46:37 hey. 21:46:38 psygnisfive: don't read too much into that 21:46:42 hey hey 21:46:47 well i AM in florida, so it is pretty hot here 21:47:58 psygnisfive: well what is this formalism everybody talks about nowadays? 21:47:59 Computer programs are formal. Exact English descriptions are formal. Stuff like "really close" is not formal. Stuff like "A set is something that contains things" is not formal. 21:48:23 ihope, sort of. :) 21:48:44 really close is clearly fuzzy logic 21:48:45 in that your final sentence is correct, but everything else is "maybe" 21:49:10 the last is simply a true sentence 21:49:35 noone i talk to seems to know what formalism is! :( 21:49:55 well do tell 21:50:07 in a bit. im making a bumper sticker right now. 21:50:10 "My other car is a cdr." 21:50:11 :D 21:50:31 that makes no sense, but i guess it's funny. 21:50:42 its a lisp inside joke. :P 21:50:50 what's the point? 21:50:59 how is a car a cdr? 21:51:00 if i were a scheme fanatic i'd be more inclined to say "My other car is a first." 21:51:14 but that's a bit too hard to get for the casual lisp driver. 21:51:22 car and cdr are mirror images of one another. 21:51:30 err, everyone knows what they are 21:51:36 ok. 21:51:37 oklopol: 'My other car is a Toyoto' 21:51:38 *toyota 21:51:40 so whats the problem? :P 21:51:40 it's a parody of that 21:51:45 tusho: i know that too 21:51:50 just saying that makes no sense imo 21:51:56 why doesnt it make sense? 21:52:05 well, technically it doesn't 21:52:09 cdr isn't "another car" 21:52:12 it's a different operation 21:52:13 but still. 21:52:17 indeed 21:52:20 but when you think about it 21:52:22 indeed, it's just "haha car is like a list operation too xDxD" 21:52:31 but it doesn't actually make sense 21:52:33 the only REALLY difference is that they select different members of a cons pair 21:52:35 Read SICP. :p 21:52:52 and you could swap all car/cdr operations and you'd get no changes in behavior 21:53:10 you'd have to swap cons psygnisfive 21:53:22 at which point, uhh, you've just swapped the two functions 21:53:22 and the list syntax? 21:53:25 no, you couldn't. 21:53:33 well 21:53:38 (car (cons 1 2) 21:53:40 so long as (Car (cons a b)) = a 21:53:42 -> (cdr (cons 1 2) 21:53:45 beep, fail 21:53:49 your swaps don't work 21:54:00 uh tusho 21:54:06 (cdr (cons 1 2)) => 2 21:54:13 ... 21:54:19 yes 21:54:22 so they return different values 21:54:26 yes they do 21:54:29 so swapping all car/cdr applications DOESN'T WORK 21:54:32 but if (cdr (cons 1 2)) => 1 21:54:39 and (car (cons 1 2)) => 2 21:54:43 psygnisfive: Then you've renamed 'car' to 'cdr'. 21:54:44 then wheres the problem? 21:54:44 come to #esoteric to see people know everything and assume others don't know anything 21:54:45 And vise-versa. 21:54:48 tusho: ofcourse 21:54:53 but tell me how car and cdr REALLY different 21:54:55 psygnisfive: And swapped cons' argument order. 21:54:59 You can do that with any two functions. 21:55:17 car and cdr differ only in that they map to different members of a cons pair 21:55:33 cdr = the part of a cons not returned by car 21:55:34 and vice versa 21:55:43 yes 21:55:48 but ultimately they're identical in behavior. 21:55:48 -!- AnMaster has quit ("night"). 21:56:12 since a cons pair isn't _actually_ an ordered item, abstractly speaking 21:56:22 iddizn't? 21:56:30 whether not abstractly 21:56:32 consider 21:56:40 if (1 . 2) 21:56:40 I think the point is that the only way you can tell car-ops and cdr-ops apart is by working on an assymetrical known cons pair. 21:56:43 BUT 21:56:47 then (car (1 . 2)) => 1 right? 21:56:54 but i could jsut as easily define 21:56:59 (car (2 . 