00:00:11 -!- FireFly has quit ("Later").
00:00:15 -!- Slereah_ has joined.
00:11:45 * Sgeo doesn't get Banks
00:12:27 <oerjan> i think it's a cultural thing
00:12:49 <Sgeo> I meant in Golly
00:15:39 -!- Slereah has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
00:53:08 -!- oerjan has quit ("Good night").
01:04:05 -!- GreaseMonkey has joined.
01:12:11 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
02:55:28 <GregorR> EVERYBODY DO THE R M R F SLASH DAAAANCE
03:09:24 -!- Dewio has changed nick to Dewi.
03:24:07 -!- psygnisfive has quit (Remote closed the connection).
03:38:59 -!- psygnisfive has joined.
05:19:05 -!- chuck has quit ("Reconnecting").
05:19:08 -!- chuck has joined.
05:23:45 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
05:25:14 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined.
07:01:09 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Leaving").
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
09:19:07 -!- GreaseMonkey has quit ("Client Excited").
10:06:41 -!- oerjan has joined.
10:19:27 <oerjan> and by very you mean enormously.
10:33:09 <oerjan> let's drink and sing and do the hokey pokey
10:34:41 <oklopol> okay not loading is not very funny, i admit it.
10:35:05 <oerjan> positively a 1 on the scale
10:37:58 <oklopol> oh my connection is local only, no wonder i can't access the nets..
10:38:44 <oklopol> you'd think if the mirc dude can write a strong ai to converse with me, he'd also manage to make it check whether i'm online.
10:38:49 <oerjan> it goes up to either 9, or 10.
10:39:00 <oklopol> i mean of course i notice if it keeps talking to me even when i'm offline.
10:39:09 <oerjan> or possibly 6, if you're in norway
10:40:47 <oklopol> btw could someone network-knowledgeable tell me why exactly i can always irc even when my internet is down? probably vista's just lying to me ofc.
10:40:50 <oerjan> also i'm not an AI, i'm a platonic ideal and you are really sitting in a cave, watching shadows.
10:41:11 <oklopol> i always found that comparison kinda stupid
10:41:42 <oerjan> no idea but recently IE has started acting up on me so i see a similar phenomenon
10:42:26 <oerjan> it's weird, after i close all IE windows it won't connect again, until i restart the machine
10:43:57 <oerjan> also it takes a while having the windows open before it happens on closing
10:44:17 -!- oklofok has joined.
10:44:29 <oerjan> can you connect with anything other than irc/http?
10:44:31 <oklofok> i thought the xkcd was okay.
10:44:39 <oerjan> also, did you hear anything i said?
10:44:52 <oklofok> :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
10:45:06 <oerjan> i take that as a sign it was stupid, and refuse :/
10:45:29 <oerjan> since the only actual _advice_ was after you rejoined :D
10:45:35 -!- oklopol has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)).
10:46:49 <oklofok> i disconnected because i flipped the switch on and off
10:46:50 <oerjan> i _suspect_ my virus scanner, since it happened after an update of it that coincidentally made it work properly in other ways
10:47:30 <oklofok> suspecting is a sign of having a hunch
10:47:31 <oerjan> otoh there were some Windows security updates too, when i think about it.
10:48:07 <oklofok> so what was so bad about pep talk?
10:48:24 <oerjan> it was a *groan* kind of joke
10:50:41 <oklofok> much better than any kind of pun could ever be imo, and xkcd has had those
10:50:55 <oklofok> puns are a lesser category of jokes
10:51:01 <oerjan> i _thought_ it had something to do with a full virus scan bringing my laptop nearly to its knees, but yesterday it happened again even though i have turned off the automatic scheduling
10:51:13 <oklofok> of course it's kinda stupid he explains it
10:51:24 * oerjan swats oklofok viciously -----###
10:52:02 <oklofok> he could've more like boosted his talk, now we *really* need to start playing
10:52:40 <oerjan> yeah a bit of that british understatement thing
10:53:11 <oklofok> err british understatement thing?
10:53:28 <oklofok> less doubting, more proving!
10:53:37 <oerjan> the british invented understatements, surely
10:53:53 <oerjan> unless they stole it from the ancient romans
10:54:04 <oerjan> i don't know, as i cannot read jokes in latin
10:54:40 <oerjan> well lessee i recall adding i to subtle cough did not achieve much
10:55:04 <oerjan> don't recall checking it thoroughly
10:55:12 <oklofok> well seems you'd just end up building pipes, then using them to achieve nothing
10:55:16 <oklofok> if my intuition about i is right
10:55:25 <oerjan> i expect the same methodology to work though
10:55:52 <oerjan> there is no s, so no real duplication, so i suspect it's not tc
10:56:22 <oerjan> could make a stronger claim: unlambda without s is probably not tc
10:57:11 <oklofok> i just want my tc cough combinators
10:57:51 <oerjan> `ci = `i(*) = (*) = `cc iirc
10:59:20 <oerjan> ``cci = `(`*i)i = `ii = i
11:00:57 <oklofok> seems i need to find something to eat
11:01:16 <oerjan> hm the continuations mean applying i first need not be trivial
11:01:52 <oerjan> but `i`cc = `i(`i*) = (`i*)
11:02:01 <oerjan> admittedly that's probably = (*)
11:02:18 <oerjan> ok applying i is still trivial
11:04:44 <oklofok> i always do that, i see you do something, but before i start thinking what it is, i get an idea, try it out, and realize i did what you did.
