00:09:16 -!- Sgeo has joined.
00:44:05 <bsmntbombdood> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001317
00:44:09 <bsmntbombdood> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824113019
00:44:46 <ehird> How good are your eyes?
00:45:17 <ehird> Oh, it's not quite that bad.
00:45:41 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: If you're a huge pixel junkie, go for the former. It has more pixels, you see. The latter is bigger and 16:10.
00:45:50 <ehird> 16:10 beats 16:9 at that kind of size.
00:46:02 <ehird> The bezel on that Gateway sure does look ugly, though.
00:46:27 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: The Samsung's dpi is 102.16, so some text could be quite smalll without fucking with system settings.
00:46:42 <ehird> Also, it really is horrifically ugly.
00:47:12 <ehird> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ShowImage.aspx?CurImage=24-113-019-S02&ISList=24-113-019-S01%2c24-113-019-S02%2c24-113-019-S03%2c24-113-019-S04%2c24-113-019-S05%2c24-113-019-S06%2c24-113-019-S07%2c24-113-019-S08&S7ImageFlag=1&Item=N82E16824113019&Depa=0&WaterMark=1&Description=Gateway%20FHD2401%20Black%2024%22%205ms%20HDMI%20Widescreen%20LCD%20Monitor oh god, my eyes
00:47:15 <ehird> Go with the Samsung! :-P
00:47:32 <ehird> But, ehh, apart from the obvious aspect ratio and resolutions, they're equally shitty.
00:50:22 <ehird> Untrue! But there's a reason those displays cost 200 bucks.
00:52:02 <bsmntbombdood> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824179058
00:52:47 <ehird> http://tinyurl.com/55abze
00:53:19 <ehird> I wonder why you ask me for opinions when you just call me a retard and say I think everything sucks.
00:53:58 <ehird> Too expensive, that's what :(
00:54:28 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: But, uhh, the higher the response time, the less likely that company just panders to idiots who go for "ooh, faster".
00:54:37 <ehird> Admittedly, it also finds sucky displays that are just made badly and suck.
00:54:53 <ehird> Look at the 1920x1200 ones, I'd say
00:55:40 <ehird> Heh, the top-rated 1920x1200 is a pricey IPS
00:55:55 <ehird> That 25.5 ASUS is lame, really crappy pixel density
00:56:21 <ehird> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824196020 Get this... and you'll be... in the hood
00:56:25 <ehird> oh, I crack myself up
00:57:03 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: But seriously, most cheap displays are exactly the same, so just get the cheapest one with a reasonable size/resolution (24" 1920x1200 is a good bet) and a high rating
00:57:23 <ehird> 24" is already 94 ppi
00:57:31 <ehird> (96 being the "canonical" ppi)
00:57:53 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: As an alternative, if you really don't care, get the most pixels you can and fuck the rest.
00:57:55 <ehird> You probably won't notice.
00:58:30 <ehird> So, that Samsung you linked is probably your best bet if you don't mind squinting for some text.
00:58:41 <ehird> Although it's just 102 PPI, which isn't really all that bad.
00:59:14 <ehird> If you have good eyesight, it'll be fine, and you get 2359296 pixels.
00:59:15 * Sgeo should learn how to use screen
01:00:00 <Sgeo> So is typing python Sucket.py >~/sucket.out 2>~/sucket.err &
01:00:26 <bsmntbombdood> so first you say go 1920*1200, then recommend 2048*1152?
01:00:33 <ehird> Sgeo: That's totally unrelated to screen
01:00:42 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: As in, "if you really don't care about the quality"
01:00:47 <Sgeo> ehird, screen would let me run Sucket in its own um, thingy
01:00:50 <Sgeo> And just leave it there
01:00:56 <Sgeo> Without redirecting stuff
01:01:01 <ehird> Which, if you're looking at $2xx displays, you don't, so just go all out and get the most pixels you can
01:01:10 <ehird> Sgeo: That's called opening a new terminal or tab
01:01:18 <ehird> Screen is just a lousy terminal tabbing system
01:01:25 <ehird> A pain to use and over-complicated
01:01:29 <Sgeo> ehird, I'm intending to leave this open even after I turn off my computer
01:01:30 <ehird> Plus it lets you suspend a session, that's cool I gueuss
01:01:35 <ehird> But that's the only thing
01:01:44 <ehird> Your computer can't run things while it's off.
01:01:45 <Sgeo> ehird, it's running on normish
01:04:21 <bsmntbombdood> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824179058
01:04:48 <ehird> It has no reviews.
01:04:52 <ehird> Not on newegg, at least.
01:04:58 <ehird> Not a single rating.
01:05:14 * Sgeo now understands screen well enough to use it
01:05:20 <ehird> Eh, just get it. You won't be disappointed.
01:05:50 <ehird> Unless you have another display with different colour characteristics and look at any sort of coloured image... But seriously, people don't care.
01:11:56 <bsmntbombdood> i don't even know if the monitor i have now is crappy or not
01:12:18 <ehird> bsmntbombdood: how much did it cost?
01:12:32 <ehird> how big is it, who made it, what resolution
01:13:44 <ehird> I have never heard of Princeton. Googling just gives some amazon and review sites and forums and stuff.
01:14:00 <ehird> Almost certainly some cost-cutting budget manufacturer with no presence.
01:14:20 <ehird> Yeah, I can't even find a company site or anything.
01:14:30 <ehird> Almost certainly really crap.
01:16:21 <ehird> 9—16.9 ms (!!) response time, company has no presence, tiny, uses a whopping 55 W...
01:16:42 <ehird> (The response time would be fine if it was IPS, but it clearly isn't. So it's just shoddy engineering.)
01:17:32 <bsmntbombdood> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824179058
01:17:50 <ehird> can't handle the extra pixels eh?!?!?!? :P
01:58:38 <Ilari> There's ways to boost response time of LCD display, but those tend to result their own issues...
01:58:54 <ehird> See all the 2 ms displays, catering to idiotic gamers.
01:59:00 <ehird> Such a load of crap.
02:00:46 <Ilari> Then one gets effects like reverse ghosting...
02:21:08 <Ilari> BTW: Anybody written brainhype program that prints 'Y' if Goldbach conjecture is true, 'N' otherwise? :->
02:23:55 <ehird> That'd be trivial, no?
02:24:24 <ehird> [[This language is "super-Turing-complete" because it solves the halting problem for Turing machines.]]
02:24:34 <ehird> Brainhype solves the halting problem for Brainhype.
02:24:39 <ehird> So it solves the halting problem for a super-Turing machine...
02:24:43 <ehird> Which is even harder!
02:33:45 <Ilari> IIRC, making string extender where the program would be unrestricted grammar would give something super-turing (AFAIK, complement of context-free grammar already gives turing-complete result)...
02:37:02 <Ilari> The computational class for that is upper-bounded by RE^RE.
02:47:03 <Ilari> ehird: I don't think writing the program in brainhype would be trivial. You need stuff like primality testing...
03:08:35 <bsmntbombdood> both of your nicks are the same length and the same color
03:08:53 <ehird> Your mom is the same length and colour.
03:10:46 -!- Oranjer has joined.
03:11:17 -!- _0x44 has joined.
03:11:37 -!- _0x44 has left (?).
03:12:49 <Oranjer> anyone sentient and autonomous enough to comprehend the meanings behind these words?
03:13:38 <fungot> Asztal: why aren't they in the mood for a lisp not to be particularly condusive to stacks.
03:14:21 <Oranjer> fungot, what you just said does not nearly begin to prove your sentience
03:14:22 <fungot> Oranjer: i figure that this *is* an unstable version of chicken?
03:14:46 <coppro> Asztal: fungot is Markov, right?
03:14:47 <fungot> coppro: control is at one level of indentation. it just happens to be extraordinary like few things are vague, but it's
03:14:59 <fungot> Oranjer: it is a good way too much
03:15:17 <fungot> coppro: the local of the same original code. ( " the wrong way
03:15:57 <Oranjer> fungot doesn't seem very coherent
03:15:59 <fungot> Oranjer: but was walk-lisp properly tail-recursive? ( else i will tell em... :-p something...
03:16:23 <Oranjer> fungot, parantheses require a closing ) to be grammatically correct where I come from
03:16:24 <fungot> Oranjer: which is quite irrelevant if the rest are possible optimizations to be done
03:18:12 <fungot> Oranjer: that was mean, stop doing homework problems.'
03:18:24 <Oranjer> dammit, fungot can also predict the future
03:18:25 <fungot> Oranjer: unicode defines " case folding" which is fine but how could i have to be a
03:18:58 <Oranjer> now I just feel ridiculous
03:19:03 <ehird> Oranjer: It ignores you after a time so that WE DON'T GET PEOPLE SPAMMING THE CRAP OUT OF THE BOTS!
03:19:15 <ehird> I'm your friendly channel asshole.
03:19:20 <ehird> Wait, scratch the friendly.
03:19:39 <Oranjer> I am a lonely man in a lonely world in a lonely channel in a lonely state of mind
03:19:43 <ehird> Oranjer: fungot is written in befunge
03:19:43 <fungot> ehird: well i read examples in r5rs... inside a syntax form, so wherever you have a point there
03:19:43 <ehird> http://zem.fi/~fis/fungot.b98.txt
03:19:44 <fungot> ehird: c also provides a modest degree of portability, its return should be opaque objects, rather than having a fnord assembler compiler...
03:19:47 <ehird> Although that might be an old version
03:19:54 <ehird> I'm going to assume you're here for the languagees
03:19:58 <ehird> *languages; I hate this keyboard
03:20:26 <Oranjer> what languages do you mean, though?
03:20:34 <ehird> Esoteric programming languages. Like Befunge.
03:20:47 <ehird> We get a steady occasional trickle of esoterica people...
03:20:54 <ehird> ...aand like clockwork, you're another one.
03:21:14 <ehird> Well, unless you're here for a mysterious third purpose.
03:21:24 <ehird> A guy a while back came in here to talk about Russian music.
03:21:54 <ehird> Oranjer: You seem quite confused.
03:21:55 <Oranjer> actually, coppro recommended this channel because I wanted to talk about my attempts at creating a universal language akin to that conceptualized by Leibniz
03:22:11 <ehird> Well, with that one sentence I think you've proved you belong here. Hiiiiii.
03:22:33 <coppro> :D /me has finally done something good in this channel
03:22:46 <ehird> We're crazy, we're http://esolangs.org/, we're oklo.
03:23:03 <coppro> funny, I was thinking the same thing
03:23:05 <Oranjer> everyone either fights it or does it
03:23:13 <coppro> Is oklopol like INTERPOL but with less INTER and more oklo?
03:23:23 <ehird> oklopol is oklopol
03:23:29 <ehird> but that's just heresy
03:23:31 <Oranjer> how can one use oklo- as an affix?
03:23:46 <Oranjer> also, I have actually heard of esoteric languages before
03:23:47 <ehird> (The capitalisation is part of the spelling!)
03:24:02 <ehird> Yes, that's the canonical one.
03:24:17 <coppro> Brainfuck pales in comparison to some of the things developed in here
03:24:22 <coppro> and a few that weren't
03:24:30 <Oranjer> I have heard that said before, coppro
03:25:00 <coppro> PLEASE .1 <- #4235~#&2098 DON'T wait, what?
03:25:07 <ehird> I'm pretty sure Feather will be classed as a Schedule I drug upon its release and wide dissemination
03:25:33 <ehird> ais523 can't seem to stop trying to import it from Hilbert-space to this world.
03:26:01 <Oranjer> Hilbert-space? is that a meta, a mesa, an alter, or an inter space?
03:26:30 <ehird> I saw someone use Hilbert-space to denote the platonic realm of information and ideas, and it's rather more concise, plus the name is cute.
03:26:48 <ehird> It doesn't make sense, but it sounds nice.
03:26:54 <Oranjer> I just use ideosphere or memosphere or psychosphere myself
03:27:24 <ehird> I think the fact that you use a term for it at all further cements your belonging in here...
03:27:51 <ehird> Come to think of it, once Feather is fully formed, it'll probably have always existed.
03:28:09 <Oranjer> damn self-supporting existences
03:28:09 <ehird> In fact, a retroactive paradox in Feather caused the Big Bang...
03:28:39 <ehird> YOU DID NOT WANT TO ASK THAT QUESTION
03:28:41 <Pthing> i am suddenly curious about what Plato called Platonica
03:28:45 <Pthing> But the true earth is pure (katharan) and situated in the pure heaven (en katharōi ouranōi) ... and it is the heaven which is commonly spoken by us as the ether (aithera) ... for if any man could arrive at the extreme limit ... he would acknowledge that this other world was the place of the true heaven (ho alethōs ouranos) and the true light (to alethinon phōs) and the true earth (hē hōs alēthōs gē).
03:28:59 <ehird> While you still have the last vestiges of the remnants of your sanity
03:29:00 * Sgeo works around unicode strangeness by going directly into the database and removing a problematic line
03:29:15 <Oranjer> sanity? I know not what you speaketh ofeth
03:29:17 <Sgeo> May the gods of forgive me
03:29:51 <Pthing> so it would appear we have a choice of "pure heaven" or "the aether"
03:30:07 <Pthing> I did not know he placed the Forms in the aether
03:30:14 <Pthing> i guess it makes sense
03:30:14 <ehird> Oranjer: To grossly misrepresent it to a degree that borders on being a lie, and insult ais523 by painting it as more simple than it is,
03:31:00 <ehird> Oranjer: It basically involves programs modifying the Feather interpreter (itself written in Feather). This interpreter is then used to retroactively run all of the program from the start, so that the change "always was", in a sense. Except it also changes the interpreter used to interpret the interpreter that interpreted the program, and so on to infinite depth.
03:31:21 <ehird> Oranjer: You change the interpreter, which causes an infinite chain of retroactive reinterpretations of the interpreter, and then finally of the program.
03:31:50 <Oranjer> but it cannot actually go through time, correct?
03:32:23 <ehird> Oranjer: Surprisingly no!
03:32:26 <ehird> I know, it's shocking.
03:32:45 <Oranjer> bah, doubtful--even Hofstadter could not escape time
03:33:01 <ehird> It basically forgets all it did and removes any output it made. The hard part is escaping the necessity of interpreting the interpreter infinite times...
03:33:27 <Oranjer> amnesia is not time travel
03:33:50 <ehird> (a) That's not what I said.
03:34:01 <ehird> (b) Do attempt to explain how the halting problem is related.
03:34:32 <ehird> ais523 has a faint grasp on how to actually specify the language and is looking into working into an interpreter (well, was; he's stopped for now, I think), so...
03:35:14 <ehird> I'm pretty confident it's implementable on a Turing machine.
03:35:30 <coppro> a UTM or a regular one?
03:35:38 <ehird> coppro: UTM, obviously.
03:35:50 <ehird> Oranjer: Super-turing languages, such as those that can solve the halting problem.
03:36:12 <ehird> (These are probably impossible to implement in physics...)
03:36:30 <ehird> Well, obviously the halting problem is not solvable at all, as it's a non-concept.
03:36:39 <ehird> Oranjer: Super-turing languages definitely exist.
03:36:54 <ehird> They are probably not possible to implement in our universe, though.
03:36:57 <Oranjer> I still doubt their existence, regardless of your anecdotal support
03:37:05 <ehird> So, for all intents and purposes, they are impossible to implement.
03:37:07 <Oranjer> can they be modeled in this universe?
03:37:11 <ehird> Oranjer: They certainly exist, they're just not implementable.
03:37:18 <ehird> They have been specified, a few on our wiki.
03:37:26 <ehird> coppro: Almost certainly no, you mean.