1)) => 1 21:57:09 the particular order in a given representation is irrelevant 21:57:10 you *can* tell car-ops and cdr-ops apart by operating on an assymetrical know cons pair 21:57:11 psygnisfive, tusho: why are you arguing when you agree with each other? 21:57:24 ihope, dunno :D 21:57:29 I'm pointing out that psygnisfive's use to claim that that makes car and cdr almost the same is silly 21:57:40 SimonRC: sure, if the assymetry is dependent on car-vs-cdr 21:57:43 but consider lists 21:57:45 ass-ymetry 21:57:57 if lists were instead built by having the CAR of each pair point to the rest of the list 21:58:08 tusho the perverted spell-checker 21:58:10 then all you need to do is swap cdring down a list for caring down a list 21:58:14 If you swap car and cdr and then swap cons, some syntactical things, and maybe other stuff, you get exactly the same behavior. 21:58:19 oklopol: xkcd reference actually 21:58:21 and you get the exact same behavior 21:58:27 Man, that's a sweet ass-car. 21:58:53 ihope: yes 21:59:01 car and cdr are ultimately the same in what they actually DO, except that each is bound to a different part of the cons pair 21:59:05 What a bad-ass ociation. 21:59:13 the cons pair itself being abstractly unordered 21:59:21 ihope: Wow. 21:59:24 That's... 21:59:28 so theres no real way to tell them apart except in how your system uses car and cdr. 21:59:36 reverse assing.. 21:59:41 Yeah! 21:59:42 read sicp 21:59:51 who read sicp? 21:59:59 psygnisfive: Sussman. 22:00:06 i know who wrote sicp thanks :P 22:00:11 i mean, who should read it 22:00:24 psygnisfive: To find out, read SICP. 22:00:25 When will it be that computers generally optimize all executables before running them? 22:00:30 to find out what? 22:00:37 psygnisfive: Who should read SICP. 22:00:38 psygnisfive: anyway i think everyone here and really everywhere know what car/cdr are 22:00:51 you're confusing tusho :( 22:01:01 the argument is so silly you could like feed it porridge and make it sit on your face. 22:01:02 Or, better, while running them. 22:01:06 psygnisfive: No, I've just read my SICP. 22:01:13 ok? 22:01:22 whats your point??? 22:01:23 tusho: if I read SICP, will we get along well? 22:01:28 ihope: Read SICP to find out. 22:01:35 Okay. 22:01:38 X_X 22:02:20 psygnisfive: i think it's you who he's accusing of sicp-ignorance 22:02:42 oklopol: You are incorrect. To find out why, read SICP. 22:02:57 i think sicp is a long book with too little confusing mind-numbing math 22:02:59 ive been through sicp more than once. im far from ignorant of it. :P 22:03:20 tusho: i've read about half of it, so perhaps i'm not *completely* incorrect? 22:03:36 i mean, consider the lambda of a cons pair 22:04:09 oklopol: Read SICP. 22:04:54 (define (cons a b) (lambda (op) (cond ((= op 'car) a) ((= op 'cdr) b) (else (error))))) 22:04:59 theres no ordinality there 22:05:07 its just an abstract relationship 22:05:24 and that definition can replace the existing definition of cons and NOTHING would change in your lisp system 22:06:09 -!- atrapado has quit ("Abandonando"). 22:06:17 well, ofcourse (car pair) has to be defined as (pair 'car) etc 22:06:29 ((cons 'my 'hot) 'car) 22:06:59 (SICP) 22:07:08 O_O 22:07:16 tusho: that example was right out of SICP :D 22:07:34 (must-read-sicp? 'psygnisfive) ;;=> #t 22:07:48 tusho, why do you say stupid things? 22:07:52 that example is right out of SICP. 22:07:56 psygnisfive: To find out, read SICP. 22:07:56 the authors of SICP 22:08:05 *sigh* 22:08:06 psygnisfive: read sicp to me 22:08:10 ok :D 22:08:11 out loud, in skype, right now 22:08:17 can we do it in 10 minutes? 