11:05:14 <oerjan> and _still_ you don't believe in the subconscious ;D
11:05:19 <oklofok> i mean i invented your continuation syntax after not understanding how yours worked from taking a glimpse at it.
11:05:33 <oklofok> i believe in *a* subconscious!
11:06:26 <oerjan> so it seems adding i adds only i
11:08:24 <oerjan> `vA = v if A terminates without throwing a cont.
11:08:24 <oklofok> but so for any function f, `f`ci = `i(`f*) = (`f*), and `f`cc = `c(`f*) = `f(*), how are they are the same?
11:09:06 <oerjan> to subtle cough that is
11:10:26 <oerjan> assuming f is not a complex expression
11:11:09 <oklofok> always forget the returning
11:12:22 <oerjan> ``ccv = `(`*v)v = `vv = v
11:12:26 <oklofok> continuations are a bit hard to analyze with syntactic transforms.
11:13:15 <oerjan> the thing is when you apply an equation `cc = (*), you need to replace () by the continuation you put it in
11:14:15 <oerjan> hm so in theory you should not do that until `cc becomes the next term to evaluate
11:14:47 <oklofok> so you mean you need to have strict evaluation also in the rewriting?
11:15:10 <oklofok> with continuations, are there multiple normal forms?
11:15:49 <oklofok> if not, are there infinite loops resulting from single missteps?
11:16:18 <oklofok> is there actually any theory of combinators + continuations? i mean obviously it's goddamn fucking interesting.
11:16:51 <oklofok> well of course it would just be the theory of lambda calculus + continuations
11:16:56 <oklofok> but i haven't seen that theory either
11:17:28 <oerjan> well there is obviously a theory of lambda calculus + continuations, since that is known to have a curry-howard isomorphism with classical boolean logic
11:19:07 <oerjan> continuations allow you to extract the law of excluded middle
11:20:55 <oerjan> or something like that. not not A => A is simpler
11:21:18 <oerjan> basically, not A is the type of a continuation that takes a value of type A
11:21:50 <oerjan> hm this is not clear at all
11:22:36 <oklofok> http://xkcd.com/380/ <<< i don't get this
11:23:04 <oklofok> oerjan: i know very little about CHI.
11:23:29 <oklofok> oerjan: basically, not A is the type of a continuation that takes a value of type A <<< i don't even get this.
11:24:08 <oerjan> that's a basilisk. if you look at a basilisk, you die.
11:24:40 <oerjan> if you see its face, or something
11:24:41 <oklofok> ohhh, i thought ":)" somehow indicated it was a snake :P
11:24:59 <fizzie> The "BSLSK" should've been a clue.
11:25:19 <oklofok> yes, but i read it as "old schoold"
11:25:57 <oerjan> poll: does oklofok need a new monitor or new glasses?
11:26:11 <fizzie> A scary emoticon is the ":)" where the : character is in the bright color -- you know, :), or ^B:^B) -- but I think our +c mode filters that one out.
11:26:12 <oklofok> somehow ")" was the sex, it means a snake. i have no idea how, also ":" was its age, it was a two-year-old snake
11:26:26 <oklofok> but something still bugged me about it...
11:27:27 <oerjan> on the internet, no one knows you are a basilisk. until it is too late.
11:28:52 <oklofok> oerjan: i read "bslsk", i just thought it was a shorthand for "old school", kinda like ":)" is short for two year old snake... :)
11:30:09 <oerjan> i think that pretty much nails it
11:32:58 <oklofok> yeah but X reduced, where X is the reduction that's about behavios.
11:33:41 <oklofok> A being the nothing, E being the behavior, B being umm evaluation?
11:34:08 <oerjan> i have no clue why those were chosen
11:34:42 <MizardX> class InputThread(threading.Thread):
11:34:58 <MizardX> beh.... I need to type /sp to make it stop
11:34:58 <oerjan> ```sccf = ``cf`cf = ``f(`*`cf)`cf
11:35:24 <oklofok> oerjan: so it's kinda duplication?
11:36:14 <oklofok> yes, but i mean call that C, is it tc? :D
11:36:48 <oklofok> you seem i'm trying to come up with supercough, but since i've failed myself, i'm using you to do the actual thinking.
11:37:18 <oerjan> now that is a recipe for disaster
11:37:21 <oklofok> so if i come up with it, it's still my idea, you're just the program i used to do the testing.
11:38:07 <oerjan> what do you mean "call that C"
11:38:17 <oklofok> oerjan: well have that as the only combinator
11:38:48 <oerjan> well applying it to itself for a start...
11:39:26 <oklofok> i mean in general, do continuations add any kind of computational power
11:39:47 <oklofok> is there a non-tc set of combinators such that adding call/cc makes them tc
11:40:06 <oklofok> actually that scc thing doesn't answer that, it's a bit different again
11:40:07 <oerjan> i would guess there is. but that doesn't necessarily say much.