03:37:31 <Oranjer> can they be modeled in this universe?
03:37:35 <ehird> Who knows what the crazy quantum physicists will discover next.
03:37:41 <coppro> Oranjer: as ehird says, almost certainly no
03:37:48 <ehird> But they can be specified in the abstract.
03:37:54 <coppro> ehird: I repeat your previous correction
03:37:59 <Oranjer> ...that's what I meant, ehird...
03:38:13 <ehird> Oranjer: So how can you doubt their existence?
03:38:36 <Oranjer> I cannot, if they can be modeled, then they exist
03:39:28 <Oranjer> I'm a modal realist, by the way
03:39:38 <Oranjer> it has no bearing, just thought i should let y'all know
03:40:21 <Oranjer> what did this all start with again?
03:40:54 <ehird> Being in this channel for long enough makes you give up on answering that question.
03:41:40 <Oranjer> Besardles, I intend to create a functionally universal language
03:41:49 <ehird> Modal realism strikes me as similar to solipsism: unfalsifiable, and hard to accept in practice
03:42:09 <Oranjer> that hurt's more than you think
03:42:14 <coppro> Oranjer: no one helps in here.
03:42:22 <ehird> Oranjer: Your abuse of the apostrophe hurts even more!
03:42:40 <coppro> All that happens is that ehird berates your attempts and other people make unhelpful suggestions
03:42:42 <ehird> Do note that I arrived at that opinion with a three-second skim of the Wikipedia article.
03:42:51 <ehird> coppro: You're welcome!
03:43:05 <coppro> and yet, somehow, you end up thinking this is a nice place to hang out
03:43:21 <ehird> At least we're all articulate.
03:44:41 <Oranjer> dammit, now I have to find an Optimus quote and write it in E-Prime
03:44:58 <ehird> That's what I was thinking.
03:45:23 <Oranjer> Synergetics, as per Buckminster Fuller?
03:47:14 <Oranjer> ehird? have I destroyed you?
03:47:32 <ehird> Buckminster is awesome.
03:47:35 <ehird> Well, was, I guess.
03:47:55 <Oranjer> I am saddened that I could never meet him or Borges
03:48:08 -!- Asztal has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
03:48:13 <Pthing> did you ever actually try to read anything he wrote
03:48:14 <Oranjer> how does that bot know about buckminster?
03:48:21 <ehird> Pthing is a bot now?
03:48:34 <ehird> Pthing: Why do you say that?
03:48:47 <Oranjer> I..thought...but all that jumbled nonsense after I asked "What's Feather?"
03:48:49 <Pthing> because he just rambles on and on making deep sounding gibberish
03:48:58 <Pthing> that doesn't mean anything
03:49:03 <Oranjer> yeah, but what he says is useful
03:49:25 <Oranjer> also, I guess you're right--the best book on Synergetics was actually a book-wide review on Fuller's book
03:49:28 <ehird> His inventions and concepts are inspired enough that I am inclined to give credence to his written work, even though I have not read it.
03:49:59 <Oranjer> 'tis my favorite quote from a movie I never saw
03:50:07 <Oranjer> "The Idea is valid regardless of the Origin"
03:50:22 <Oranjer> (I am also an Epistemological Anarchist)
03:50:39 <ehird> Dymaxion sleep schedule. Geodesic domes. Dymaxion house (eccentric, yes, but interesting).
03:51:04 <Pthing> what do you see in synergetics exactly
03:51:17 <Oranjer> building a mile-diameter floating geodesic dome by heating the inside up by one degree
03:52:09 <Pthing> we are fortunate somebody put the whole thing up
03:52:09 <Pthing> http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html
03:52:14 <Oranjer> ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"?
03:52:18 <ehird> It seems obvious to me that Buckminster was crazy, or at least highly eccentric, but the Dymaxion sleep schedule, Geodesic domes, Dymaxion houses and other such cool stuff makes me highly suspicious of any accusations that he's just a kook.
03:52:38 <Oranjer> I have some awesomes quotes from the man
03:53:01 <Pthing> <Oranjer> ummm...the avoidance of the irrationality that nature itself does not use? the fact that 2^2 is not necessarily "X squared", but also "X triangled"?
03:53:03 <ehird> Epistemological anarchism seems stupid.
03:53:16 <Oranjer> ehird, no! at least back up your insults!
03:53:25 <Pthing> you mean, in fact, "the use of triangles to build things"
03:53:42 <ehird> As far as I can tell, it's "the scientific method is fascist, hurf durf, let's just make up shit".
03:53:52 <Oranjer> now now, ehird, that's not it at all
03:54:03 <ehird> At least, the Wikipedia page says nothing about it making coherent arguments against the scientific method as a universal decider.
03:55:02 <Oranjer> I merely suggest that there is no concrete boundary between "science" and "pseudoscience", and that therefore a theory's "rightness" can only be determined by its validity to reality, and that that can only be determined by its usefulness
03:55:46 <ehird> Well, Wikipedia claims that the source of epistemological anarchism was against only considering falsifiable claims, so I guess that explains modal realism.
03:55:53 <Pthing> 1005.54 Truth is cosmically total: synergetic. Verities are generalized principles stated in semimetaphorical terms. Verities are differentiable. But love is omniembracing, omnicoherent, and omni-inclusive, with no exceptions. Love, like synergetics, is nondifferentiable, i.e., is integral. Differential means locally-discontinuously linear. Integration means omnispherical. And the intereffects are precessional.
03:56:37 <ehird> Pthing: reading that line is like trying to read in a dream
03:56:40 <Pthing> 1005.612 When a person dies, all the chemistry remains, and we see that the human organism's same aggregate quantity of the same chemistries persists from the "live" to the "dead" state. This aggregate of chemistries has no metaphysical interpreter to communicate to self or to others the aggregate of chemical rates of interacting associative or disassociative proclivities, the integrated effects of which humans speak o
03:56:40 <ehird> I keep forgetting three words ago
03:56:40 <Pthing> f as "hunger" or as the need to "go to the toilet." Though the associative intake "hunger" is unspoken metaphysically after death, the disassociative discard proclivities speak for themselves as these chemical-proclivity discard behaviors continue and reach self-balancing rates of progressive disassociation. What happens physically at death is that the importing ceases while exporting persists, which produces a locally
03:56:43 <Pthing> unbalanced__thereafter exclusively exporting__system. (See Sec. 1052.59.)
03:57:10 <ehird> Anyway, by "Buckminster is awesome" I meant "he was crazy in a cool way, and his inventions are awesome".
03:57:17 <Oranjer> now, now, Pthing, we can select at random and then textualize any fragment of any work of science, and reach the same "this guy's a kook 'cause he uses jargon I don't know"
03:57:18 <ehird> Clearly his written work is rather too eccentric.
03:57:24 <Pthing> most of the time he was crazy in a boring way
03:57:34 <ehird> Perhaps in his writing.
03:57:40 <Pthing> which is what I am talking about
03:57:48 <Oranjer> http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/40.html
03:57:52 <ehird> Well, I never said anything about his writing, really.
03:57:52 <Pthing> Oranjer, now now stop saying "now now" like a patronising faggot
03:57:55 <Oranjer> that's a link to that book
03:58:08 <ehird> When I said "at least we're all articulate", maybe Pthing isn't too articulate.
03:58:17 <Oranjer> now now, Pthing, you know namecalling is on the bottom of the disagreement hierarchy
03:58:18 <ehird> Unless he's actually saying that Oranjer is acting homoesxual.
03:58:27 <Pthing> haha, disagreement hierarchy
03:58:38 <ehird> Oranjer: please, say that wasn't a paul graham reference
03:58:47 <Oranjer> oops? is that taboo? sorry
03:59:14 <Oranjer> *fecespalm* just sounds awful
03:59:38 <Pthing> jargon can be used for multiple purposes
03:59:47 <Pthing> ideally it is used as a kind of shorthand for more complex terms
03:59:53 <Oranjer> only if you fail to provide a framework of definitions
03:59:55 <Pthing> or, as here, it can be used for poetic mystification
03:59:57 <ehird> Graham's disagreement hierarchy falls into the the latter of the two categories of Paul Graham's work, being stupid ego-driven rubbish and complete obviousness yet somehow presented in the most egotistical way imaginable.
04:00:13 <Oranjer> oh? you can tell the difference between the two, Pthing, without knowing what the words mean?
04:00:43 <Oranjer> oh, no, I can't Pthing, I just like to be confrontational
04:01:21 <Pthing> since we're quoting authorities and accusing each other of being inarticulate, I'll pull out the "if you can't explain what you are doing to an n year old child, then you do not understand it" card
04:01:22 <ehird> Well that's... surprisingly honest.
04:01:28 <ehird> Oranjer: by the way, oerjan may sue you for name infringement.
04:01:44 <ehird> Pthing: I can't explain the halting problem to an n year old child.
04:01:48 <Oranjer> I have heard of that individual, as I have also heard of you, ehird
04:02:23 <Oranjer> also, you caught me, Pthing--I do not understand anything Buckminster says--I've never read a single thing he's ever written
04:02:23 <Pthing> also it's often specified that it is a bright child
04:03:01 <Pthing> by the unpopular epistemic idea of "people who have read a text are better equipped to discuss it than people who haven't"
04:03:26 <Oranjer> I have no idea what we're doing, anyway
04:03:51 <Pthing> i was rather hoping you could explain what you saw in the above quoted sentences
04:03:54 <Oranjer> I would ask how this all started, but I learned my lesson before
04:03:57 <Pthing> because they seem entirely meaningless to me
04:04:09 <Oranjer> oh? then I shall look at it again
04:04:09 <ehird> I'll grab the acid and the popcorn
04:04:10 <Pthing> or rather pregnant with a meaning always out of grasp
04:04:27 <Pthing> which can make for fine fiction, but this does nothing for me
04:04:56 <Oranjer> yeah no, I ain't getting anything outa it--I don't know what half the words mean
04:05:17 <Oranjer> I wonder if Buckminster built up from earlier definitions of those words?
04:05:19 <Pthing> here is an epistemic Pro Tip
04:05:44 <ehird> Someone should write some nonsense on how the scientific method is inherently capitalist, and proposing a collectivist form of epistemological reasoning
04:05:48 <ehird> Then submit it to a postmodernist journal
04:05:56 <Oranjer> and throw in feminism, of course
04:05:59 <ehird> Tada, Sokal affair mk. II!
04:06:17 <Pthing> you kinda prejudice it by saying it's nonsense
04:06:23 <Oranjer> I mean, shrill feminism, where history is masculine and whatnot
04:06:48 <ehird> "you kinda prejudice it"
04:06:53 <ehird> But yes, such a paper has something like a 99.99% chance of being bullshit
04:06:54 <Pthing> the paper you proposed?
04:07:04 <ehird> Oranjer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
04:07:13 <ehird> Pthing: Thus why I said "some nonsense"
04:07:15 <Oranjer> I remember that without even clicking on it
04:07:53 <Pthing> political criticisms of such things are not entirely nonsense
04:08:17 <Oranjer> I would argue that nothing is entirely nonsense, if it has functionality
04:08:41 <ehird> what is it with this discussion? you go around and point out some Buckminster bullshit, and now you're praising an imaginary paper that decries the scientific method as being capitalist
04:08:51 <ehird> and proposing some vague, meaningless "collectivist epistemology"
04:08:59 <Oranjer> haha, ehird, perhaps his consistency is beyond you?
04:09:02 <ehird> it seems like we're continually swapping places all the time
04:09:04 <ehird> Pthing: Yes, as a hoax
04:09:05 <Pthing> not only content with pretending to write it
04:09:12 <Pthing> you're pretending i'm critiquing the finished product
04:09:20 <Oranjer> also, ehird, switching positions is a good thing, I've heard
04:09:26 <ehird> Pthing: i'm confused
04:09:30 <Pthing> when I'm actually talking about the whole body of ideas that would lead to such a thing being written for real
04:09:31 <ehird> you're saying that it wouldn't be bullshit, no?
04:09:48 <Oranjer> it means one is more focused with reaching the truth, as opposed to merely wanting to convince others of your own rightness
04:09:50 <ehird> well yes, a paper about anything can theoretically be reasonable
04:10:00 <Oranjer> monkeys n' typewriters, eh?
04:10:03 <Pthing> If it were written well, it would make a lot of sense in the field
04:10:10 <ehird> but I'd wager the chances of making such an argument in a form *suitable to postmodernist journals*
04:10:16 <ehird> and having it be coherent
04:10:18 <Pthing> which journals are those
04:10:21 <ehird> postmodernism is bullshit
04:10:35 <ehird> Pthing: For instance, Social Text, subject of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
04:10:41 <Oranjer> ah, ehird, but all things exist as examples to learn from--even bullshit
04:10:51 <ehird> Pthing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
04:10:54 <ehird> Do your own research
04:11:14 <ehird> The simple answer is that you can't define postmodernism because it's just a bunch of bullshit made to sound intellectual perpetrated by idiots
04:11:14 <Pthing> what do you understand postmodernism to mean
04:11:27 <Pthing> if you go around with a definition like that
04:11:28 <ehird> I just answered your question before you asked it!
04:11:34 <ehird> Causality, in your face
04:11:36 <Pthing> then obviously what you said is true
04:11:41 <ehird> Pthing: yes, because my experience has shown it to be true,
04:11:48 <ehird> Pthing: just like you consider buckminster a kook
04:12:00 <ehird> from your experience of his works, you conclude they're all bullshit
04:12:05 <Pthing> I think buckminster had some good ideas in there
04:12:06 <ehird> and therefore you deduce that buckminster writes bullshit
04:12:10 <ehird> this is called "reasoning"
04:12:13 <Pthing> I would not say that buckminster is bullshit
04:12:18 <Pthing> I would say he writes very boring books
04:12:20 <Oranjer> hey, peoples, let the other person talk! oy vey!
04:12:22 <ehird> i guess reasoning's a bit capitalist though
04:12:26 <Oranjer> y'all are talking over each other
04:12:32 <ehird> and, you know, male-oriented
04:12:35 <Oranjer> that's hardly good debate from
04:12:47 <ehird> Oranjer: with IRC, you can't make someone else's message unreadable; isn't it great
04:13:08 <ehird> so what does it matter if you talk over another?
04:13:13 <Pthing> I have much the same opinion of the various philosophical schools that get accused of being postmodernist
04:13:23 <Oranjer> out of context is not in the meaning
04:13:28 <Pthing> which, incidentally, is a term the people themselves don't like to use
04:14:11 <ehird> so, let's talk about post-capitalist rationalism as applied to geometry
04:14:20 <Oranjer> as in, to avoid language games and talk past each other as much as possible, we should let the other person complete their thought
04:15:46 <Pthing> for that matter, come to think of it, "there's a lot of very boring writing about things nobody cares about, but there are a few gems of ideas" is a pretty good description of scientific journals in general
04:16:13 <Oranjer> and of science in general, I would argue
04:16:18 <ehird> anyway, I think that the general Euclidian approach is inherently biased in that it favours circles to squares, circles being the only uniform object, and I would like to consider a circle as a man, so we can see that the problem most be solved, in a post-capitalist feminist society, by reasoning that squares and circles are both equally round, thus collectivising roundness
04:16:39 <ehird> that's so bullshit I almost believe it
04:16:59 <Oranjer> but where would the functionality in subscribing "roundness" to both squares and circles?
04:17:26 <Oranjer> also, the Euclidian approach favors circles to squares? I have seen no such thing--citations, please?
04:17:28 <Pthing> you still haven't explained what the shit functionality is
04:17:41 <ehird> If a property can be imagined, it is necessary. But biased properties are problematic.