22:08:23 no we need like 12 22:08:32 Can you send a recording to me? :-) 22:08:38 psygnisfive can I say "Read SICP" to you over and over again over skype for 7.32 hours 22:08:50 :) 22:08:53 tusho: in your nomad voice? 22:08:56 Once upon a time, there was a Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP Read SICP 22:09:00 oklopol: In my Nomad++ voice. 22:09:04 ++, I tell you. 22:09:21 <3 22:10:14 tusho, do you expect people to take you seriously? :( 22:10:32 psygnisfive: To find out the answer, read SICP 22:10:59 tusho owns at committing 22:11:46 psygnisfive: no, he doesn't. 22:11:49 -!- lilja has quit ("KVIrc 3.2.0 'Realia'"). 22:12:14 ok 22:12:16 no need for people who haven't read sicp to take you seriously. 22:12:37 exactly! 22:12:39 :D 22:12:50 it's like people who haven't read sicp |----------------| people who have 22:13:02 more liek 22:13:03 and err you know right is the right way to go 22:13:13 ._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 22:13:18 ah indeed 22:13:22 the . is the insignificant people who haven't read sicp 22:13:28 yeah 22:13:31 like psygnisfive 22:13:45 i'm assuming your writing the massive ascii-art O in your writor pad right now 22:13:49 but.. i have read it! :( 22:13:49 *you're 22:14:03 psygnisfive: WHY MUST YOU LIE? 22:14:23 no u 22:14:29 psygnisfive: that box of gifts you sent me didn't be openod :< 22:14:38 it say noooo you can't. 22:14:46 like you know books. 22:14:47 ::confused:: :D 22:14:56 * oklopol is an confusor 22:15:48 god i love english, i can just turn it inside out as much as i like and it's all good 22:16:05 i mean, from my point of view :--) 22:16:15 its not tho :( 22:16:50 well i could never say "its" for "it's", but like, structurally. 22:17:16 not structurall 22:17:17 y 22:17:53 you linguistic silly-dangler 22:17:54 anyway 22:18:00 tell me about your formalities 22:19:33 psygnisfive: anyway don't worry i rape all languages equally 22:19:34 patience! 22:42:03 -!- RedDak has joined. 22:47:23 -!- Sgeo has joined. 22:49:08 i'm growing out of patience 22:49:21 * SimonRC goes to bed. 23:05:15 "Practitioners of fencing shake with the non-sword hand after a bout. This is due to the sword hand being employed holding the weapon." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handshake 23:05:25 One wonders when this practice first came about. 23:08:51 when someone forgot to drop the weapon before the shake, probably 23:09:22 Must be. 23:09:46 must've been awkward 23:11:16 I wonder if they wore protective clothing back then. 23:12:44 http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?p=627456#627456 23:12:52 "In England it was not uncommon for fencing masters to take on other fencing masters in a vicious fight, often to the death, with regular intervals for medical staff to dress wounds." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing#History 23:12:53 I guess not. 23:13:06 oklopol thats for you 23:16:53 -!- pikhq has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 23:17:40 "More complicated formal systems are things like phonology, where underlying forms (there's that word again) are replaced by surface forms" 23:17:43 elaborate 23:18:47 On controversial idea I've com across here, which doesn't really exist in professional studies of language, is the idea of formal syntax. <<< unfortunate typo, makes this hard to parse 23:18:51 not that you probably care 23:19:25 well not actually that hard, since you can pretty much rule out "on" after reading two words 23:21:14 psygnisfive: there's nothing i don't know in that articly thingie. 