11:40:40 <oerjan> actually i wasn't talking about my guess
11:41:03 <oklofok> then what do you mean, i mean that would be awesome.
11:41:22 <oerjan> i mean you can make convoluted things that just miss a little piece to be tc, that doesn't really say much about the power of the missing piece
11:42:04 <oklofok> it says something about its power
11:42:26 <oklofok> or well at least the lack thereof does
11:43:13 <oerjan> ```scc``scc = ``c``scc``c``scc
11:43:36 <oerjan> ```scc``scc = ``c``scc`c``scc
11:44:59 <oerjan> = ````scc(`*`c``scc)`c``scc
11:46:17 <oerjan> = ```c(`*`c``scc)`c(`*`c``scc)`c``scc
11:47:07 <oerjan> hm we have a subproblem of `c``scc in there
11:48:13 <oerjan> `c``scc = ```scc(*) = ``c(*)`c(*) = ``(*)(`*`c(*))`c(*)
11:48:23 <oerjan> now that was an immense improvement
11:49:06 <oklofok> yes, superficially speaking
11:49:22 <oklofok> i can't say i still actually *understand* these expressions.
11:49:32 <oklofok> i think it looks prettier :)
11:50:50 <oerjan> oh wait of course that simplifies at the next step, it throws a continuation :)
11:51:05 <oerjan> `c``scc = ```scc(*) = ``c(*)`c(*) = ``(*)(`*`c(*))`c(*) = (`*`c(*))
11:51:53 <oerjan> now substitute that in
11:53:03 <oerjan> ```scc``scc = ``c``scc`c``scc = `(``*`c(*)`c``scc)`c``scc i hope
11:53:41 <oklofok> okay that looks kinda nice :)
11:53:59 <oerjan> the next step is to do the same to the second part
11:55:47 <oerjan> that's wrong, i didn't adjust the (*)
11:56:38 <oerjan> ```scc``scc = ``c``scc`c``scc = `(``*`c(`*`c``scc)`c``scc)`c``scc
11:56:58 <oklofok> you do realize you could just run a few steps in an unlambda interp? i guess they wouldn't show the continuations though
11:57:22 <oklofok> i have one that does, apart from the actual combinators, but they could be added in a minute
11:57:43 <oklofok> of course i don't actually have it anymore, lost a lot of shit when my hd died.
11:59:20 <oerjan> one point, maybe it would be worth checking if it actually terminates :D
11:59:53 <oklofok> but would that actually tell no expressions involving it do?
12:00:00 <oklofok> it would at least strongly hint it
12:00:10 <oklofok> the problem is even that doesn't necessarily say it's not tc :P
12:00:25 <oklofok> would be so much easier if i was less dumb.
12:00:36 <oklofok> i could just answer my questions myself
12:01:00 <oklofok> oerjan: no not really. it could do useful computation, then always hit somekinda trivial loop afterwards.
12:01:39 <oerjan> erm _every_ subexpression of the form ```scc``scc will not terminate if ever evaluated
12:02:08 <oerjan> and you cannot do anything in this language that doesn't start with just that
12:02:10 <oklofok> well that does say it's not tc.
12:02:55 <oklofok> but i meant that subexpression could've used the upper continuation in its nonterminating loop, and somehow done computation anyway
12:03:57 <oerjan> oh of course ``cA`cB is a well-known construction in unlambda, someone was playing with it just the other day, it tends to create infinite loops
12:05:29 <oklofok> i see i see, i've been a bit offline.
12:05:35 <oerjan> whoever made that unlambda bot
12:05:50 <oklofok> well he made an unlambda interp
12:06:57 <oerjan> anyway if an expression does not contain an embedded continuation, then it initially has access only to its containing one
12:07:43 <oerjan> which means even if it _does_ throw a continuation, it will end up looking like a normal return from the outside
12:08:12 <oerjan> so if it doesn't terminate, it cannot interact with the outside at all
12:08:39 <oklofok> finally the monkey catches the titanium ball
12:08:51 <oklofok> i should eat something now
12:09:41 * oerjan was briefly wondering if that was a weird metaphor or if you were playing some game on the side
12:10:02 <fizzie> Which one was it? I'm still wondering.
12:10:03 <oklofok> both, i'm playing the game with you
14:01:00 -!- oerjan has quit ("Cibus").
14:16:53 <ehird> why isn't my quicklog playing
14:17:17 -!- ehird has changed nick to ehird|away.
14:17:26 -!- ehird|away has changed nick to ehird.
14:22:32 <ehird> i conclude miau sucks dicks
14:27:35 <ehird> 04:03:57 <oerjan> oh of course ``cA`cB is a well-known construction in unlambda, someone was playing with it just the other day, it tends to create infinite loops
14:27:55 <ehird> ```ci`c.ai prints a forever
14:28:05 <ehird> ``ci`cX = infinite Xs :D
15:01:17 -!- FireFly has joined.
15:02:12 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
15:17:37 <ehird> http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Porting-D-to-the-Mac-Pt.-3.html&Itemid=29
15:22:13 <ehird> On a Macintosh monitor, the notional resolution is 72 dots-per -inch
15:22:13 <ehird> But on a Windows monitor the resolution is (usually) 96 dpi
15:24:04 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
16:24:01 -!- Corun has joined.