04:17:45 <ehird> They are inherently anti-feminist.
04:18:02 <ehird> Oranjer: Clearly, uniformness is desirable: there is no discrimination between the different parts of a shape.
04:18:10 <ehird> Thus, uniformness is feminist.
04:18:17 <Pthing> all you did was translate from latin to english
04:18:19 <Oranjer> for whatever the Observer wishes to use it for, Pthing
04:18:21 <ehird> Squares are not uniform, therefore they are inferior to circles.
04:18:33 <Pthing> you just used "use" to define "use"
04:18:40 <ehird> And it is anti-collectivist discrimination.
04:18:49 <ehird> Squares have to answer to circles at the points where they differ from another point and circles do not.
04:18:52 <ehird> This is not collectivist.
04:18:53 <Oranjer> very, well, Pthing, I shall think about this
04:19:04 <Pthing> it won't lead anywhere
04:19:08 <ehird> In conclusion, Euclidian geometry must be replaced with a post-capitalist, feminist, collectivist replacement that views circles and squares as equally round.
04:19:19 <Pthing> ehird, why are you doing this
04:19:24 <Oranjer> as I have actually gone for some time assuming the definition of "functionality" as something hardly worth referring to
04:19:34 <Pthing> as a consequence, it's not worth talking about
04:19:41 <ehird> Pthing: It's more interesting than any other equally-bullshit thing we could be talking about.
04:19:47 <Oranjer> also, "It won't lead anywhere" is hardly evidence supporting its own claim
04:20:08 <Oranjer> and yes, Pthing, it's not worth talking about because it has no use
04:21:08 <Oranjer> Basically, I would argue that the only way to "prove" communication is if a goal is accomplished whose accomplishment's chances of occurring would have been greatly increased if the second party understood the communication
04:21:47 <ehird> post-capitalist, feminist rationalism on geometry!
04:21:48 <Pthing> fffffffffffffffffffffff
04:21:48 <Oranjer> and therefore, I would say a theory has functionality if the Observer can use it to accomplish a goal
04:22:23 <ehird> Chastisty is no waay to live life!
04:22:32 <Oranjer> http://nobodyscores.loosenutstudio.com/index.php?id=534
04:23:08 <Oranjer> I thought you said "Chastity is no way of life! God can't spell!"
04:23:25 <ehird> that, my friend, is also true
04:23:27 <ehird> that is also true.
04:23:54 <Oranjer> bah, I long ago learned to avoid any assumption of knowing an "absolute truth"
04:24:10 <Oranjer> I instead use "valid according to what I have observed of this universe"
04:24:35 <Oranjer> yes, I do turn all so-called objectivist, absolute statements into subjective relativism
04:24:41 <ehird> I'M SORRY IN FUTURE I'LL AVOID SIMPLE, USEFUL TERMS THAT YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF IN CASUAL ENGLISH
04:24:45 <ehird> ALSO THE USE OFF LOWERCASE
04:26:01 <ehird> IN THE FUTURE WE HAVE DISCONTINUED LOWERCASE
04:26:20 <Oranjer> WHO AUTHORIZED THAT CHANGE
04:26:49 <Oranjer> also, Jesus Fuckin' Houdini did this get outa hand
04:27:37 <Oranjer> I just want to create a functionally universal language that explicitly refers to its own abstraction and that which it does not cover!
04:28:05 <ehird> Importing Jesus/Houdini porn from Hilbert-space is really not what the world needs right now.
04:28:40 <Oranjer> also, I have determined that all such "mental" planes only exist in the meta-, and as such cannot carry on into this space
04:28:55 <ehird> got any other semantically empty metaphysics?
04:29:24 -!- madbrain has joined.
04:29:27 <ehird> I'm working on an engine powered entirely on renowned rationalists rolling in their grave
04:29:32 <ehird> and it could help to set it off
04:29:37 <ehird> almost entirely clean energy
04:29:48 <Oranjer> do you mean semantically empty because you do not know what I mean by the words I say, or because you know for a fact that what I say has no meaning?
04:29:54 <ehird> we just need to keep making up enough bullshit by the time they stop rolling
04:30:03 <Pthing> it's because you're being BORING
04:30:08 <Oranjer> there exists a distinct difference between the two
04:30:22 <Oranjer> :((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
04:30:31 <ehird> Oranjer: because I'm fairly sure any digression into what meaning you consider it to have will involve the words "subjectivity", "reality" and "epistemology"
04:30:46 <Oranjer> I will try to avoid those words
04:30:47 <ehird> basically boiling down to "but. is. this. universe. even. REAL?"
04:31:08 <Oranjer> I love it when a movie ends in an existential crisis
04:31:49 <Oranjer> I have yet to see a single one that does, I am afraid
04:32:11 <ehird> then how do you know you love it
04:32:17 <ehird> JUST ASKING THE OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE
04:32:38 <Oranjer> very well, I shall amend my original statement as per your observation
04:33:14 <madbrain> my, my, there is some philosophical thought going in here
04:33:20 <Oranjer> /I feel like I would enjoy/ a movie that ends in an existential crisis, if indeed such a movie exists
04:34:11 <Oranjer> you see, ehird? From what I have seen, E-prime makes explicit those things that normally divide most sides of a disagreement
04:34:40 <ehird> e-prime seems really superficial
04:34:51 <Oranjer> yes, it is largely dealing with semantics
04:34:52 <madbrain> e-prime? that's the english without the verb to be?
04:35:10 <Oranjer> I have used it for years in all my official documents
04:35:24 <Oranjer> and I gotta tell ya, it makes you seem hell of smarter
04:35:46 <ehird> like, a rationalist language that accounts for subjectivity on all levels, and integrates the scientific method and probability to have different levels of truth, so to speak
04:35:47 <ehird> would be interestingn
04:35:50 <Oranjer> also, it has helped me cut through the curvy-turvies of most modern ethical dilemmas
04:35:59 <ehird> but removing a few constructs from english does not a disambiguation make
04:36:12 <Oranjer> I try to go beyond just removing "to be"
04:36:12 <ehird> (or, less sillily worded, does not disambiguate :P)
04:37:03 <Oranjer> I also: try to avoid negations, try to avoid stative verbs, try to date and place my sentences, and try to make explicit the source(s) of the evidence my claims
04:37:22 <ehird> try to avoid negations
04:37:27 <Pthing> it just makes you sound rehearsed for nothing in particular
04:37:27 <Oranjer> do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing?
04:37:47 <Oranjer> You disagree with sounding rehearsed why...?
04:37:48 <ehird> Oranjer: remember? all truths are valid independently of their reasoning method
04:37:53 <Pthing> oh yeah i forgot you'd built a religion about things working
04:37:55 <ehird> ergo you demanding evidence is authoritarian
04:38:08 <ehird> epistemological anarchhism BACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKFIRE
04:38:24 <madbrain> well, adjectives come in 2 forms
04:38:25 <Pthing> because the effect of it is that you are making a grand show
04:38:27 <ehird> you cannot challenge pthing's statement without making a claim as to what reasoning method he is using
04:38:33 <ehird> which would be authoritarian and incorrect
04:38:42 <ehird> this itself may be untrue
04:38:44 <ehird> as it was derived from logical reasoning
04:38:48 <madbrain> "The blue dog X" and "The dog is blue"
04:38:48 <ehird> which, by epistemological anarchism
04:38:51 <Oranjer> hardly, ehird--I say an idea's validity is independent of its source
04:38:54 <Pthing> what content there is is disguised in all this attempt to *sound* plain spoken
04:39:01 <Pthing> when instead you should just *be* plain spoken
04:39:07 <Pthing> rather than coming up with awkward theatrical tricks
04:39:27 <Pthing> you've used several rehearsed sentences so far repeatedly
04:39:31 <Pthing> <Oranjer> do you have any evidence to support that, Pthing?
04:39:40 <Pthing> it's by means of a catchphrase, isn't it
04:39:54 <ehird> overreaction much?
04:40:01 <ehird> I said what what, in the butt
04:40:08 <madbrain> In english, the epithet form of adjectives (The blue dog) is the default, and the attribute (The dog is blue) needs "to be", but there are plenty of languages where it's the other way around, ie adjectives are all verbs
04:40:10 <ehird> I said what what, Jesus fuck
04:40:14 <ehird> could make a good sequel.
04:40:23 <Oranjer> I despise the overblowing of misunderstandings and an air of the assumption of veracity
04:40:33 <ehird> do you realise that statement means nothing
04:40:38 <ehird> i mean, just inquiring
04:40:46 <Oranjer> I merely stated an opinion of my own
04:40:57 <Oranjer> you see, Pthing, that was hardly a catchphrase
04:40:58 <Pthing> can you think of a way to say what you just said
04:41:02 <Pthing> but *using fewer words*
04:41:13 <Oranjer> I shall think about it, and come back
04:41:26 <Pthing> isn't that another catchphrase?
04:41:26 <ehird> oh snap that was hard
04:41:38 <Pthing> <Oranjer> I shall think about it, and come back
04:41:49 <madbrain> you guys are thinking too hard about that stuff
04:41:49 <Oranjer> well, it was hardly intentional
04:42:04 <ehird> madbrain: no, Oranjer is making bullshit and we're anti-bullshitting it :P
04:42:20 <ehird> i think the reason this channel is so addictive is that it's brutally confrontational
04:42:42 <ehird> even interest in a language is expressed with a prod for details and an implied criticism if the details are wrong beforehand
04:42:49 <Oranjer> okay, Pthing, could you repeat what you said I should say in fewer words?
04:42:56 <ehird> it works and it's fun
04:43:08 <Pthing> of the false precision
04:43:16 <Pthing> "could you repeat what you said I should say"
04:43:21 <Pthing> you can see why that's nonsense, right
04:43:23 <madbrain> the more and more you analyze it, the hairier your model gets :D
04:43:23 <ehird> damn that almost rhymed
04:43:42 <Pthing> if I didn't say something once, *how can I repeat it*
04:44:13 <ehird> is it just me, or are we totally deconstructing Oranjer's reality piece by piece
04:44:15 <Oranjer> Pthing, now you're just arguing semantics, and that's a dick move, and I fear it is made outa spite
04:44:22 <ehird> poor guy didn't know what he was getting himself into
04:44:30 <ehird> please don't say arguing semantics
04:44:33 <Oranjer> actually, I suspected as muc, ehird
04:44:33 <Pthing> No, I am trying to show that you are talking in an unclear way
04:44:34 <ehird> the whole point of e-prime
04:44:42 <Pthing> general semantics, even
04:44:44 <ehird> he's arguing exactly what e-prime aims for
04:44:53 <ehird> and about that term in general
04:44:58 <ehird> semantics is literally the meaning of EVERYTHING
04:45:00 <ehird> what else CAN you argue
04:45:02 <Oranjer> *sigh* Pthing, I believe you're operating under the misconception that I am using e-prime, now, in irc chat
04:45:20 <Pthing> No, clues that you're not include the fact you keep using forms of "to be"
04:45:30 <ehird> i think "you're arguing semantics" means "you're making a criticism that i wish to dismiss as trivial because i don't want to reply to it"
04:45:31 <Pthing> However to return to your question.
04:45:35 <Pthing> What is it you wanted, exactly
04:45:39 <Pthing> did you want me to suggest a simpler form?
04:45:41 <ehird> Oranjer: maybe instead of using e-prime you should disambiguate things like "you're arguing semantics"
04:45:42 <Oranjer> a simple style choice, madbrain
04:46:11 <Pthing> then what did you want
04:46:36 <Oranjer> I have forgotten what statement of mine you referenced when you suggested that I rephrase said statement using fewer words
04:46:42 <madbrain> Although you could want to avoid the contraction as a kind of style effect
04:46:45 <ehird> worst sentence ever
04:46:50 <ehird> want me to rephrase it for you?
04:46:58 <Oranjer> sure, ehird, why the fuck not
04:47:07 <ehird> "What statement did you want me to rephrase with fewer words?"
04:47:07 <Pthing> "I despise the overblowing of misunderstandings and an air of the assumption of veracity"
04:47:18 <ehird> unlike the one you said, it's not an incomprehensible tongue-twister
04:47:20 <Oranjer> yes, ehird, I prefer your version
04:47:44 <ehird> the problem with yours is that it keeps referencing "the statement" in different ways
04:47:44 <madbrain> But yeah, e-prime is silly, there's probably a good reason why english uses "to be" all over the place
04:47:56 <ehird> which means you have to constantly figure out what statement it refers to each time
04:48:00 <Oranjer> yes, madbrain, it mainly uses it as a copula
04:48:57 <ehird> you need to be put in mental institutions.
04:48:57 <Pthing> did you come up with a plainer way to say that yet
04:49:14 <Oranjer> holy shit, ehird, I just reread the sentence you're criticizing, and it really is pretty bad
04:49:49 <Pthing> despite your, uh, despising an air of the assumption of veracity
04:50:21 <Oranjer> Does the action of posting a sentence here indicate the level of certainty I place in it?
04:50:51 <Oranjer> yes, a portmanteau of Besides and Regardless
04:51:20 <ehird> yeah, most people spell that "Besides"
04:51:25 <Pthing> of epistemic theories that Just Work
04:51:32 <Pthing> have you been diagnosed with any actual mental disorders
04:51:39 <ehird> they are AUTHORITARIAN
04:51:46 <Pthing> or schizoid personality disorders?
04:51:58 <ehird> Pthing: you have not ruled out the possibility that he hasn't given anyone the opportunity to
04:52:09 <ehird> Pthing: why, does that make him any less crazy
04:52:41 <ehird> :( does not open a () pair, dude
04:53:02 <ehird> it's called an opinion.
04:53:18 <Oranjer> yes, but an opinion masquerading as an absolute fact
04:53:42 <ehird> obviously everything I say as "I think"
04:53:49 <ehird> but I could be hallucinating the world
04:53:56 <ehird> and therefore it could be false
04:54:08 <ehird> do you instantly believe everything people say?
04:54:14 <ehird> if not, then you already mentally insert "I think"
04:54:31 <Oranjer> actually, I do instantly believe everything people say
04:54:46 <Oranjer> I then immediately test what they just said to my perception of reality
04:54:51 <Oranjer> and I determine its validity
04:54:53 <ehird> Oranjer does not exist
04:54:59 <ehird> HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE ANYTHING NOW
04:55:02 <Pthing> then you output a debug message informing them that this is what you are doing
04:55:16 <ehird> i think i just killed him
04:55:24 <ehird> Oranjer: you don't exist
04:55:25 <ehird> you believe it yourself
04:55:32 <ehird> since you don't exist you have had no opportunity to test or doubt this
04:56:01 <Oranjer> hmmmm this apparent paradox does reveal a flaw in my reasoning...
04:56:23 <Oranjer> also, can you not imagine a nonexistent, talking thing?