23:21:20 or didn't know 23:21:43 i don't believe in meaning 23:21:50 ;) 23:22:00 it's all formal to me 23:22:13 well, there IS formal semantics 23:24:30 i refuse to believe in a difference between formal and informal semantics 23:24:42 and, you know, once i trigger my belief, there's no way to stop me. 23:24:49 lol 23:24:59 need to continue reading my book, you see 23:24:59 well there is atleast ONE difference 23:25:05 what is that one? 23:25:13 one is named "informal" 23:25:25 DONT THINK ABOUT IT TOO HARD 23:25:30 YOUR LOGIC CIRCUITS WITH EXPLODE 23:25:30 well yeah i guess there might be an *informal* difference ;) 23:25:37 actually thats a formal difference! 23:25:43 dang 23:25:45 indeed it is 23:25:48 ;D 23:25:53 "HOTBOY"? 23:26:05 i haven't seen you. 23:26:14 what the hell does hotboy mean?! 23:26:32 please provide a formal description 23:26:35 i guess like hotdog, but you're eating a young male instead 23:26:40 *like a 23:26:45 oh that IS hot 23:26:50 so you're eating me? 23:27:08 sure sure 23:27:09 is it a euphemism for you sucking my cock, by analogy to having a hotdog in your mouth? 23:27:14 or is if a euphemism for vore? 23:27:27 well eating is usually for vagina or actual bite&swallow action 23:27:32 oklopol/psygnisfive vore. wtf 23:27:36 * tusho dies 23:27:50 you can eat out someones ass too. 23:27:53 hmm 23:28:03 right, i guess that's as probable an interpretation 23:28:19 well anyway, you pick, i need to continue reading 23:28:22 I don't think that's commonly referred to as eating though 23:28:24 tusho: don't die, read SICP first 23:28:35 oklopol: i've read my sicp 23:28:59 or maybe I'm just not very well-acquainted with mouth/ass action... 23:29:05 i have a hard time bending that into a "read sicp" innuendo. 23:29:24 olsner: be careful what you say when psygnisfive's in play 23:29:32 hahaha 23:29:41 yeah, psygnisfive will give you a demonstration otherwise 23:29:46 i will 23:29:49 if you want, olsner 23:30:08 you're not 12 right? 23:30:23 im totally not suggesting sex with you if you're not of legal age. 23:30:32 psygnisfive: whyever not 23:30:46 because underage kids like you get rape instead. 23:30:50 ::rapes tusho's ass:: 23:30:53 my age is quite legal where I'm from :) 23:31:03 tusho's age is quite legal in the netherlands. 23:31:09 and spain. 23:31:12 no it's not 23:31:12 how can it be so fucking hard to leave, i don't exactly find this all that entertaining 23:31:13 :P 23:31:19 ok, well, it will be in a month 23:31:22 mildly entertaining, yes, but the book is better 23:31:25 * oklopol retries 23:31:30 if I was female and in japan i'd be legal! 23:31:30 what book, oklopol? 23:31:39 what do you mean IF you were female? 23:31:59 har har 23:32:04 this is some basic thingie about discrete math 23:32:19 simple shit 23:32:47 oklopol, did the CompSci books not work? 23:32:48 but sometimes you gotta eat shit if you believe in __import__("random") 23:32:57 psygnisfive: that's what i said earlier 23:33:01 did not. 23:33:04 the download? 23:33:06 or the files? 23:33:09 hmm 23:33:22 actually, now that i think about it, it was because i stopped dl'ing midway 23:33:24 :D 23:33:25 also, tell your girlfriend if she wants to hear my gayvoice she just needs to uh.. give me something to talk about. lol 23:33:31 good job, oklopol. 23:33:32 :P 23:33:42 i have a question 23:33:48 jews have jew magic, right. Is there any gay magic? 23:33:49 i have an answer! 23:33:52 oh yes 23:33:55 there's plenty of gay magic 23:34:07 it's less powerful than jew magic though, surely. jew magic is the most powerful kind of magic in the world. 