16:58:40 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit ("bye").
17:05:30 <ski__> loeb : forall u : U. Bew (imp (bew u) u) -> Bew u
17:11:05 <ehird> loeb loeb loeb loeb
17:11:16 <ehird> loeb is the essence of computing loeb.
17:12:48 <ehird> who here's used llvm?
17:18:47 <ski__> loeb is a quite stange theorem
17:19:07 -!- ais523 has joined.
17:19:20 <ehird> It is loebelicious, clearly.
17:19:45 <ski__> "Assuming you'd believe that if you believe a statement, then that statement is true. Would you then believe the statement was true ?"
17:19:48 -!- Sgeo has joined.
17:20:18 <ski__> (for any specific "statement" you like to consider)
17:20:31 <ehird> Undefined, because that's a recursive definition
17:20:48 <ski__> loeb's theorem is *provable*
17:21:21 <ehird> it seems like you can't unwrap the belief to truth without assuming that, no?
17:22:16 <ski__> (given a suitable interpretation of "believe" .. here "you" can e.g. be the formal system of Peano Arithmetic, and "believe" means that Peano Arithmetic can prove that Peano Arithmetic can prove the statement)
17:23:54 * ski__ is interested in finding computable interpretations of loeb's theorem
17:24:19 <ski__> (i.e. as a programming function)
17:25:20 <ehird> exists, I'm pretty sure
17:25:32 <ehird> http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/12/tying-knots-generically.html
17:25:37 <ehird> > loeb :: Functor a => a (a x -> x) -> a x
17:25:38 <ehird> > loeb x = fmap (\a -> a (loeb x)) x
17:25:40 <ehird> loeb loeb loeb loeb loeb
17:27:07 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
17:28:51 <ski__> ehird : yes, that's something like what i want
17:29:06 <ski__> the "only" trouble with that is that it's inconsistent
17:29:43 <ski__> loeb [(\[x,y] -> y),(\[x,y] -> x)]
17:30:25 <ski__> i want interpretations which will terminate (or be productive, if codata), given terminating (productive) inputs
17:33:14 <ehird> ski__: specialize it on just functions?
17:33:18 <ehird> loeb :: a -> ((a -> x) -> x) -> a -> x
17:33:30 <ehird> loeb :: (a -> ((a -> x) -> x)) -> a -> x
17:33:41 -!- Deewiant has quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)).
17:34:18 -!- Deewiant has joined.
17:36:30 <ski__> loeb (\() f -> f ()) ()
17:36:35 <ski__> would diverge, too
17:38:06 <oklofok> ski__: "Assuming you'd believe that if you believe a statement, then that statement is true. Would you then believe the statement was true ?" <<< is there something paradoxical i'm missing here?
17:38:52 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
17:39:02 <ais523> oklofok: if you believe something, do you necessarily believe you believe it?
17:39:31 <ais523> or can people be mistaken about what they believe?
17:39:33 <ski__> ais523 : yes, that's also a good question (but not what `loeb' above is about)
17:39:45 <ski__> oklofok : depends on whether you've found anything paradoxial
17:40:41 <oklofok> believing is when you've decided to hold something as true.
17:41:10 <oklofok> therefore by definition if you believe, you believe you believe.
17:41:25 <oklofok> of course this might not be a definition suitable for everyone, i just hate philosophy.
17:41:36 <oklofok> hmm, should probably join #philosophy again
17:41:43 <ski__> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6b%27s_theorem> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic>
17:42:16 <oklofok> holy shit that's hot stuff :D
17:42:23 <ski__> Conceited reasoner^[1]^[4]: A reasoner is conceited, if they believe they are never inaccurate. A conceited reasoner will necessarily lapse into an inaccuracy.
17:42:44 <ski__> Peculiar reasoner^[1]^[4]: A reasoner is peculiar if there is some proposition p such that they believe p and also believe they don't believe p. Although a peculiar reasoner may seem like a strange psychological phenomenon, a peculiar reasoner is necessarily inaccurate but not necessarily inconsistent.
17:42:48 <oklofok> wtf finnish dude mentioned on page
17:43:21 <ehird> ski__: try coming up with a good type for it, then using lambdabot's @djinn?
17:43:39 <ski__> (also obviously <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic> .. see also stanford's encyclopedia of logic)
17:44:11 <ski__> Unstable reasoner^[1]^[4]: A reasoner is unstable if there is some proposition p they believe that they believe p, but don't really believe p. This is just as strange a psychological phenomenon as peculiarity, however, an unstable reasoner is not necessarily inconsistent.
17:44:25 -!- sebbu3 has joined.
17:44:31 <ehird> I'll consider [] a box because it looks like one
17:44:41 <ski__> yes, that's loeb's rendering in Provability logic
17:44:46 <ehird> (a -> ((a -> p) -> p)) -> a -> p
17:44:51 <ehird> yeah that's my specialized loeb
17:45:02 * ski__ has been reading "The Logic of Provability", by George Boolos, recently
17:45:23 <oklofok> they believe p but don't really believe p?