04:56:39 <ehird> yes, but that doesn't mean it exists
04:56:43 <ehird> it cannot exist, by definition
04:56:53 <ehird> and what does not exist cannot interact with reality, that is, the collection of things that exist
04:57:04 <ehird> therefore, obviously a nonexistent, talking thing cannot talk to me
04:57:08 <Sgeo> Hm, there's two ways to apply "nonexistant"
04:57:18 <Sgeo> At least, in context of imagining something
04:58:56 <ehird> a tapestry of dicks
04:59:26 <Oranjer> also, my believing that I do not exist does not preclude my existence
04:59:30 <Pthing> i don't think you can tile a plane with dicks
05:00:12 <ehird> Oranjer: you believe that you do not exist, and a nonexistent thing patently cannot think in this world (by my prior reasoning)
05:00:22 <ehird> therefore, by your own belief, you cannot consider whether you exist or not to later deny it
05:00:36 <ehird> considering so would be to deny your belief
05:00:49 <Oranjer> ah, but I am already thinking, and I can use that to invalidate such a beliefe
05:01:14 <ehird> Oranjer thinking is the most abhorrent activity he could do
05:01:15 <Oranjer> who says I cannot deny a belief, once I believe it? I must deny it, in fact, to test it's validity
05:01:19 <ehird> have fun being abhorrent
05:01:43 <ehird> ah, but before you disagreed you accepted it
05:01:47 <Pthing> couldn't you at least keep all your cartesian doubt in your inside voice
05:01:50 <ehird> so for that fleeting moment where you considered before denying it
05:01:53 <ehird> you were abhorrent
05:02:06 <ehird> so you agree, your actions were abhorrent
05:02:12 <Oranjer> but then I remembered many abhorrent things I have done in my past to invalidate that belief
05:02:26 <ehird> thus, even though the time is passed, you still consider them abhorrent by my reasoning
05:02:40 <Oranjer> that's totally flawed! whoa
05:02:45 <ehird> [05:01] ehird: so for that fleeting moment where you considered before denying it
05:02:45 <ehird> [05:01] ehird: you were abhorrent
05:02:46 <ehird> [05:01] Oranjer: I was
05:02:48 <ehird> it's what you thought yourself
05:03:09 <Oranjer> but I have since invalidated that belief
05:03:39 <Oranjer> I believe I was acting abhorrent, but I do not still believe I was acting abhorrent
05:03:56 <ehird> "I believe X but I do not still believe X"
05:04:02 <ehird> you phrased that wrong
05:04:08 <ehird> "I believed I was acting abhorrent, but I don't now"
05:05:58 <Oranjer> yeah, let's just put all that under several bridges
05:06:18 <madbrain> One of my teachers suggested that languages become more isolative as they evolve
05:06:37 <Pthing> it does seem to be kind of a general rule yeah
05:08:24 <ehird> let's talk about candy floss.
05:09:24 <ehird> what exactly did I say that was unclear?
05:09:27 <ehird> i said let's talk about candy floss.
05:09:40 <Oranjer> I have no idea what that is
05:09:47 <madbrain> I think they implied that more isolative languages tended to have an advantage "against" less isolative ones
05:10:00 <Oranjer> oh, that's a different claim entirely
05:10:16 <ehird> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_candy
05:10:25 <Pthing> i gathered it wasn't so much an advantage as a result of what happens when morphosyntactic systems have to adjust to sound changes
05:10:37 <ehird> (I'm just trying to move immediately from intellectual nonsense to candy floss, you understand)
05:10:42 <Oranjer> oh, cotton candy, I had just googled it, indeed
05:10:49 <Pthing> which tend to afflict, like, the ends of words where often a lot of morphosyntactic information is kept
05:10:58 <Pthing> so agglutinative grammars become more fusional
05:11:02 <Oranjer> ah, yes, Pthing, I had heard of that
05:11:02 <Pthing> which become more isolating
05:11:16 <Oranjer> I compare that to genetic drift, really
05:11:42 <Oranjer> I haven't had it in a while
05:12:12 <ehird> wouldn't it be awesome if they made candy floss... that you could actually floss with
05:12:48 <Oranjer> I believe that would defeat the purpose of flossing--although, candy floss-flavored floss is pretty okay
05:13:11 <Oranjer> I meant that as (candy floss)-flavored floss
05:13:25 <Oranjer> not a candy version of floss that tastes like floss
05:14:03 <madbrain> pthing: Possibly... well, it's definitely the case of west european languages like French
05:14:34 <ehird> "pthing:"? did you actually type that out
05:14:38 <madbrain> dunno if it applies to chinese though
05:14:45 <Oranjer> but now, Pthing, what do you think about this so called advantage?
05:14:54 <Pthing> i do not know what he means
05:14:55 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Leaving").
05:14:58 <Oranjer> but I obviously prefer the comma verson
05:14:58 <Pthing> so I do not know what to think
05:15:05 <ehird> Oranjer: i meant...
05:15:19 <ehird> who types out pthing, I type out p and press tab and get "Pthing:"
05:15:49 <Oranjer> I have never noticed that, thanks
05:16:16 <Oranjer> you should know I only heard about irc two weeks ago
05:16:27 <Oranjer> but I only started using it two weeks ago
05:17:13 <ehird> this channel's been around since 2002! and if you could misinterpret that as me saying I've been around here since 2002, I'd have absolutely no qualms with that
05:17:45 <Oranjer> I hereby misinterpret to the conclusion that you have been around here since 2002
05:18:12 <ehird> oh, it's like all of my dreams have suddenly come true
05:20:00 <madbrain> Are you guys students or working?
05:20:18 <Oranjer> I have never worked an honest day in my life
05:20:28 <ehird> is that really something to be proud of
05:20:42 <ehird> anyway, I'm just a random kid
05:21:22 <Oranjer> are you a random consistent kid, or a consistently random kid?
05:21:34 <Oranjer> do you change up randomly every type you type?
05:21:50 <ehird> i'm an arbitrary kid
05:22:19 <Oranjer> as I always say, multiplicity in validity likely indicates ambiguity
05:23:13 <Oranjer> also, what does that arrow mean as a logical connector?
05:23:38 <ehird> i'm pointing up, see
05:23:42 <madbrain> oranjer: multiplicity in validity isn't always ambiguity, I'd think
05:23:49 <ehird> madbrain: STOP ENCOURAGING HIM
05:24:11 <Oranjer> hey, ehird, let the madbrain explain its reasoning
05:24:27 <Oranjer> also, I did not say always
05:25:13 <Oranjer> I try to make explicit the difference between "rules followed" and "a pattern observed"
05:25:32 <madbrain> it all depends on what you're studying
05:26:06 <Oranjer> oh? elucidate, please-o-please
05:26:14 <madbrain> in music theory, rules are often fuzzy and have multiple validity for instance
05:26:46 <Oranjer> ah! what do you mean by these 'rules'? (I'm not trying to be pretensious, "rule" has a ton of meanings)
05:27:13 <madbrain> "rule" is a bit of a strong term yeah
05:27:20 <Oranjer> I mean a rule as a procedure for generating the next step
05:27:43 <Oranjer> also, madbrain, I think I should explain where I come from
05:28:38 <Oranjer> I use the statement really to indicate my own dislike for the strict, slavish following of a largely arbitrarily chosen standard
05:28:48 <Oranjer> as in, grading systems in most educational institutions
05:29:54 <Oranjer> because different places have different definitions of an "A" on down, (and others use a different means of grading entirely), then there probably exists a disconnect with reality
05:30:32 <madbrain> yeah grades are kindof arbitrary in a way yes
05:30:45 <Oranjer> as in, the existence of multiple claims to validity require either each to either be invalid, or to have a situational backing
05:31:38 <madbrain> I think they exist more as a technique to get students to work harder, figure out which student can get into a special program with only N places, and so on
05:32:00 <Oranjer> ah! I am not questioning the invalidity of of the system
05:32:26 <Oranjer> I am merely asking "why do some places stop "A" at 90, and others stop it at 92?"
05:32:41 <madbrain> because A has to stop somewhere
05:32:49 <Oranjer> each place presumably follows their own standard strictly
05:32:54 <Oranjer> ah, but then why the difference?
05:33:17 <madbrain> because nobody decided to take the time to make a national standard probably, no?
05:33:20 <Oranjer> the stopping point is chosen arbitrarily, and therefore, invalid, or it has a situational backing in research
05:33:44 <Oranjer> a global standard, you mean--other countries use entirely different scales
05:33:54 <ehird> it's just that it's more convenient to say A
05:34:06 <ehird> or are you saying that categorisation is inherently wrong?
05:34:09 <Oranjer> It's not necessarily invalid
05:34:14 <ehird> and that you cannot group related grades?
05:34:15 <madbrain> also, at some point the result system is going to have to be quantized
05:34:18 <ehird> if so, them's fighting words; also stupid words
05:34:18 <Oranjer> do you see that disjunction up there?
05:35:11 <Oranjer> yes, madbrain, I would agree, within this current system, a form of grade quantification is largely necessary
05:35:26 <Oranjer> but where do we draw the line between A and B?
05:36:25 <ehird> arbitrarily, by definition
05:37:26 <madbrain> Well, considering you have such grades as A- and B+ available, you can spread the grades in such a way so that all the grade range will have meaningful steps available
05:37:49 <Oranjer> ah! exactly! that's hardly arbitrary criteria
05:38:05 <Oranjer> also, I like "meaningful steps"
05:38:05 <ehird> it's just shorthand for a range
05:38:09 <ehird> these people are 70-90
05:38:16 <ehird> it doesn't mean that someone below is bad
05:38:18 <ehird> they could be 69, see?
05:38:26 <ehird> it's just useful for general grouping
05:38:29 <ehird> nothing to get worked up about
05:38:44 <ehird> i think you're giving too much importance
05:38:48 <ehird> to simple aliases for ranges
05:38:54 <Oranjer> I said, I do not disagree with the use of shorthand for grade ranges
05:39:16 <Oranjer> I only disagree with arbitrarily chosen differences between the ranges
05:40:08 <madbrain> I think I've seen something along the line of 96%+ ->A+, 93%=A, 90=A-, 87=B+, 84=B, 81=B-, 78=C+, 75=C, 72=C-, 69=D+, 65=D
05:41:06 <Oranjer> grading systems aren't the only systems that humans use that have arbitrarily determined facets
05:41:26 <Oranjer> mind you, most of that arbitrariness is necessary, as here
05:41:57 <madbrain> Well, then, they use system with arbitrariness, the arbitrariness is necessary, what's the problem
05:42:37 <Oranjer> I am concerned about what I have observed as a general inability for such systems to change according to new evidence, evidence that would render the set of available choices not-so-arbitrary
05:43:25 <Oranjer> basically, I say that the arbitrariness should be made explicit, and not to be assumed as the absolutely correct choice
05:43:26 <madbrain> Ah, well then your problem is not with arbitrariness, it's with the general tendency for inertia
05:44:01 <ehird> as i get more tired
05:44:01 <ehird> you both get more boring
05:44:46 <madbrain> Well, the tendency for inertia is not any sort of philosophical problem
05:45:08 <Oranjer> as it leaves a system open for fuck-ups
05:45:20 <Oranjer> *the possibility of fuck-ups
05:45:31 <madbrain> That still has nothing to do with philosophy, that's more politics
05:46:21 <Oranjer> mind you, this is getting dangerously close to us arguing "what is philosophy?", which may bore ehird to death
05:48:24 <madbrain> It's just based on all sorts of pragmatic reasons and decision making processes
05:48:49 <ehird> Oranjer: my boredom is actually gnawing away at my intestine
05:49:02 <Oranjer> "there's nothing deep with it" huh
05:49:07 <ehird> i should have a stroke in approximately five minutes
05:49:40 <ehird> my intestines really aren't liking this.
05:50:18 <Oranjer> shall we discuss my procedurally generated platforming game idea? or do you find that boring as well?
05:50:26 <ehird> ooh, that sounds fun!
05:50:46 <madbrain> I think designed gameplay is better than procedural
05:50:49 <ehird> by procedural, you do mean based on past gameplay, as opposed to just random-given-these-constraints, right?
05:51:08 <ehird> as in, the game generates levels that are hard for you to complete
05:51:14 <Oranjer> mostly the latter, but it would work in the first
05:51:20 <ehird> based on where you stumbled and succeeded at other points
05:51:29 <ehird> thus, it really would keep getting harder and harder
05:51:33 <Oranjer> actually, that's a good idea, I hadn't thought of that
05:51:41 <Oranjer> a learning procedural game? oy vey
05:51:47 <Oranjer> also, madbrain, why do you think so?
05:51:53 <Oranjer> and what do mean by designed?
05:52:13 <ehird> spend half an hour failing one jump and the next level is an optimal packing of as many of those jumps as possible :)
05:52:13 <madbrain> Like you put tiles/game objects/whatever explicitly in an editor of some sort
05:52:35 <ehird> haha, that's a rather pathological case though
05:52:36 <Oranjer> I disagree with your opinion, then, madbrain
05:53:15 <Oranjer> yes, "designed" games as you say are more personal and what not, but I would like to see if the same effect can result from procedurally generated content
05:53:26 <madbrain> I think that procedurally generated levels, while having a certain diversity, can't have the depth of a designed level
05:53:35 <ehird> them's fighting words
05:53:40 <ehird> equivalent to "strong AI cannot exist"
05:53:49 <Oranjer> it's okay, he's right--well, he's right now
05:53:51 <ehird> which is simply false, unless you make ridiculous spiritual assumptions
05:54:09 <ehird> Oranjer: yes, currently, procedural generation cannot match the depth of designed levels
05:54:16 <Oranjer> yeah, I agree with ehird--we don't want no goddamn bio-chauvinists here
05:54:16 <madbrain> Well, as of yet, based on what I've seen, it is true
05:54:18 <ehird> it can be useful in areas other than total design of a level
05:54:32 <ehird> the possibility of strong AI means that we can have perfect procedural levels
05:54:36 <madbrain> Of course if someone designs some miraculous AI algorithm then this might change
05:54:40 <ehird> well, as good as us, at least
05:54:47 <ehird> It's not miraculous
05:54:49 <Oranjer> I made the lack of emotional attachment to the content an explicit issue
05:54:58 <ehird> Given a planet-sized supercomputer, we could simulate a human brain today
05:55:02 <madbrain> But as of now that strong AI does not exist yet
05:55:04 <ehird> It'd just be really, really tedious
05:55:08 <Oranjer> hey! no AI talk here! come on!!!
05:55:14 <ehird> Oranjer: whyever not?
05:55:32 <Oranjer> well, we all already agree on it
05:55:36 <ehird> madbrain: I'd content that strong AI does exist... 's called homo sapiens :P
05:55:41 <ehird> Oranjer: It's fun, though!
05:56:03 <Oranjer> I know...but I had some other ideas central to my game that I wanted to share...:(
05:56:06 <ehird> be careful about telling the AI to make fun levels first thing, though
05:56:18 <ehird> they'll just replace the whole universe with a huge level
05:56:21 <ehird> singularity first, games later!!
05:56:25 <ehird> Oranjer: sure, go on :P
05:57:10 <Oranjer> the first step was to ignore all previous assumptions about the traditional divisions between "enemy", "object", "npc", "wall", "platform"
05:57:28 <ehird> gamestemological anarchism
05:57:37 <ehird> you are a wall, a platform, an enemy, an object, an npc, and the player
05:57:39 <ehird> AND SO IS EVERYTHING ELSE
05:57:46 <ehird> they are all equally valid methods of game objecting
05:58:02 <ehird> TYPECASTING GAME OBJECTS TO ONE OF THEM IS FASCSISM
05:58:04 <Oranjer> and yes, there can be a wall/platform/enemy/object/npc
05:58:24 <ehird> you do realise you can talk while i blabber, right?
05:58:26 <madbrain> oranjer: sounds like a good step to try to design a new genre but what did you came up with from that position?