23:34:18 well, they're not really comparable 23:34:24 * olsner finds jew magic wildly disappointing 23:34:25 psygnisfive: i tend to forget the reason and remember the consequence 23:34:26 they're two different classes of magic 23:34:30 psygnisfive: ahh 23:34:34 you can relink me if it's still up 23:34:36 psygnisfive: what about gay jews 23:34:41 are they like, invincible 23:34:45 they're some of the most powerful wizards on the planet 23:34:57 psygnisfive: what about gay jew pirate ninjas 23:35:08 unbeatable combo 23:35:08 such a thing would destroy the universe. 23:35:12 :D 23:35:22 speaking of jewish ninjas 23:35:26 let's all visualise a gay jew pirate ninja in our head 23:35:29 fuck the universe! 23:35:30 some crackpots think that Japan is the lost tribe 23:35:33 of israel. 23:35:48 how the fuck do you lose japan 23:35:56 well 23:35:57 that's like "OH, GERMANY. YEAH, I FORGOT ABOUT THAT PLACE" 23:35:57 The Japanese 23:36:01 "WHERE IS IT AGAIN?" 23:36:03 "I CAN'T FIND IT" 23:36:10 Japan WAS lost once 23:36:19 but then they found it in someones backyard in new jersey 23:36:35 see this is why we need the qdb 23:36:37 boy were the japanese shocked about that 23:36:42 I was totally ready to put those two last lines up. 23:36:55 tusho: MAKE ONE. 23:36:59 i am 23:37:03 actually, that could be a workable plot for a film: a bad (but hilarious, or at least somewhat funny) comedy about the disadvantaged gay jew pirate ninja, fighting for his right to live his life style 23:37:03 USE RUBY 23:37:06 psygnisfive: i am 23:37:08 and Sinatra 23:37:12 then why the fuck arent you finished? 23:37:16 and jQuery (go fuck me.) 23:37:28 ::fucks tusho:: 23:37:29 because something really weird is happening with sinatra 23:37:31 think it's my code though 23:37:34 i didn't look at it today 23:37:37 too busy doing other stuff 23:37:41 i'll get it finished tomorrow 23:37:42 how can you fuck that up, tusho 23:37:49 Ruby on Rails 23:37:50 Do it. 23:37:52 psygnisfive: no. 23:37:53 you fail. 23:37:55 itll take 10 minutes to finish. 23:37:57 as does rails 23:38:13 IT FAILS LESS THAN YOUR NONEXISTANT QDB 23:38:28 for a start, there is absolutely no reason to use rails nowadays considering its horrible performance, thread unsafety and generally horridness 23:38:33 if you really want to deveop apps like that, use merb. 23:38:44 secondly, an architechture like that is overblown to the max for a qdb 23:38:52 rails performance wont really MATTER for an #esoteric qdb 23:38:54 sinatra is trivial and restful. 23:39:00 since its not like its going to be a fucking massive website 23:39:04 psygnisfive: it's superfluous and shouldn't be used anyway. 23:39:10 blah blah blah 23:39:20 sinatra is designed exactly for trivial apps like this 23:39:24 i see your fingers moving but no qdb's coming out! 23:39:36 psygnisfive: its 23:39, I'm going soon 23:39:42 and when I worked on it last time my mind was fuzzy 23:39:42 excuses 23:39:43 jeez. 23:39:58 it'll probably be done tomorrow. 23:40:22 uh huh 23:40:24 it better be 23:40:25 faggot. 23:40:49 psygnisfive: i'm glad you're so insecure in your sexuality that you have to attribute it to others 23:40:49 :D 23:41:03 well you DO like girls right? 23:41:15 yes, but i'm male. 23:41:22 in your dreams maybe 23:41:33 yeeeeees 23:41:40 are you transexual? 23:41:41 ftm? 23:41:45 i could see that 23:41:54 i am both sexes 23:41:57 100% male, 100% female 23:41:57 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Ex-Chat"). 23:42:05 without any crippling genetic disorders! 23:42:06 impossible 23:42:10 psygnisfive: WRONG 23:42:13 I used jew magic 23:42:17 DAMN JEWS 23:42:50 hmm, so 1 * tusho = 200% * tusho? that'd mean tusho = 0 23:43:04 truth. 