17:45:41 <ski__> i want to interpret `[] a' as code representing an expression of type `a' (that you can pattern-match on)
17:45:59 <ehird> ski__: well, that's a think
17:46:06 <ehird> [] a would be () -> a
17:46:07 <ski__> oklofok : no "they believe that they believe p, but don't really believe p" !
17:46:21 <ehird> ski__: omit really
17:46:25 <ski__> ([] [] p) /\ (not [] p)
17:46:30 <ehird> believe (believe p) & (not (believe p))
17:46:51 <ski__> no, code is not thunks
17:47:03 <oklofok> ski__: oh, "...some proposition p so that they..."
17:47:12 <ski__> `eval' in lisps doesn't operate on thunks
17:47:41 <ehird> that's kind of detail-y
17:47:53 -!- ais523 has quit (Connection reset by peer).
17:47:58 <ski__> if i interpret `[]' as "code of", then one proof of loebs theorem i've seen really appear to be almost
17:48:08 <ehird> [template haskell that is]
17:48:16 -!- ais523 has joined.
17:48:20 <ski__> ((lambda (lambda) `(,lambda ',lambda)) (lambda (lambda) `(,lambda ',lambda)))
17:48:32 <ski__> (which i hope you recognize ..)
17:48:38 <ehird> that variable name obfuscation is a bit intellectually dishonest :P
17:48:51 <ehird> ((lambda (x) `(,x ,x)) (lambda (x) `(,x ,x)))
17:49:14 <ski__> er, actually i forgot an '
17:49:22 <ski__> ((lambda (x) `(,x ,x)) '(lambda (x) `(,x ,x)))
17:50:01 <ski__> (if you want, i can remove the "almost" in the above statement ..)
17:51:03 <ski__> (ehird : better than TH would be MetaML or MetaOCaml)
17:51:45 <ski__> and from what i know, doesn't allow cross-stage persistance or anything similar
17:52:13 <ski__> (also, TH is dynamically typed)
17:52:55 <ehird> dynamically typed can be fixed
17:53:19 <ski__> but possibly not without doing violence to the existing system
17:53:31 <ehird> then use (Box a) to mean "code evaluating to something of type a"
17:53:38 <ski__> (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ..)
17:56:18 <ski__> how do i express (lambda (x f) `(lambda (y g) ,(f (lambda (z) `(g x `z))))) in TH ?
17:56:27 -!- sebbu has quit (Connection timed out).
17:56:28 -!- sebbu3 has changed nick to sebbu.
17:56:41 <ehird> ski__: not sure :-D
17:56:44 <ski__> ( usuing lispy syntax for (hopefully) familiarity)
17:57:14 -!- ais523_ has joined.
17:57:16 <ski__> note that e.g. `x' is bound outside the quasi-quote, but used inside it
18:00:32 * ski__ thinks he would better sink into misty magic land atm, though ..
18:01:54 <ehird> ski__: unfortunately, it looks like `eval :: Box a -> a` would be Difficult(TM)
18:02:02 <ehird> since you can get back an ast, but you'd need to use the ghc api to compile & run
18:02:44 -!- kar8nga has joined.
18:03:39 <ski__> (.. that might not bad that bad, considering that if `[] a -> a' is provable, then the system would be inconsistent, because of loeb)
18:04:14 <ehird> 'd need lots of magic anyway
18:04:20 <ehird> to turn whatever ghc gives you into a value
18:05:02 -!- ais523 has quit (Nick collision from services.).
18:05:04 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais523.
18:06:04 -!- Slereah has joined.
18:10:40 <ehird> ski__: actually, [] a -> a is provable with functions and functors
18:10:57 <ehird> ofc, undefined being provable makes everything provable...
18:11:41 -!- sebbu2 has quit (Connection timed out).
18:12:58 <ehird> [18:12:45] <ehird> @djinn a -> ((a -> p) -> p) -> a -> p
18:12:58 <ehird> [18:12:46] <lambdabot> -- f cannot be realized.
18:13:31 -!- oerjan has joined.
18:14:35 <oerjan> <ehird> i conclude miau sucks dicks
18:14:41 <oerjan> shush with your bestiality
18:16:15 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
18:17:13 -!- kar8nga has quit.
18:21:03 <oerjan> <oklofok> wtf finnish dude mentioned on page
18:21:25 <oerjan> this is of course a tremendous coincidence, given that there are only 5 finns or so
18:22:31 <Sgeo> Bye for now all
18:22:50 <oerjan> you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
18:23:09 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
18:23:35 <oerjan> he succumbed to peer pressure
18:24:26 <oklofok> oerjan: my point almost to the word.
18:25:14 <oerjan> i'm not sure i believe that you believe that you believe that.
18:27:58 <ehird> whee, using a ghc-style "Lazy value = function that calculates then replaces itself with trivial return" is only 0.00-0.02sec slower than "calculate once with normal func, then assign to variable"
18:30:55 <ehird> http://www.finerrecliner.com/?p=263 what the fuck.