05:58:52 <Oranjer> I simply intend to suggest an alternative means of categorization
05:59:06 <Oranjer> dependent solely on a /thing/'s relation to the player
05:59:14 <madbrain> well what's your new categorization
05:59:16 <ehird> meaningful relationships of game objects
05:59:25 <Oranjer> because each thing's characteristics are determined randomly
06:00:14 <Oranjer> so, if something has a combination of the characteristics of "removes health from player when the player touches it" and "moves toward player when it enters within X units", then the player would likely classify that as an "enemy"
06:00:35 <ehird> this is sounding like one of them over-complex rpg-style thingummies :P
06:00:49 <ehird> I mean tabletop sort of thing
06:00:53 <Oranjer> it is hardly complex, merely a platformer
06:00:55 <ehird> Ontological object system! shut up I just want to shoot some things that are shooting me
06:01:12 <madbrain> and what are your other characteristics?
06:01:38 <Oranjer> but it's hardly worth it to go on with listing that list here
06:01:49 <madbrain> also, how do you ensure that more or less any combination is possible
06:02:05 <Oranjer> context-specific generation, of course
06:02:11 <ehird> `addquote <Oranjer> oohhh <Oranjer> ha <Oranjer> heh <madbrain> and what are your other characteristics? <Oranjer> oh, many, madbrain <Oranjer> but it's hardly worth it to go on with listing that list here
06:02:13 <HackEgo> 93|<Oranjer> oohhh <Oranjer> ha <Oranjer> heh <madbrain> and what are your other characteristics? <Oranjer> oh, many, madbrain <Oranjer> but it's hardly worth it to go on with listing that list here
06:02:36 <Oranjer> that the player can, at any time, press a single key to skip the current level
06:02:48 <Oranjer> so as to avoid even the possibility of the generation of an impossible level
06:02:54 <Oranjer> of course, this posed a problem
06:03:01 <madbrain> but then he could skip all the levels yeah
06:03:24 <Oranjer> well, there's an unlimited number of levels, as each level is generated when you start it
06:03:28 <ehird> just make it so that progression in the level difficulty, setting, reward etc,
06:03:32 <ehird> depends on how much you achieive
06:03:44 <ehird> so skipping generates a new level, but doesn't let you get any further, so to speak
06:03:52 <ehird> it's a level from the same prototype
06:04:17 <Oranjer> "how do I convince the player to explore each level instead of just holding down the skip button until they see something they like?"
06:04:39 <Oranjer> (rewards was my answer--specifically, rewards the player can carry through and use throughout the levels
06:05:02 <Oranjer> and no, ehird, the skip button would likely generate an entirely different level--but that's a good suggestion, thanks
06:05:18 <ehird> I just mean parameters like
06:05:22 <madbrain> well, the most rewarding thing in a game is to be presented with a hard task, needing many tries, and eventually solving it
06:05:29 <ehird> what selection of enemies can be used
06:05:57 <Oranjer> true, so I guess that is a good idea
06:06:01 <Oranjer> I see what you two mean now
06:06:17 <Oranjer> that the completion of a level is rewarded with more challenging levels later on
06:06:29 <Oranjer> (dammit, saying that seems so obvious)
06:06:43 <ehird> Oranjer: i think you should try out each separate idea in a little minigame before combining them
06:06:50 <ehird> the procedural generation + objects based on aspects instead of a predefined type
06:06:54 <Oranjer> or...make them multiple options?
06:07:01 <ehird> I mean as prototypes
06:07:02 <madbrain> Like, the best levels in lemmings are the ones that are short, not tedious, but really complicated
06:07:07 <ehird> since doing both at once would be quite a task
06:07:15 <ehird> Oranjer: have you played infinite mario?
06:07:32 <Oranjer> I actually found that after I thought up this idea
06:07:37 <ehird> Oranjer: imagine infinite mario bros, but done with procedural generation
06:07:41 <ehird> Oranjer: the anti-player procedural genereration
06:07:54 <ehird> do it in screenfuls
06:07:55 <Oranjer> what do you mean by anti-player?
06:08:00 <ehird> when you go past one screen
06:08:06 <ehird> it generates a new screen and scrolls on to it
06:08:12 <ehird> (so not screenfuls, do it by column)
06:08:16 <ehird> Oranjer: it'd be based on where you stumbled
06:08:23 <ehird> if you stay in one place trying to execute a jump
06:08:30 <ehird> then there'll be more of that kind of jump
06:08:33 <ehird> if you keep dying because of an enemy
06:08:36 <ehird> (you'd have multiple lives)
06:08:42 <ehird> that enemy would be more common
06:08:47 <Oranjer> oh, you'd have infinite tries for each level, of course
06:08:59 <ehird> you go back to where you were before your dying move
06:09:10 <ehird> since in this mini game thing, there'd just be one big level
06:09:12 <ehird> anyway, every time the screen scrolls right to reveal another few columns, it's optimised against you
06:09:22 <ehird> based on what you've been failing and succeeding at in the recent past
06:09:36 <ehird> so basically, the level itself, until you stop playing,
06:09:40 <ehird> actually reflects how you played in its structure
06:09:53 <ehird> i think it'd be great fun, and probably not too hard to implement
06:10:04 <Oranjer> well, ehird, no offense, but that's your idea
06:10:10 <ehird> cloning infinite mario is easy, so it's just a procedural generator + some parameter tweaking based on past performance
06:10:15 <Oranjer> I'm glad that I sorta inspired that
06:10:16 <ehird> Oranjer: i was just giving one example of an idea
06:10:40 <ehird> like, something like that has enough value in itself, that i think you could look into something similar before the combined version
06:10:41 <Oranjer> but it seems that what you suggest is...not...exactly...what I had in mind
06:10:46 <ehird> because combining all the aspects would be a pain
06:10:50 <ehird> Oranjer: as i said, it was an example
06:10:57 <ehird> of how you can make a game entirely based around one part
06:11:05 <ehird> which is good ffor prototyping them
06:11:18 <Oranjer> but I think it's a good enough example that one could, nay, should make an entirely separate game about that
06:11:45 <Oranjer> and therefore, if you want, you should
06:12:14 <ehird> i never could get the hang of pygame and the like
06:12:28 <Oranjer> I could never get the hang of python
06:12:50 <ehird> how can you not get the hang of python? it's ridiculously orthodox and simple
06:13:14 <ehird> because of slowness?
06:13:25 <ehird> what then, the REPL?
06:13:34 <Oranjer> because I have no fucking clue what it does!
06:13:48 <Oranjer> how does one write a program in python?
06:13:57 <ehird> put it in a file, save it, "python file.py"
06:13:58 <Oranjer> in a text editor, then saving it as...? what?
06:14:09 <ehird> do you use windows or something?
06:14:13 <Oranjer> WHY THE FUCK WAS THAT SO HARD FOR ME TO FIND
06:14:27 <Oranjer> of Course I use windows, because I am in idiot
06:14:46 <ehird> yeah, i was wondering how you could possibly have trouble with running the python command :)
06:14:47 <Oranjer> next: how do I run the .py file?
06:15:00 <Oranjer> what the hell does that mean?
06:15:06 <ehird> Oranjer: have you... installed ... python?
06:15:17 <ehird> it should have added IDLE to your menus.
06:15:27 <ehird> find the Python menu, and open IDLE.
06:15:51 <Oranjer> I use capslock as a sorta quasimodal command line
06:15:59 <Oranjer> I hold down capslock, anywhere,
06:16:02 <ehird> i know what enso is
06:16:05 <ehird> and it's explicitly non-modal
06:16:12 <ehird> it was made by the son of jef raskin after all
06:16:24 <Oranjer> holy shit, mate, you're the first person who knew all that stuff outside of me telling you
06:16:38 <ehird> interaction design is awesome.
06:17:00 <Oranjer> (mind you, I love to take the whole quasimode idea perhaps a bit too far)
06:17:18 <Oranjer> and I type python filename.py
06:17:29 <ehird> IDLE is a GUI interface to python, and an editor for it
06:17:37 <ehird> if you're using windows, the command line has totally anemic facilities
06:17:40 <ehird> so no point using it
06:17:48 <ehird> Oranjer: what's there is a python console
06:17:56 <ehird> it pops up a python shell
06:17:57 <ehird> you can enter lines of python
06:18:02 <ehird> and see the results just by pressing enter
06:18:07 <ehird> you can also open and save files (with syntax highlighting)
06:18:11 <Oranjer> so, I type in IDLE "python filename.py
06:18:19 <ehird> you run the program IDLE
06:18:28 <ehird> it's a windows program included with the Python distribution
06:18:48 <ehird> it pops up a python shell, where you can enter lines of python and see the results by hitting enter
06:18:55 <ehird> you can also open and save files with python syntax-highlighting
06:19:04 <Oranjer> so, how do I open filename.py?
06:19:11 <ehird> and press F5 or F8 or something (see the menus for the shortcut) to run the current file in the shell
06:19:14 <ehird> Oranjer: see the IDLE menus.
06:20:05 <ehird> being a programmer on windows is a pain... unless you use microsoft languages...
06:20:06 <Oranjer> okay, I just went to File...Open...and I found a .py file on my computer
06:20:19 <ehird> it's a gui, it's all in the menus, including the shortcuts
06:20:42 <ehird> only the window that IDLE first opened is the shell
06:20:45 <ehird> the other windows are file windows
06:21:15 <ehird> right, in one of the menus in the file window there's a Run Module command
06:21:26 <ehird> that will reset the current shell session
06:21:38 <ehird> you can experiment with code by entering it in the shell, then moving it to the file
06:22:12 <Oranjer> because there is on run module anywhere
06:22:20 <Oranjer> there is only Open Module...
06:22:22 <ehird> ooooooookay let me open IDLE haven't used it in ages
06:23:20 <Oranjer> you said in the shell's menu's...or...I heard that....dammit
06:23:52 <Oranjer> huh okay the file had an error but I think it "worked"
06:24:14 <ehird> just make a file with
06:24:16 <ehird> print "Hello, world!"
06:24:20 <ehird> guaranteed to work :P
06:24:46 <Oranjer> it seems I have forgotten (given up on after all this didn't work for me) the language
06:24:56 <madbrain> bastard tetris might be unwinnable
06:25:07 <Oranjer> all tetris is unwinnable, madbrain
06:25:23 <ehird> Oranjer: anyway, you can enter lines into the shell to test out new code
06:25:28 <Oranjer> do you mean it is impossible to get any lines, madbrain?
06:25:36 <ehird> Oranjer: as a tip, until you need to have the "final" thing
06:25:43 <ehird> Oranjer: ready to run as a thing in itself, that is
06:25:53 <ehird> put all the stuff in functions and classes
06:25:56 <ehird> and have a main() function
06:25:59 <ehird> so that you can press run module
06:26:03 <ehird> and it'll actually load the module in the shell
06:26:09 <ehird> so everything in your file is in the shell
06:26:14 <ehird> and you can run code as if it was in the file
06:26:16 <ehird> to test things, etc
06:26:36 <ehird> i wish people wouldn't say uhh to really simple stuff :|
06:26:56 <Oranjer> simple? simply to you--I say uhhhh because I know it is simple to you, but I do not understand it
06:28:03 <ehird> the shell is the python shell window that IDLE opens at the start
06:28:13 <ehird> you can enter some python code, hit enter, and see the results
06:28:17 <ehird> (type 2+2 in it and hit enter)
06:28:39 <Oranjer> an error comes up when I type in main() function
06:28:45 <ehird> type in what exactly
06:29:13 <Oranjer> also, a different error when I just type in "main()"
06:29:23 <ehird> when did I say "main() function" was valid python code
06:29:35 <Oranjer> (1:25:37 AM) ehird: put all the stuff in functions and classes
06:29:35 <Oranjer> (1:25:40 AM) ehird: and have a main() function
06:29:35 <Oranjer> (1:25:44 AM) ehird: so that you can press run module
06:29:49 <ehird> yes, that is, have a function called main()
06:30:12 <ehird> presumably, you have not defined a function called main().
06:30:32 <coppro> then type the body in indented code
06:30:39 <coppro> then have a non-indented line
06:30:43 <ehird> it auto-indents, coppro.
06:30:43 <Oranjer> yeah, using whitespace as blocks is awesome
06:31:00 <ehird> just hit enter twice after the last line and it's defined
06:31:05 <ehird> defining main() in the shell is pointless
06:31:15 <coppro> ehird: I don't use IDLE
06:31:20 <ehird> Oranjer: it's just to put your stuff in in a file
06:31:25 <coppro> Oranjer: the shell is a line-by-line interpreter
06:31:29 <ehird> Oranjer: so that you can hit Run Module, and instead of running your whole program and exiting
06:31:46 <ehird> coppro: are you getting the distinct feeling of bashing your head against a brick wall?
06:31:59 <ehird> i think Oranjer is leaking memories, first he forgot the shell that i explained earlier, then the file he had open...
06:32:05 <coppro> anyone for Omega Chess?
06:32:22 -!- rodgort has changed nick to ivank`.
06:32:25 <Oranjer> oh, that file? the file I opened?
06:32:33 <ehird> playing mario while constantly holding the go faster button is hard
06:32:53 <Oranjer> that means you can't shoot fire
06:32:57 <ehird> "In this quarter-second, you will discover there is a large gaping chasm in front of you"
06:33:04 <coppro> ehird: which emulator?
06:33:11 <ehird> well, not mario, Infinite mario bros
06:33:26 <ehird> the worst part is enemies
06:33:30 <ehird> you just gotta hope you don't run into any
06:33:37 <coppro> the VBA distributed with Ubuntu has some issues :(
06:33:47 <Oranjer> okay so uh how do I manipulate files in the shell?
06:34:08 <ehird> Oranjer: like, what do you mean
06:34:10 <ehird> what do you want to do
06:34:15 <coppro> Oranjer: the shell is where you type in code
06:34:17 <ehird> haha i just walked the fuck under one of those jumpy pipe flower things
06:34:22 <ehird> coppro: misleadingg
06:34:50 <coppro> a file is where you put python code
06:34:55 <coppro> you tell python to run that file
06:35:09 <Oranjer> okay, so, in the shell, I define main()--how do I put that in a file?
06:35:26 <coppro> you don't define main in a shell
06:35:28 <coppro> because you don't need it
06:35:29 <ehird> only forth works like that :P
06:35:40 <Oranjer> I defined main() in a shell
06:35:42 <ehird> I've a feeling we've gone about 7,429 steps ahead of Oranjer, coppro
06:35:51 <coppro> Oranjer: do you program at all?
06:36:10 <ehird> "not recently, as in, at all"?
06:36:12 <coppro> anyways, I have to go to bed
06:36:14 <ehird> is that a way of saying "no"?
06:36:16 <coppro> have fun with ehird :P
06:36:20 <Oranjer> I'm used to html/javascript/css
06:36:29 <ehird> only javascript is a language out of all of those.
06:38:31 <madbrain> is anyone interested in sound synthesis?
06:38:33 <ehird> i'm sorta not going to teach you the entire practice of programming from scratch, I'm afraid
06:38:43 <Oranjer> no, ehird, that is not necessary
06:38:49 <ehird> he's interested in algorithmic composition
06:38:57 <coppro> Oranjer: read a tutorial. They suck almost unilaterally, but whatever.
06:38:59 <ehird> to sound synthesis?
06:39:06 <Oranjer> I have, coppro, most of it
06:39:09 <ehird> Oranjer: diveintopython.org
06:39:13 <ehird> it's slightly outdated
06:39:17 <ehird> mark pilgrim is cool
06:39:31 <Oranjer> also, madbrain, are you refering to the maxim that "every two songs are remixable together"?
06:39:34 <coppro> also, decide if you want P3K, which is new and shiny, or 2.6, which is old bnut works
06:39:43 <ehird> you don't want p3k
06:40:06 <madbrain> No I'm not referring to algorithmic composition
06:40:36 <Oranjer> what are you referring to then? Don't keep us guessing!
06:40:56 <ehird> that's what he said.