23:43:13 no olsner 23:43:15 we used jew maths 23:43:31 oh no jew didn't! 23:43:53 i didn't 23:43:54 the jew did 23:44:21 do you have a jew tied up in a cage or something, doing your bidding? 23:44:24 what are you, RACIST? 23:44:24 :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 23:44:29 oklopol! :D 23:44:45 psygnisfive: it was my pal. 23:44:53 reading about this trivial shit about proofs makes my coding fingers tickle 23:44:54 wow, oklopol is really smiling! what's the big deal? 23:45:00 i wanna make an automated prover 23:45:14 :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEAL 23:46:44 shouldn't be too hard to make it prove everything, right? 23:46:56 i'll probably get all the truths out by tomorrow 23:47:26 oklopol, prover for what? 23:47:29 i'd enjoy that 23:47:40 also, automata generators would be fun to make 23:47:43 psygnisfive: your gayness. 23:47:47 something that converts to and from NFAs and DFAs 23:47:49 like, inducktion 23:47:57 to do what tho? 23:47:59 i mean 23:48:30 like prove cool truths given a set of sexy axioms 23:48:40 ah. 23:48:41 example? 23:48:41 although i'd probably make it a bit more specifix 23:48:56 well i'd probably be happy with just doing something like even * even = even 23:49:26 even x = (exists i: x = 2i) 23:49:51 then prove forall x: even x & even y => even x*y 23:49:55 err 23:50:04 fail @ quantification there, but you get it 23:50:23 forall x: forall y: 23:50:26 more liek 23:51:44 ideal scenario would be getting a few simple proofs like that by making a kinda ruleset for how i would prove that myself, and then find something more complex that it manages to prove 23:51:58 => masturbation material for the rest of my life 23:53:00 well not really, i consider programs my children more like, so i don't find them that sexy 23:53:06 but you know what i mean 23:53:10 that would be awesome^7 23:53:19 but you could have sex with other people's programs? as long as they're old enough? 23:54:18 the younger the better :o 23:54:37 but no i'm actually quite indifferent about other people's programs 23:54:50 so really it's not probable i'll ever have sex with a computer program 23:55:14 this is the weirdest conversation ever 23:55:16 unless i like make it, then leave for a few years, and come see it again 23:55:24 not have sex with a computer program? what a weirdo 23:55:26 then i guess it's okay 23:56:01 a real-life fetish for program source would be so cool 23:56:21 itd be delightfully weird 23:56:27 i bet tusho has that fetish 23:56:28 i've had the occasional boner of course, but i don't actually open programs as porn 23:56:43 i dooooo psygnisfive 23:56:46 xD 23:57:01 gotta catch them all! 23:57:09 tusho masturbates to haskell code 23:57:18 psygnisfive: oh baby, that's so well-typed 23:57:43 catamorphisms *murr* 23:57:46 types are one of the sexiest things imo 23:57:53 in programming 23:58:12 that is, restricted type systems 23:58:21 python doesn't really work for me 23:58:29 oh, restrict my type baby 23:58:32 variable typing or data typing? 23:58:38 oh, oh, yeah, restrict that polymorphism good 23:58:43 psygnisfive: variable 23:58:50 meh. i dont like variable typing. 23:59:02 -!- RedDak has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 23:59:03 this conversations brings new meaning to the term Bondage and Discipline language :) 23:59:06 then again, i also rarely use variables for more than one type 23:59:19 NEW meaning? what was the OLD meaning? 23:59:34 anything excluding sexual allusions? 23:59:34 psygnisfive: it's not that they're nice in practice, i just think it's a fairly hot concept. 23:59:47 graphs are my favorite for pretty much all purposes ofc