18:36:51 <ehird> i forgot to tell you
18:37:02 <ehird> I wrote an ski interp that almost works, and is lazy, and runs ```sii``sii without growing
18:37:22 <ehird> "garbage collection"
18:37:22 <ehird> reduce :: SKI -> SKI reduce (App (App (App S x) y) z) = App (App x z) (App y z) reduce (App x y) = gc (App (reduce x) y) reduce x = gc x gc :: SKI -> SKI gc (App (App K x) _) = x gc (App I x) = x gc (App x y) = App (gc x) (gc y) gc x = x
18:37:44 <ehird> reduce :: SKI -> SKI; reduce (App (App (App S x) y) z) = App (App x z) (App y z); reduce (App x y) = gc (App (reduce x) y); reduce x = gc x; gc :: SKI -> SKI; gc (App (App K x) _) = x; gc (App I x) = x; gc (App x y) = App (gc x) (gc y); gc x = x;
18:37:47 <ais523> I think you can run ```sii``sii indefinitely lazily by optmizing `ix into x
18:37:57 <ehird> it optimizes ``kxy too
18:38:03 <ehird> in case you use skk instead of i
18:38:20 -!- kar8nga has joined.
18:38:21 <ais523> ehird: I think you're independently from me discovering the Underlambda evaluation order
18:38:23 <ehird> ah, I think I know why it doesn't work
18:38:29 <ais523> which is "strict or lazy, whatever you like", for most operations
18:38:30 <ehird> turn the s thing into
18:38:30 <ehird> reduce (App (App (App S x) y) z) = gc (App (App x z) (App y z))
18:38:31 <oerjan> ais523: isn't that what he does...
18:38:34 <ais523> apart from things like I/O, which are always strict
18:38:54 <ehird> oerjan: it pretty much runs a gc process on every step, eliminating `ix and ``kxy, while leaving ```sxyz to the "real" steps
18:40:19 <oerjan> ehird: you could make it more efficient by only gc'ing "one level", and do it while building App's, including during parsing. i think.
18:40:33 <ehird> oerjan: define one leve
18:40:52 <ehird> with my current gc, `````skkkik reduces to i in one step
18:40:54 <ehird> i don't like that :<
18:41:00 <ehird> it should just make one reduction at a time
18:41:03 <oerjan> i mean that when building App x y, then gc'ing, you can assume x and y are already gc'ed
18:41:12 <ais523> ehird: the same trick works with Underload, actually; if you leave : and S to evaluate in the proper order and just evaluate the others whenever you feel like
18:41:15 <ehird> reduce (App x y) = gc (App (reduce x) y)
18:41:24 <ehird> you could do (gc y) though
18:41:33 <ais523> the thing that : and ```sxyz have in common is that they're both needed to create loops
18:41:50 <oerjan> ehird: yes it is, assuming you do what i said and gc everything as you build it
18:42:14 <oerjan> s/said/meant/, possibly :D
18:42:17 <ehird> oerjan: makes siisii reduce to siisii in one step
18:42:25 <ehird> which breaks my "are we done" checker :D
18:42:58 <ehird> ```sii``sii -> ``i``sii`i``sii -> ```sii`i``sii -> ```siii``sii
18:43:03 <ehird> that is, only one bit of progress at a time
18:44:07 <oerjan> well, i'm just suggesting an alternate approach for the simplification thing
18:44:50 <oklofok> yeah but who wants a tons more efficient algo
18:49:15 -!- Hiato has joined.
18:49:23 <ehird> ais523: oerjan: relatedly, I've been thinking about hyper-optimization of lazy functional languages
18:49:39 <ehird> (because I can't kick the urge to try and make a high level language finally faster than C, dammit.)
18:49:48 <ehird> ais523: very tangled.
18:50:24 <ehird> i think static typing is needed, for e.g. arithmetic optimization
18:50:41 <ehird> (to make inferrances like "we can represent 2+2 as a fixnum")
18:51:53 <ehird> http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-NextStation-Color-N1200-Computer-NEXT-SLAB-PC_W0QQitemZ110351324556QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item110351324556&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A0|293%3A1|294%3A50
18:52:00 <ehird> $24.99 NeXtStation
18:52:13 <ehird> only to the us tho
18:52:18 <ehird> better a nextcube too
18:56:01 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
19:02:09 -!- jix has joined.
19:03:10 <ehird> no just shipping :P
19:04:18 <oerjan> i meant that in an extended sense
19:06:38 <ais523> hi in an extended sense, the letter M inside AnMaster's nick
19:07:32 <AnMaster> mhm, I really need context to understand that, and atm I'm rather preoccupied in RL
19:07:39 -!- Slereah has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
19:08:04 <AnMaster> ais523, so what was that about?
19:08:15 <ais523> AnMaster: there is no context
19:08:22 <ais523> it's just me being random
19:08:51 <AnMaster> so what do you mean with "in an extended sense"?
19:10:52 <oerjan> it means "in a sense you'll never find out because you won't read the half page just before you entered" ;D
19:12:40 -!- sebbu has quit (Connection timed out).
19:14:23 <AnMaster> oerjan, how many lines do you define a page as?
19:14:44 * AnMaster makes his irc client 3 window 3 lines high
19:16:46 <oerjan> forgot the upper topic line
19:17:11 <AnMaster> oerjan, half a page would then start at "<ehird> and is also wrong"
19:17:28 <oerjan> also, half a page was an overstatement
19:17:31 <ais523> <oerjan> i meant that in an extended sense
19:17:38 <ais523> was the line I was referring to, which was the line before you said hi
19:17:41 <oerjan> it actually starts at <ehird> omfg.