06:40:59 <Oranjer> any...alternative names for that concept?
06:41:01 <madbrain> I'm referring to basically synthesizing sound from parameters
06:41:10 <madbrain> ie like a synthesizer keyboard
06:41:30 <Oranjer> oh! that's the opposite idea i had when I said the previous oh!
06:42:42 <madbrain> Like, suppose your synthesizer is controlled by midi, when you get a message to generate a D5, how do you do it?
06:44:27 <madbrain> well, usually it comes from a MIDI keyboard (ie physical keyboard that the user is playing on) or a sequencer (ie software that plays a recorded sequence of notes/controllers/etc)
06:45:35 <coppro> sound synthesis is actually a very neat concept
06:45:55 <madbrain> obviously, depending on which algorithm you use, you get different sounds
06:47:26 <Oranjer> (my game)-->(making games)-->(pygame)-->(me learning how to use python! finally!) //// (sound synthesis)
06:47:48 <ehird> i'm unsure of what //// means
06:47:49 <madbrain> like, one popular algorithm is to play a recording of an instrument note faster or slower
06:48:33 <Oranjer> I guess //// means "completely unrelated"--I guess I could have used a semicolon, but that hardly connotes the cutting motion
06:48:46 <madbrain> oranjer: well, that's because your library handles the audio mixing and stuff for you
06:50:17 <Oranjer> sound synthesis: what now?
06:50:21 <madbrain> which might be more or less complex depending on what music format you use
06:50:39 <madbrain> oranjer: well, I was just curious if anyone else in here was interested in the topic
06:50:55 <Oranjer> oh, no, please, continue, I'm fine with the subject at hand
06:51:22 <Oranjer> but I think my connection's woozy, and I think I am receiving comments much later after you send them
06:51:33 <Oranjer> so to me, I think, it's some silence
06:51:58 <madbrain> like, if it's .mid, obviously it's going to be played on some sort of synthesizer
06:52:47 <madbrain> .mp3 or .ogg will be decoded ofc
06:54:12 <fungot> Oranjer: i think i have a makefile? i
06:55:14 <madbrain> heh espernet is netsplitting like crazy
06:55:26 <Oranjer> well basically uhh I kinda wanna talk about my game if it's uh---what, madbrain?
06:56:08 <madbrain> netsplit is when irc servers have connection problems and disconnect from each other
06:56:21 <ehird> i wish Oranjer could carry on conversations about everything else as uncluelessly as he does random epistemology crap
06:56:21 <Oranjer> wait, irc servers are connected to each other?
06:56:35 <ehird> freenode, efnet, all the networks, are made up of a bunch of connected servers
06:56:37 <ehird> to handle all the loud
06:56:42 <ehird> each network is a network of servers
06:56:45 <ehird> the networks aren't linked
06:56:55 <ehird> when two servers in a network disconnect, each sees the people from the other leave
06:57:00 <ehird> until whatever happened is fixed
06:57:02 <Oranjer> then I fear I have been using the wrong terminology
06:57:12 <ehird> (usually they automatically return in a minute or two due to automatic restarting of the server)
06:57:59 <Oranjer> wait, uncluelessly? what do you mean by that?
06:58:18 <ehird> you keep going "uhh" and stuff :P
06:58:33 <Oranjer> I shall cease all such utterances immediately
06:59:32 <madbrain> oranjer: well, what sort of stuff are you interested in?
06:59:55 <Oranjer> changing the world, of course
06:59:58 <ehird> madbrain: come on, mere minutes into him entering here
07:00:04 <ehird> i would have been able to tell you
07:00:06 <ehird> that asking that of him
07:00:11 <ehird> is a very bad idea
07:00:25 <ehird> run! RUN! This place may be safe again in a few years!
07:00:47 <Oranjer> using nomics for a greater purpose then survival--as in, the nomic creates something bigger and more persistent than itself
07:01:32 <Oranjer> I mean, you already know I'm working on a characteristica universalis
07:01:57 <ehird> changing the world, greater-than-self nomic
07:02:03 <ehird> two goals of equal importance and magnitude.
07:02:29 <ehird> what nomics do you play
07:02:31 <Oranjer> I mean, have you heard of esquisite corpse?
07:02:54 <Oranjer> only one right now--BlogNomic, but I've played face-to-face nomic before
07:03:01 <ehird> esquisite isn't actually a word
07:04:14 <Oranjer> exquisite corpse, the surrealist art game?
07:04:35 <Oranjer> where each person down the line gets a bit of information on what the previous person did, adds to it, and passes it on?
07:04:53 <Oranjer> great game in school when you're bored
07:05:23 <Oranjer> I had the idea that the players would also specify a set of themes for each turn
07:05:35 <ehird> funny, that's sort of like the thingy i made. 'cept not really.
07:06:33 <Oranjer> like, for the first section, the theme would be "fire", next would be "fire" and "guitarcar", then "fire", "guitarcar", "ocean", then "guitarcar", "ocean", "Mario", etc.
07:06:41 <Oranjer> it starts over every three themes
07:06:57 <madbrain> I like... music, programming, comics, phonetics.... that kind of stuff
07:07:01 <Oranjer> I wondered why no one had made a nomic exquisite corpse
07:07:17 <Oranjer> well, I'm interested in human-computer interfaces
07:07:28 <Oranjer> Scott McCloud, Jef Raskin, etc.
07:08:04 <Oranjer> ehird know the latter--do you know the former?
07:08:17 <madbrain> you mean like the infinite canvas thing?
07:08:29 <Oranjer> yes! but more than that, of course
07:08:49 <ehird> scott mccloud finds a comic guy
07:08:58 <ehird> how's that related to hci
07:09:05 <ehird> heh, he made the google chrome comic.
07:09:19 <ehird> ha ha ha ha to you too
07:09:20 <Oranjer> you...you just asked me...how...it's...related...to "X"....heh
07:09:39 <madbrain> dunno... the web seems to have settled on a different standard than infinite canvas, which you could describe as "finite width but infinite height"
07:09:47 <Oranjer> I was about to say that that is my main interest--juxtaposition
07:09:57 <Oranjer> yeah, I am saddened by that, madbrain
07:10:03 <ehird> on a more relevant note
07:10:13 <ehird> how is scott mccloud related to interaction design if this is the same guy
07:10:30 <Oranjer> ehird, how are tacos related to the moon?
07:10:41 <ehird> is that meant to be interesting?
07:10:43 -!- MigoMipo has joined.
07:10:49 <ehird> [07:07] Oranjer: well, I'm interested in human-computer interfaces
07:10:49 <ehird> [07:07] Oranjer: Scott McCloud, Jef Raskin, etc.
07:10:49 <ehird> [07:08] Oranjer: ehird know the latter--do you know the former?
07:10:53 <ehird> i see in no way how scott mccloud relates to the rest of those three lines
07:11:04 <madbrain> so instead of a static order of pages of finite width and height, you get a dynamic order of pages of finite width but infinite height
07:11:20 <Oranjer> displays are a main part of human-computer interfacing, ehird
07:11:38 <ehird> as far as i can tell
07:11:49 <ehird> you've mentioned a random comic guy
07:11:54 <ehird> and then said some totally unrelated things
07:11:59 <ehird> this somehow tying him to HCI
07:12:03 <Oranjer> that I consider integral to human-computer interfacing
07:12:03 <madbrain> tv tropes is so browsable that it enters the cycle of life
07:12:27 <Oranjer> of which comics is only a part
07:12:32 <madbrain> ie browsing 1 page makes you browse 1+e other pages
07:12:47 <ehird> calling every comic artist in the world
07:12:57 <ehird> is, what's the word, stupid
07:13:14 <Oranjer> heh, no, because McCloud has made some cool ideas regarding HCI
07:13:22 <ehird> why didn't you tell me that
07:13:23 <madbrain> I want to make comics eventually, but I lack funny ideas
07:13:24 <ehird> when i was first aasking
07:13:27 <ehird> how the hell he was related
07:13:33 <ehird> as opposed to giving me some meaningless pap
07:13:40 <madbrain> Which is too bad because I've gotten not so bad at drawing
07:13:56 <Oranjer> sorry, ehird, I have never, ever, ever, encountered a meaningless gap
07:14:10 <Oranjer> oh, madbrain? you need funny?
07:14:21 <ehird> "sorry, ehird, I have never, ever, ever, encountered a meaningless gap"
07:14:30 <Oranjer> as in, ehird, these "gaps" you speak of I find integral to creativity
07:14:42 <Oranjer> I have found it called "bisociation"
07:14:47 <madbrain> what are you even talking about
07:14:51 <Oranjer> as opposed to mere association
07:15:17 <ehird> madbrain: Oranjer is defending dodging my question "how does scott mccloud relate to HCI" before giving in and giving me a straight answer.
07:15:36 <ehird> deliberately being obstructive with communication is not a good policy to get people to continue to talk to you
07:16:01 <Oranjer> sorry, ehird, I apologize for any miscommunication on our part
07:16:02 <madbrain> well, scott mccloud gave a series of ideas of how to expand comics in a popular book, most of which are unpractical
07:16:15 <ehird> Oranjer: miscommunication? but you just defended it
07:16:32 <madbrain> some of those ideas join HCI stuff, but it's kindof a tenouous gap
07:16:37 <ehird> "as in, member:ehird, these "gaps" you speak of I find integral to creativity"
07:17:03 <madbrain> ehird: I have no idea what that sentence even means
07:17:14 <ehird> he's the one who said it
07:18:07 <Oranjer> I am interested in applying and synthesizing the ideas of Scott McCloud, Jef Raskin, and others to Human-Computer Interfacing
07:19:04 <ehird> Oranjer: should I go to bed (I feel safe in asking you this because the chance you will give me a straight answer is roughly zero)
07:19:56 <Oranjer> oh, ha! I just reread the text up there
07:20:07 <madbrain> ehird: will you have 8 hours of sleep? :D
07:20:16 <Oranjer> when you said "meaningless pap", i thought you said "meaningless gap"
07:20:25 <ehird> madbrain: um, probably? :P
07:20:48 <ehird> like a dog changing its own tail, except... intellectually... chasing its own tail...
07:20:52 <ehird> except not really like that at all
07:21:53 <Oranjer> what do you mean by do? am i familiar with them? do I know any? yes, no
07:22:26 <Oranjer> I mean, I am in the process of creating a universal language, so I suppose I do conlangs
07:22:45 <madbrain> kinda like esperanto or lojban?
07:22:56 <Oranjer> no thanks, those are hardly "universal"
07:23:25 <Oranjer> It would be very difficult to form or invent this language or characteristic, but very easy to learn it without any dictionaries.
07:23:34 <madbrain> dunno for lojban but esperanto is afaik basically a romance language
07:23:59 <madbrain> oranjer: but then you run into some problems
07:24:09 <Oranjer> whoa! do you know of any languages where poetry/the conveyance of emotions was the explicit purpose?
07:24:10 <madbrain> namely that you need some vocabulary
07:25:40 <madbrain> oranjer: maybe you should look at some very isolating languages like chinese then<
07:25:48 <Oranjer> I actually prefer the ontology of Ilaksh and Ithkuil
07:26:10 <ehird> i'll isolate your mom
07:26:13 <Oranjer> I guess such things would help me in my pursuit of becoming a mesalinguist
07:27:09 <madbrain> and obviously those languages have some more aesthetic stuff such as large phoneme inventories
07:27:22 <Oranjer> what "those languages" do you refer to?
07:27:52 <ehird> [07:25] madbrain: oranjer: maybe you should look at some very isolating languages like chinese then<
07:27:52 <ehird> [07:27] madbrain: and obviously those languages have some more aesthetic stuff such as large phoneme inventories
07:28:09 <ehird> madbrain: your "and" fucked that up
07:28:16 <ehird> it makes it connect with your previous statement
07:28:53 <madbrain> although chinese hardly has a small inventory either but that's besides point
07:29:20 <Oranjer> okay, madbrain, I misunderstood the situation
07:29:28 <Oranjer> a vocabulary is necessary, but...
07:30:33 <Oranjer> the structure of each symbol, and thus its syntax, would reflect the relational web of the concept it represents so closely it would be intuitive for any human
07:30:45 <Oranjer> *more intuitive than so-far natural languages
07:31:27 <Oranjer> I've actually found a bunch more criteria a universal language would likely have to fulfill
07:31:31 <ehird> i postulate such a language is impossible
07:31:52 <madbrain> but then if that relational web is complex, the words would become long, which would make it impractical
07:31:54 <Oranjer> yes, ehird, I prefer that to "You're an idiot for even suggesting this"
07:31:54 <ehird> boy i'm getsin' tired
07:32:14 <Oranjer> also, what concept do you know has a complex relational web?
07:32:14 <ehird> Oranjer: who said that
07:32:29 <Oranjer> many people I speak of this to, not you, ehird
07:32:31 <madbrain> how about something like "man"
07:32:38 <ehird> well, you are a cook.
07:32:52 <Oranjer> yes, I'm a conlang cook, thanks
07:33:03 <Oranjer> or do you mean the male of a human?
07:33:22 <Oranjer> *male of the human species
07:33:28 <ehird> look, kook coon cook's nook
07:33:43 <Oranjer> is look the only verb there?
07:34:14 <Oranjer> okay, yeah, that's pretty complex
07:34:42 <madbrain> see, complex web for a common noun that's very short in english
07:35:08 <Oranjer> yes, but I could argue that such a disparity makes the language harder to understand
07:35:59 <Oranjer> basically, I want the semantics to match the syntax, and I want the syntax to match the relations of the concept represented
07:36:09 <ehird> every concept is infinitely complex.
07:36:22 <madbrain> I think it's a result comming from the fact that some concepts are very common, hence get very short names, but have very complex meanings and stuff
07:36:26 <Oranjer> the Buddhist idea of impermanence
07:36:28 <ehird> which doesn't bode well for your language
07:36:39 <ehird> i don't recall mentioning any buddhist idea
07:36:48 <Oranjer> and? does that matter? it relates
07:36:51 <madbrain> and inversely rarer words tend to be longer and have less complex meaning webs
07:37:01 <ehird> you have to realise that other people cannot see your deductive processes
07:37:06 <ehird> we have to ask, and you have to tell us
07:37:42 <Oranjer> "A name is imposed on what is thought to be a thing or a state and this divides it from other things and other states. But when you pursue what lies behind the name, you find a greater and greater subtlety that has no divisions..." –Visuddhi Magga
07:37:50 <Oranjer> also, the wiki link is coming up
07:38:03 <madbrain> well, yeah, that's the point of the name
07:38:05 <ehird> i don't think that relates to what i said
07:38:16 <madbrain> there is all sorts of complex objects in the world
07:38:24 <ehird> what i was trying to express is that every idea has infinite relations to other ideas
07:38:36 <ehird> furthermore, you cannot define an idea in a way meaningful to a human in a way other than these relations
07:38:37 <madbrain> the name serves to take all these objects and put them together
07:38:42 <Oranjer> basically, in Buddhism, it is explicit that the existence of every thing depends on the existence of its relations with every other thing
07:38:42 <ehird> so every word must be infinitely complex
07:38:46 <ehird> this is... problematic
07:39:01 <Oranjer> it is an impossible ideal, yes
07:39:24 <Oranjer> we can always approach to the point where it is intuitive /enough/
07:39:44 <Oranjer> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence I guess
07:39:45 <ehird> anuses are never inappropriate
07:39:56 <madbrain> I think you should strive for a language that is comparatively more intuitive/easier
07:40:03 <Oranjer> that's the point, madbrain
07:40:12 <madbrain> Which is why you should look at chinese
07:40:20 <madbrain> it has a couple of good ideas to lift off
07:40:24 <Oranjer> how is that intuitive? it has a massive vocab
07:40:40 <madbrain> yes but it has a more limited set of morphemes
07:40:41 <Oranjer> true, but then, everything has "a couple of good ideas to lift off"
07:41:02 <Oranjer> yeah, with plenty of different meanings behind those
07:41:41 <Oranjer> mind you, I considered whether the pronunciation of a concept's name should work it's way into the graphic text
07:41:49 <madbrain> but with some work you can restrict the number of morphemes down a thousand or two and clean them up a bit
07:41:49 <Oranjer> I find that...difficult to implement
07:42:11 <madbrain> well, that's what a morpheme is
07:42:25 <Oranjer> yeah...but it is usually inexact
07:42:28 <madbrain> the point where the link between pronunciation and meaning becomes arbitrary
07:42:41 <Oranjer> http://www.omniglot.com/writing/visiblespeech.htm
07:42:47 <madbrain> if you can break down a morpheme then it's not a morpheme
07:43:20 <Oranjer> but I say there should be a strict 1:1 relation between each morpheme and each phoneme
07:43:23 <madbrain> dunno, I think the latin alphabet is good enough for any auxilliary language
07:43:47 <madbrain> oranjer: well, then you'd need a language with 1000 phonemes
07:43:51 <Oranjer> but the structure of each grapheme does not reflect it's syntax! at least a language should do that
07:44:07 <madbrain> what you can do is a language where each morpheme is a syllable
07:44:25 <Oranjer> dammit, you're building this up to Chinese, aren't you?
07:44:36 <Oranjer> I know its a syllablaalary...er..
07:44:41 <madbrain> well, it's true that chinese is a lot like that :D
07:45:15 <Oranjer> also, context-free affixes
07:45:35 <Oranjer> prefixes and suffixes and infixes and circumfixes
07:45:47 <Oranjer> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affix
07:46:08 <madbrain> ah, you mean clean grammar with no irregularity?
07:46:08 <Oranjer> you know what context free means, right?
07:46:24 <Oranjer> that seems like a reasonable demand
07:46:43 <madbrain> hell, some real languages come close (like.....chinese)
07:46:59 <Oranjer> also, explicit evidentialities
07:47:10 <Oranjer> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentiality
07:47:58 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Ping timeout: 180 seconds).
07:48:02 <Oranjer> also, I long ago found a good quote about so-called universal languages
07:48:11 <Oranjer> "Leaving hopes and utopias apart, probably the most lucid ever written about language are the following words by Chesterton: "He knows that there are in the soul tints more bewildering, more numberless, and more nameless than the colours of an autumn forest... Yet he seriously believes that these things can every one of them, in all their tones and semitones, in all their blends and unions, be accurately represented by an arbitrary syst
07:48:28 <Oranjer> oops, ignore the first " at the beginning
07:49:40 <madbrain> " be accurately represented by an arbitrary syst" cut off after that
07:49:53 <Oranjer> did my other quote also cut off?
07:50:09 <Oranjer> in all their tones and semitones, in all their blends and unions, be accurately represented by an arbitrary system of grunts and squeals. He believes that an ordinary civilized stockbroker can really produce out of his own inside noises which denote all the mysteries of memory and all the agonies of desire"
07:50:41 <madbrain> about visible speech, I don't think you need that, latin alphabet is good enough
07:51:06 <ehird> Oranjer: you are using pidgin, yes?
07:51:16 <ehird> Oranjer: I highly suggest getting a client actually designed for IRC
07:51:21 <madbrain> what do you mean too unintuitive
07:51:26 <ehird> Oranjer: one that can split messages for you just by sending them
07:51:33 <madbrain> sure, you have to teach the letters to kids
07:51:41 <Oranjer> because I also use pidgin for IM
07:51:48 <madbrain> and you have to teach how to put letters together into syllables
07:51:52 <ehird> you can run two programs
07:52:05 <madbrain> I don't think visible speech helps much with that
07:52:09 <ehird> IM is different from channels
07:52:19 <ehird> and every client that tries to do both fails at the latter
07:52:35 <Oranjer> wait, madbrain, when you say "visible speech", do you mean text, or graphical language?
07:52:46 <Oranjer> I just want to make sure we are not talking past each othere
07:52:54 <Oranjer> also, that last "or" is actually an "and"
07:53:02 <Oranjer> as in text, and graphical language
07:53:45 <madbrain> http://www.omniglot.com/writing/visiblespeech.htm visible speech
07:53:52 <Oranjer> meh, ehird, I now know there is a limit--I can adapt by putting in shift + enter
07:54:09 <Oranjer> I was just using that as an example! ha
07:54:12 <ehird> Oranjer: yes, but adding too many = bad
07:54:14 <ehird> because it floods the channel
07:54:16 <madbrain> It looks like another IPA basically
07:54:18 <ehird> which pisses off everyone
07:54:39 <Oranjer> I must now reread your previous comments, madbrain, with that in mind
07:55:19 <madbrain> oranjer: what you're talking about also sounds like a taxonomic language
07:55:35 <Oranjer> I apologize--we were talking past each other for some time
07:55:51 <Oranjer> yes, I would say that visible language is as good and as bad as latin, sorry
07:56:05 <Oranjer> and yes, it is an ontological language, aye
07:56:49 <Oranjer> all such ontological languages I have seen have used entirely too arbitrary classification systems
07:57:09 <Oranjer> akin to Dewey putting "other religions" in the last tenth of "religion"
07:57:27 <Oranjer> Dewey Decimal System, I mean
07:57:33 <madbrain> well, one problem of such systems is that it makes related words too close
07:57:52 <Oranjer> can you not think of a way past that?
07:58:02 <Oranjer> (I think I do, but I gotta find the right words first)
07:58:56 <madbrain> in a taxonomic system they would have very close forms
07:58:57 <Oranjer> and, say, veliolflu, velulflo, and vefulflia
07:59:27 <Oranjer> I wonder if Ithkuil has that problem
07:59:42 <madbrain> this is why close morphemes tend to dissimilate rather than to become closer
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:00:45 <Oranjer> okay, say each morpheme was a syllable
08:01:36 <madbrain> It would be acceptable to have, say, man-vel vs vel vs no-vel
08:02:09 <Oranjer> aye, I was thinking that the most specific part would always get added to the front
08:02:15 <madbrain> something like wild-dog vs dog vs red-dog
08:02:31 <Oranjer> but that would likely encourage clipping off the end, the most general
08:03:07 <Oranjer> yeah, especially in specialized disciplines
08:03:19 <Oranjer> where a namespace (the clipped end) is always assumed
08:03:21 <madbrain> but then with the reverse order they could clip out the start anyways
08:03:35 <Oranjer> but is it more likely to do that?
08:03:53 <madbrain> I think you're better with the more specific first
08:04:12 <Oranjer> maybe....but actually, I just realized two things
08:04:22 <ehird> obama is a 5,000 volt telephone pole
08:04:32 <madbrain> might depend on whether your language is head initial or head final though
08:04:46 <Oranjer> I mean, I'll be right back
08:05:02 <ehird> i simply state facts
08:05:53 <madbrain> dunno what to think about obama yet
08:06:20 <ehird> he's like bush except more articulate!
08:06:28 <ehird> also he is a 5,000 volt telephone pole and bush is not
08:07:32 <Oranjer> I have returned to find this almost devolving into...*gasp!* a political tussle!
08:07:54 <madbrain> anyways, back to auxlang stuff
08:08:04 <Oranjer> also, I do find similarities between both president's first years in office--but then, every president's first year is like that
08:08:09 <ehird> it's obvious to any non-USian that the democratic party is a crazy right-wing party and the republican party is a crazy right-wing party with slightly more delirious religious crap...
08:08:34 <Oranjer> uh okay pipe down ehird it's okay they're coming for you but they will help you it's okay ehird
08:08:41 <ehird> and i say this from the UK, a country only slightly to the left of the US :/
08:08:44 <Oranjer> I realized something, madbrain
08:08:57 <ehird> Oranjer: what is that meant to imply? you actually think the democratic party is left-wing?
08:09:07 <ehird> somebody keep this guy away from europe, he might have a seizure
08:09:25 <Oranjer> I mean to imply that I wear a beret and I bomb government buildings, now SHUT up
08:09:55 <ehird> let me know how that obama thing works out
08:10:26 <ehird> wanna bet? i don't
08:10:33 <Oranjer> in an ontological language, concepts closely resembling each other conceptually also closely resemble each other morphologically, right?
08:10:46 <Oranjer> (that's the problem you stated before_
08:10:58 <madbrain> well, in the ones people have tried up to yet, yes
08:12:23 <Oranjer> in the characteristica universalis I suggest, one criterion would be that the grapheme, and therefore the morpheme, of a concept would resemble the syntax of the concept represented by that grapheme/morpheme
08:13:01 <Oranjer> concepts with closely resembling syntaxs would resemble each other morphologically
08:13:06 <Oranjer> I do not see that as a problem
08:13:38 <Oranjer> hmmm...true...doesn't lojban have something to say about that?
08:13:54 <Oranjer> that it can't be misheard?
08:14:08 <madbrain> normally people grasp languages orally and translate that oral stuff into writing, not the other way around
08:14:54 <madbrain> that leads to the problem that what you're expressing might be a tree or a web of relations, but speech is linear
08:14:55 <Oranjer> true, but "normally" is hardly "intuitive enough to learn instantly and to have the ability to convey fairly complex concepts unambiguously"
08:15:28 <Oranjer> the graphic part of the language would resemble a web of concepts (it does, actually)
08:15:38 <Oranjer> but the speech is linear....hmmm
08:16:00 <Oranjer> the "pushing" and "popping" from one block to the next
08:16:13 <madbrain> the easiest to master writing system is the one that follows speech the closest
08:16:28 <Oranjer> do you know what I mean by "pushing" and "popping"?
08:16:56 <Oranjer> pushing is going in, popping is going out
08:17:05 <madbrain> yeah, then you get something close to SOV languages
08:17:25 <Oranjer> ah, what? I know what that means, but I fail to see the connection
08:17:43 <Oranjer> I guess I can give an example in english?
08:17:51 <madbrain> well, japanese for instance is subject-object-verb
08:18:25 <Oranjer> MaryStartingThink TomStartingWants Cake TomEndingWants MaryEndingThink
08:18:27 <madbrain> and all the affixes and suffixes apply in a sort of front to back direction
08:18:52 <pikhq> With the omission of subject and object when it can be inferred.
08:18:59 <Oranjer> where "ending wants" or whatever is one thing, not the thing for "ending" and the thing for "wants"
08:19:18 <madbrain> Something like "John Mary made-Cake-[o] likes"
08:19:22 <Oranjer> "Mary Thinks Tom wants Cake."
08:20:08 <madbrain> [o] means that the preceding noun is the object
08:20:10 <Oranjer> could you give me the translation of your sentence, please?
08:20:36 <ehird> John Mary made a cake o' lies.
08:20:42 <Oranjer> yeah, okay, I can see that
08:21:06 <Oranjer> where the subject and the Verb "surround" the object, and it continues "downward" from there?
08:21:27 <madbrain> in practice in japanese the verb is always at the end
08:21:56 <Oranjer> but made is not at the end
08:22:04 <madbrain> and then everything else comes in before, accompanied by a little syllable telling what it does respective to the verb
08:22:42 <madbrain> ie it's not the focus of the sentence, it's a property of "cake"
08:22:55 <Oranjer> I dunno about that part, though
08:23:11 <madbrain> John likes the cake [mary made that cake]
08:23:38 <Oranjer> ah! you are describing the origin of the cake (the object)!
08:23:40 <madbrain> John likes the cake [the one that mary made]
08:23:59 <madbrain> it's basically like an adjective, but instead of just an adjective it's a whole verb
08:24:09 <Oranjer> the origin, I guess, would act as a modifier, aye
08:24:35 <madbrain> basically it helps you guess which cake precisely you're talking of
08:24:42 <Oranjer> there's "cause", " relative time of origin", and 'relative location of origin"
08:24:51 <madbrain> cake [reject any cake that was not made by mary]
08:24:59 <Oranjer> Mary-made-it would act as the "cause"
08:25:16 <madbrain> oranjer: It's even more general than that
08:25:28 <Oranjer> I am merely throwing out ideas
08:25:39 <ehird> 1qaz2wsx3edc4rfv5tgb6yhn7ujm8ik,9ol.0p;/-['=]|
08:25:47 <madbrain> oranjer: it's a small sentence, if that sentence is not satisfied, then you have the wrong cake
08:26:03 <Oranjer> hey, when did we bring logic into this? heh
08:26:21 <madbrain> well, you're trying to make an ontological language after all :D
08:27:20 <Oranjer> "John Mary-made-yesterday-Cake likes"
08:27:48 <Oranjer> Tom John Mary-made-yesterday-Cake likes thinks"
08:27:52 <madbrain> yeah except in japanese the order would be "John Mary yesterday made Cake likes"
08:28:40 <Oranjer> ah, progenitor, to temporal, to relation between the progenitor and the object
08:28:40 <madbrain> see, yesterday is one of the arguments of "made", it has to go before it
08:29:07 <Oranjer> heh, SVO still feels too natural too me
08:29:27 <madbrain> Then you should look at chinese
08:29:52 <madbrain> chinese is a totally different ball game and it's SVO down to the nails
08:30:13 <Oranjer> oh! I thought you would be recommending a language that was outside my comfort zone
08:30:27 <pikhq> madbrain: Except for the various part of sentence modifiers...
08:30:34 <pikhq> Those make it much easier to understand...
08:30:52 <Oranjer> are...are people watching this conversation? oy vey
08:30:53 <madbrain> In chinese you'd have "John like mary yesterday make-[de]-Cake"
08:31:08 <ehird> qazxswedcvrtgbnhyujm,kiol./;p['\]
08:31:29 <madbrain> well, [de] is the chinese equivalent of "that"
08:31:55 <madbrain> and it's also applied to adjectives and possesives
08:32:17 <Oranjer> regardless of the order, I still would like it if there was some way to indicate the end of each "stack"
08:32:32 <madbrain> Well, that's the problem with SVO
08:32:33 <Oranjer> like a closing parenthesis
08:32:44 <madbrain> SVO doesn't really work like a stack
08:32:47 <Oranjer> also, it's a problem with most languages
08:32:58 <Oranjer> so SOV would act as a stack? I see that...hmmm
08:33:37 <Oranjer> so, madbrain, you know Chinese?