19:18:12 <AnMaster> oerjan, that is because it scrolls down when you type and also long lines wrap
19:20:28 <oerjan> in case it is still not obvious, that was not intended as an accurate measurement
19:23:08 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote closed the connection).
19:24:31 <lament> FUNCTIONS ARE FUNCTIONAL
19:25:08 <ehird> LAMENT IS ON CRACK
19:25:38 <oerjan> REDUNDANCY IS REDUNDANT
19:26:29 -!- sebbu has joined.
19:26:59 <lament> COMPUTARS ARE COMPUTABLE
19:28:41 <lament> GREEN -> APPLE -> TREE -> BINARY -> DIGIT -> PINKY -> PINK
19:29:36 <lament> Some apples are orange. But no oranges are apple.
19:29:44 <ehird> [19:28:41] <lament> GREEN -> APPLE -> TREE -> BINARY -> DIGIT -> PINKY -> PINK
19:29:46 <ehird> you could automate that
19:30:00 <ehird> find word, grep dictionary for word, explore all possibilities with other words in same entries
19:30:06 <ehird> until you find the word you want to connect to
19:30:26 <lament> but would you like that huh
19:31:48 * lament replaces ehird with a small Python script
19:33:12 <lament> a small dadaist Python script
19:42:04 -!- sebbu2 has quit (Connection timed out).
19:45:47 <ehird> setopt pushd_silent
19:49:27 -!- MigoMipo has quit ("QuitIRCServerException: MigoMipo disconnected from IRC Server").
19:51:14 <ehird> my_cd() { dirs=($(dirs)); if [[ ! -z $1 && $1 != $dirs[1] ]]; then pushd $*; fi }
19:51:14 <ehird> setopt pushd_silent
19:54:54 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
19:57:01 <ehird> sbcl is so hilarious
19:58:17 <ehird> you can't compile it without a lisp
19:59:16 <oerjan> you cannot compile ghc without a haskell, either...
19:59:27 <Deewiant> you can't compile it without a GCC
19:59:35 <Deewiant> ... wait, that's not hilarious.
19:59:39 <ehird> yes, but it's funnier with sbcl
19:59:49 <ehird> * Despite all appearances, I am _not_ high.
20:01:26 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
20:03:19 * ehird compiles sbcl with sbcl XD XD XD.
20:03:25 <ehird> whee look at it go isn't it cute
20:08:13 <oerjan> probably with some added caffeine
20:08:49 <oerjan> i'll hold my opinion on the ginseng
20:12:16 -!- sebbu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
20:12:17 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu.
20:13:24 -!- Slereah has joined.
20:19:09 -!- Sgeo has joined.
20:31:34 -!- Hiato has quit ("Leaving.").
20:33:35 -!- ais523 has joined.
20:38:28 -!- ehird has changed nick to ehird|away.
20:47:55 -!- ehird|away has changed nick to ehird.
20:56:17 <Sgeo> Hi psygnisfive
21:06:02 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
21:11:50 <MizardX> http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/congress/25C3/video_h264_720x576/ <- some interesting talks, and some information about each -> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/Fahrplan/events.en.html
21:23:01 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
21:28:59 -!- MigoMipo has quit ("QuitIRCServerException: MigoMipo disconnected from IRC Server").
21:41:45 -!- ehird has changed nick to ehird|away.
21:41:51 -!- ehird|away has left (?).
21:41:53 -!- ehird|away has joined.
21:43:33 -!- ehird|away has changed nick to ehird.
21:49:42 -!- sebbu has quit (No route to host).
22:04:49 -!- sebbu has joined.
22:08:56 -!- sebbu2 has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)).
22:09:16 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection).
22:11:31 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Leaving").
22:11:45 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection).
22:11:58 -!- Corun has joined.
22:24:04 -!- jix has quit ("...").
22:42:31 -!- olsner_ has quit ("Leaving").
23:09:20 -!- GregorR has quit ("Leaving").
23:09:27 -!- GregorR has joined.
23:10:05 <GregorR> I just set xchat to use my godawful handwriting as its font.
23:10:11 <GregorR> It's not even slightly readable.
23:13:10 -!- ais523 has quit ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client").
23:14:58 <GregorR> I have no idea what you just said.
23:15:10 <GregorR> http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a379/GregorRichards/handwriting_xchat.png
23:15:12 <ehird> H, zero, oh, you, pee, ess, one, heigh, cee.
23:15:31 <GregorR> "Eighch" is spelled "eighch"
23:15:32 <ehird> GregorR: You have some baseline issues there.
23:15:43 <ehird> No, it's spelled "heich".
23:16:46 <oerjan> Bah not worse than that
23:16:55 <GregorR> ehird: Actually, it seems to be "aitch" :P
23:17:39 <ehird> also, that is so readable GregorR
23:17:52 <GregorR> ehird: EXAGGERATION FOR THE SAKE OF EMPHASIS
23:18:07 <ehird> EMPHASIS FOR THE SAKE OF EMPHASIS.
23:18:24 <oerjan> REPETITION FOR THE SAKE OF REPETITION
23:18:51 <oerjan> also, that was supposed to indicate "NO CURSING"
23:18:57 <GregorR> Pronunciation /heɪtʃ/ and hence a spelling of haitch is usually considered to be h-adding and hence nonstandard
23:19:09 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
23:19:32 <ehird> I don't care, it's wrong.
23:20:42 <ehird> ………………………………………………………
23:36:01 -!- fungot has joined.
23:36:41 <fizzie> Forgotteded completely about the botty-bot.
23:37:06 <ehird> fizzie: forgotteded
23:37:35 <oerjan> fungot: please give fizzie some grammar lessons okthx
23:37:35 <fungot> oerjan: you're from japan? :p) with the frame fnord?)
23:38:51 <oklofok> i've been wondering about fizzie's grammar, did i give him that?
23:38:57 <oerjan> stor hvithai, to be exact
23:39:05 <ehird> it's awesome, fizzie's language.
23:39:16 <ehird> "them" to refer to a single object is my favourite part
23:41:12 <oerjan> i do not believe that's a verb, either it's misspelled or you accidentally something
23:41:47 <oklofok> well you may have accidentally the context
23:42:22 <oerjan> but i completely your request to correct your errors from the other day
23:42:54 <oklofok> sorry, i should have that.
23:43:52 <oerjan> and i haven't any opportunities before
23:44:23 <oklofok> i it now, i for so stupid.
23:45:15 <ehird> proto: language where everything is a verb
23:45:18 <ehird> kind of like haskell
23:45:26 <ehird> natural language that is
23:45:32 <ehird> want a value? make an unary verb.
23:45:44 <ehird> ermmmm english isn't all verbs :D
23:45:55 <ehird> but, like, if you have a concept like "1"
23:45:58 <oklofok> maybe not from your point of view
23:46:17 <ehird> dog walks -> walks dog
23:46:31 <oklofok> i doubt anyone here does ;)
23:47:32 <oklofok> in lojban, every root word is a verb... but i guess you mean you could apply every subsentence as if it were a verb or something?
23:48:07 <oklofok> lalna kinda does that... it's kinda oklotalk but a natural language; also similar to oklotalk in that it's unfinished.
23:48:20 <oklofok> oerjan: how can you not have found grammar to correct?
23:48:31 <oklofok> i intentionally talk very, very confuzzlatorily
23:48:50 <fizzie> oklofok: You may have had some sort of influence on it, yes.
23:48:50 <oklofok> i guess i haven't done that then
23:49:17 <oklofok> fizzie: did you know your nick has a palindrome in it?
23:50:04 <oerjan> oklofok: well you've certainly started now
23:50:25 <fizzie> Although I think my in-query-talk with ineiros has also been some sort of a cause for my unstandardish speech patternsies.
23:50:41 <fizzie> oklofok: The "izzi" part?
23:51:02 <ehird> [23:50:25] <fizzie> Although I think my in-query-talk with ineiros has also been some sort of a cause for my unstandardish speech patternsies.
23:51:05 <ehird> does ineiros talk oddly?
23:51:25 <ehird> [23:47:32] <oklofok> in lojban, every root word is a verb... but i guess you mean you could apply every subsentence as if it were a verb or something?
23:51:32 <ehird> basically, eliminate adjectives, adverbs, nouns, ...
23:51:38 <ehird> just have absolutely everything be a verb.
23:51:44 <ehird> including compositions of verbs, yes
23:52:22 <MizardX> Would it be strange to use the term 'access violation' in other contexts than segfaults?
23:52:55 <fizzie> ehird: We do our query in less-than-regular Engrish, even though we both are these .fi types. Although now that I review some logs it seems I'm the odder one out. Curious.
23:53:28 <ehird> I imagine their engirsh is rather less comprehensible, though.
23:55:02 <oklofok> 01:49… oerjan: oklofok: well you've certainly started now <<< ?
23:55:16 <ehird> oklofok: give fizzie some vjnglish
23:55:36 <fizzie> The vjn.fi en-fin translatomator made an awesome job of my randomly picked line; too bad you can't optimally enjoy it if you don't speak Finnish: "me aiheuttaa meidän kysyä -ssa less-than-regular Engrish, yhtäläinen vaikkapa me kummatkin ovat nämä .fi tekee malliesimerkki. vaikkakin välittömästi että meikä arvostella joku tekee runko sitä näyttäät olen moinen odder yksi esiin. omituinen."
23:55:39 <oerjan> oklofok: vocabulatoriatingly at least
23:55:53 <ehird> oklofok: come on vjnglish is awesome.
23:56:00 <ehird> or should I say, an coolness.
23:56:16 <oklofok> sure an coolness to be saying
23:56:18 <FireFly> I'm starting to like WireWorld...
23:56:35 <oerjan> an arvostellar performance
23:57:01 * oerjan swats FireFly first -----###
23:57:07 <ehird> THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE
23:57:10 <ehird> BED IS NOT GOING TO YOU
23:57:48 <fizzie> That last one just looks lik "/me exclusive-or bed".
23:57:56 <fizzie> Which reminds me, I need sleep too; night.
23:58:10 -!- FireFly has quit ("zzzzzzzzz").
23:59:10 <oklofok> also both have palindromes in their nicks, you have a lot in common.