08:34:28 <madbrain> as for evidentiality, you could probably do that with auxilliary verbs
08:35:17 <madbrain> or at least that's how english tends to work afaik
08:35:19 <Oranjer> I thought an affix to the verb, like in...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
08:35:49 <Oranjer> also, I like examining that language for its sheer differentness
08:37:38 <Oranjer> I just really like the idea of an evidentiality mandatory for each verb
08:38:01 <Oranjer> or...inheritable evidentiality? or, I dunno
08:38:11 <madbrain> well, you could have a default level, and add on affixes to change that
08:39:01 <madbrain> like "Bob crazy" vs "I think Bob crazy" vs "I sure Bob crazy"
08:39:05 <Oranjer> perhaps...but that hardly seems mandatory, ya know? besides, the only difference between the two is the presence or absence of a space between them
08:39:38 <madbrain> depends, an affix is not a word, a verb is one
08:39:42 <Oranjer> Bob acts crazy, I-know-because-I-observed Bob acts crazy
08:40:04 <Oranjer> ah, but a "word" is just an affix with a space separating it from another
08:40:05 <madbrain> so the verb could be separated by some extra words but not the affix
08:40:27 <madbrain> oranjer: but there are no spaces when speaking
08:40:44 <madbrain> oranjer: yet some languages still clearly delimit words phonetically
08:41:19 <madbrain> well, there is usually a hiccup or two
08:41:37 <madbrain> but in turkish, you have vowel harmony
08:41:48 <Oranjer> and in french you have the sliding thing
08:41:59 <madbrain> actually french is a bad example
08:42:46 <madbrain> because it tends to jumble up together multiple words and it has tons of clitics, ie words that are somewhat between words and affixes
08:43:41 <madbrain> also french is really hard to separate into morphemes
08:43:58 <Oranjer> regardless, we're arguing over whether to use affixes or auxiliary verbs to convey evidentiality, which is an altogether ridiculous argument
08:44:27 <Oranjer> I am more concerned over evidentialities-about-evidentialities
08:45:23 <Oranjer> He-(I-think-he)-thinks She ate the last piece
08:45:38 <Oranjer> as in, I think that he thinks that she ate the last piece
08:45:55 <Oranjer> I don't think "I think that..." would work
08:46:43 <madbrain> and I think you'd have more or less the same way of expressing it in french or chinese
08:46:48 <Oranjer> not really, puzzlet, we're trying to construct a universal language
08:47:31 <Oranjer> that would "I think he thinks" add to the top of the stack, or would it just add to the verb within "He thinks"?
08:47:54 <Oranjer> what a stupidly obvious conundrum-solution!
08:48:03 <ehird> i think he thinks that he thinks that he thinks
08:48:06 <ehird> what he thinks he thinks
08:48:18 <Oranjer> /we add the evidentialities to the top of the stack!/
08:48:41 <Oranjer> that would work for the verbs, I guess
08:49:10 <Oranjer> but what of the object's characteristics? how sure am I that Mary made a cake? or would that modify the verb as well?
08:49:14 <madbrain> evidentiality with "I" is ok, but when you're getting into evidentiality for other people, it would be probably simpler to use a verb for "think"
08:49:59 <madbrain> where are you going to put Bob
08:50:02 <ehird> i guess i should sleep
08:51:02 <Oranjer> madbrain, were those examples?
08:51:22 <madbrain> ok, say "Bob thinks paul gave an apple to anna"
08:51:44 <ehird> Oranjer: did you make "pics or it never occurred" like that deliberately
08:51:48 <ehird> or is that actually how you'd phrase it
08:52:08 <Oranjer> Schrodinger's Picture Album
08:52:36 <madbrain> Well, in that sentence you have 1 action action (give), 4 nouns
08:52:54 -!- oerjan has joined.
08:53:09 <madbrain> and the idea that one of them is having a point of view on that action
08:53:22 <Oranjer> Bob Start-think Paul start-give-to-anna apple End-give End-think.
08:53:49 <Oranjer> Bob thinks Paul gave an apple to anna
08:54:16 <Oranjer> maybe...maybe /only/ evidentialities should go to the top of the stack!
08:54:55 <Oranjer> you are missing an r, oerjan
08:55:06 <madbrain> bob paul anna apple give think
08:55:44 <Oranjer> (while making explicit the difference between the direct and indirect object of give, of course)
08:55:51 <oerjan> <Oranjer> I have heard of that individual, as I have also heard of you, ehird
08:56:12 <ehird> "Now... this will be very swift."
08:56:36 <madbrain> oranjer: actually you don't HAVE to make a difference between the direct and indirect object
08:56:42 <Oranjer> what? go awesome or go home, I say--that also applies to the minuscule of speech
08:57:05 <Oranjer> I think the language should
08:57:36 <Oranjer> did I put the car in a box or the box in the car? also, I guess I forgot the "in"
08:57:47 <madbrain> well, as in you have to differentiate it at least by the order
08:58:03 <Oranjer> bah! differentiating by order is hardly intuitive!
08:58:14 <Oranjer> I would prefer to use affixes
08:58:34 <madbrain> chinese would be "I at-box's inside put car"
08:58:36 <ehird> oerjan! should i sleep
08:58:39 <ehird> you are the voice fo reason
08:58:57 <oerjan> ehird: yes. otherwise you'll eventually go insane.
08:58:57 <Oranjer> no, oerjan is the voice fo' reason
08:59:16 <Oranjer> (damn, ehird! you forgot to place a timelimit in your question!)
08:59:39 <oerjan> i don't really know go, never played it. read a little bit about it though.
09:00:02 <ehird> oerjan: oh fuck you i'm tired i don't have the brain space for the, the jokes and the... so why the fuck am i asking you
09:00:05 <ehird> yeah, good question ehird!
09:00:16 <Oranjer> (you should have asked something like "should I go to sleep soon, within the next hour?)
09:00:39 <ehird> Oranjer: GO STICK YOUR HEAD IN AN EXHAUST PIPE
09:00:42 <oerjan> ehird: because group pressure
09:00:55 <Oranjer> Oerjan-for-unknown-reasons demands ehird to sleep
09:00:56 <ehird> oerjan: but I haven't done a gateway drug yet!
09:01:05 <ehird> i'm not ready to give into such hardcore peer pressure as sleeping, man
09:01:06 <madbrain> something like "wo3 dao4 he2zi-li na2zou3 che1"
09:01:55 <Oranjer> haha, that's the problem when the ratio of phoneme to grapheme is not 1:1
09:02:14 <ehird> me oh fucking hell it's that time
09:02:23 <ehird> i probably should sleep! shouldn't i
09:02:25 <madbrain> dao4 is not pronounced the same way as dao3 (and has a different meaning ofc)
09:02:43 <Oranjer> you're relegated to using suprasegmental notes to indicate the correct phoneme, and therefore to indicate the correct concept
09:02:44 <madbrain> oranjer: which is why I add tone numbers
09:03:01 <madbrain> just like I use consonants and vowels
09:03:10 <Oranjer> I know, but in writing chinese, the tones are not implicit in the grapheme used, right?
09:03:30 <ehird> sleep is a good word
09:03:38 <Oranjer> one grapheme can represent a multitude of phonemes, right?
09:03:53 <Oranjer> I also like "suprasegmental", ehird
09:03:58 <oerjan> ehird: don't think too much. follow your heart. then sleep.
09:03:58 <madbrain> one grapheme usually represents 1 morpheme and 1 syllable
09:04:06 <ehird> oerjan: aummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmsdfghjkl;
09:04:14 <Oranjer> really? I heard differently, madbrain...hmmmm
09:04:23 <ehird> what if sleeping is like...dying...and reincarnation...man...duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude
09:04:27 <ehird> yeah, I should sleep1
09:04:29 <madbrain> ie there are about 5000 morphemes in mandarin, but about 1200 different syllables
09:04:35 <ehird> more importantly i should stop doing 1 when want !
09:04:41 <Oranjer> yeah that sounds bad madbrain
09:04:43 <ehird> and stuff yeah okay sorta thing
09:04:52 <madbrain> so actually there are lots of homophones
09:05:03 <madbrain> ie graphemes have more info than phonemes
09:05:39 <ehird> republiphone party
09:05:45 <ehird> they'rea ll homophones and shit
09:05:47 <madbrain> this is because the number of different syllables has gone down in mandarin, ie some syllables merged
09:05:48 <ehird> okay i really, really need sleep
09:05:52 <ehird> i'm practically incoherent
09:06:11 <Oranjer> so, what about the graphemes, madbrain?
09:06:18 <ehird> THOSE GRAHPHEMES HUH
09:06:20 <oerjan> ehird: *practically* ?
09:06:22 <ehird> what's UP with them
09:06:33 <ehird> oerjan: well it's like a theory of incoherency you understand
09:06:34 <madbrain> characters are about equivalent to morphemes in chinese
09:06:35 <Oranjer> yeah, grapheme food, what's up with that?
09:06:37 <ehird> appleid in practice
09:06:45 <ehird> so,.. it's practically!
09:06:52 <ehird> Oranjer: yeah, what is UP with it
09:07:10 <Oranjer> haha, I just finally got the joke! holy shit I'm an idiot
09:07:10 <ehird> don't actually know
09:07:15 <ehird> what is up with it
09:07:21 <madbrain> it's not a too practical system because 5000 morhpemes = 5000 characters to learn :(
09:07:26 <ehird> i never even got that
09:07:32 <ehird> i thought it was just.. .shit
09:07:46 <ehird> is that the punchline, intentional, i mean, is that the thing, that people do it for
09:07:47 <Oranjer> "Airplane food...what is UP with that?"
09:07:56 <ehird> is that the actual-
09:07:56 <Oranjer> I don't know! I don't know!
09:08:02 <ehird> this, has shaken my world
09:08:40 <Oranjer> YOU HAVE A BRAIN MADBRAIN USE IT
09:08:42 <ehird> "what is UP with airline food"
09:08:55 <Oranjer> is that the punny punchline?
09:09:01 <ehird> that is what we would like to know
09:09:15 <ehird> we are waiting on you madbrain
09:09:29 <ehird> I DON'T KNOW how could we even ask it
09:09:41 <Oranjer> GOOGLE WHAT IS UP WITH THE AIRPLANE FOOD JOKE
09:09:42 -!- jix has joined.
09:09:48 <ehird> i, the googles aren't helping
09:09:53 <Oranjer> oh god! I think I made another one! oh, shits!
09:09:56 -!- jix has quit (Client Quit).
09:09:58 <ehird> wait, wait, wait, CALM DOWN i think
09:10:05 <ehird> Oranjer: the joke that is commonly done is
09:10:09 <ehird> " what is the deal with airline food? "
09:10:11 <Oranjer> madbrain, what is up with the airplane joke?
09:10:17 <ehird> now unless it refers to a wonderful airline's GREAT DEALS
09:10:19 <ehird> as in VALUE FOR MONEY
09:10:24 <Oranjer> well, damn, that's nothing to phone home about
09:10:30 <ehird> madbrain: ABSOLUTELY
09:10:34 <oerjan> at this point i am starting to think you should _all_ sleep
09:10:39 <ehird> they should do an ad campaign!
09:10:42 <Oranjer> I am glad for America adn Humanity adn Us adn Them
09:10:45 <ehird> "What's the DEAL with airline food?"
09:10:50 <ehird> "The DEAL... is with Ryanair!"
09:11:00 <ehird> "Our new Premium flights now include FOOD!"
09:11:05 <ehird> food! that you can put in your mouth!
09:11:14 <Oranjer> ahh madbrain I have forgotten our subject!
09:11:51 <oerjan> ehird: if your stomach is tough enough
09:12:02 <ehird> YOU DIGEST IT WITH YOUR... I DON'T KNOW, INTESTINES
09:12:06 <Oranjer> no! no food for a strong stomach, you!
09:12:10 <ehird> intestines are very clever they do all sorts of things
09:12:17 <madbrain> oranjer: so yeah I think you should have latin alphabet
09:12:32 <Oranjer> wait, does, multi-functionality necessarily indicated cleverness?
09:12:35 <oerjan> intestines are turing-complete! too bad they can only do shit.
09:12:42 <ehird> Oranjer: you use such big words
09:12:45 <ehird> i am no longer "with you"
09:13:05 <madbrain> latin alphabet (abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz) can notate, like, any language
09:13:12 <Oranjer> why's that? the structure of each grapheme does not indicate the syntax of the concept they relate!
09:13:17 <ehird> so can binary alphabet (01)
09:13:18 <oerjan> yeah what's up with all this cleverity
09:13:32 <Oranjer> resolution is no insurmoutable barrier!
09:13:33 <ehird> MA-HA-HA-HA-hahahaha-gic!
09:13:43 <ehird> yep i am talk via 1x1 1-bit display
09:13:47 <ehird> is very high quality single pixel
09:14:00 <Oranjer> like, a negative imaginary number
09:14:08 <oerjan> all your b *hit by falling anvil*
09:14:23 <madbrain> because any spoken language eventually breaks down to N vowels an M consonants (and O lengths/tones/accents/etc..)
09:15:01 -!- ehird has quit.
09:15:02 <Oranjer> what if a triple syllable was an individual morpheme?
09:15:22 <Oranjer> also, yeah, I do understand the limitations of the human vocal system
09:15:24 <madbrain> you mean like "banana" for instance?
09:15:45 <Oranjer> the alphabet! would be so different!
09:15:46 <madbrain> ok, well, speech does not delimit that morpheme
09:16:04 <Oranjer> like, banana would be right next to gahnosee!
09:16:16 <madbrain> if speech doesn't delimit it, why would you have to delimit it in writing
09:16:22 <Oranjer> so so you don't confuse closely categorized concepts!
09:16:51 <Oranjer> ah, but each of those triple-syllable morphemes would have its own grapheme!
09:17:02 <Oranjer> dammit, that doesn't work at all!
09:17:23 <Oranjer> ehird's...insanity infected me for a bit
09:17:59 <Oranjer> I just wanna talk about my game...:(
09:18:16 <madbrain> well, if you made a language where each morpheme is 1 syllable, then you can guess where each morpheme start and ends even with latin alphabet
09:18:19 <Oranjer> oh wait, we were discussing a characteristica universalis!
09:19:26 <oerjan> LR(0) human languages!
09:19:36 <Oranjer> perhaps the vowels used in each morpheme would be the same? so a fragment of ...boonoosee... could not be confused for ...booneesee...
09:19:53 <Oranjer> as the first is 1, (1,1,2,) 2,2
09:20:02 <madbrain> oranjer: but then you'd have a different problem
09:20:07 <Oranjer> and the second is 1,1 (1,2,2) 2
09:20:37 <madbrain> which is that it's hard to make 1000+ different syllables without at least a consonant, a vowel, and something else (such as another consnonant)
09:21:16 <madbrain> some languages do keep each vowel more or less intact though so boonoosee vs booneesee would remain different
09:21:16 <Oranjer> boonookoo, beeneekee, bahnahkah...
09:21:53 <Oranjer> okay, do you want chinese to be the universal language? you can say it if you want, I will not get angry
09:22:08 <oerjan> well in mandarin iirc ng can only occur at the end and most everything else at the beginning (ignoring n), so if you divided the consonant set in two...
09:22:44 <madbrain> like, if you do mergers like bunuxi with bunixi in chinese, you generate a gazillion homophones
09:23:21 <madbrain> oerjan: yeah but there is no vowel harmony
09:23:35 <oerjan> you want vowel harmony too now?
09:24:14 <madbrain> well, oranjer was suggesting something like vowel harmony and I said that it would lower the phonological content too much
09:25:23 <Oranjer> I give up on the multi-syllable morpheme idea. I apologize for any inconveniences or troubles my extended confusion has caused our audience, and our respective selves.
09:25:28 <madbrain> oranjer: well, I think the grammar and morphology of chinese might be a good inspiration yes
09:25:45 <madbrain> although not the writing system or phonetic system :D
09:26:12 <madbrain> oh, but you can have multiple syllable morphemes too
09:26:32 <Oranjer> but not in an ontological language
09:26:47 <madbrain> you'd have to be able to delimit them
09:27:08 <madbrain> ie no "hi-no" vs "hino" ambiguity
09:27:47 <Oranjer> do you mean that hi and no, vs hino, are all separate morphemes?
09:28:03 <madbrain> well, you can't have a "hi", a "no" and a "hino" morpheme without running the risk of causing a homophone
09:28:27 <madbrain> although in practice that risk is quite low which is why most languages do have multiple syllable morphemes
09:29:33 <madbrain> see, to make a good ontological language, you have to learn more about natural languages
09:30:00 <Oranjer> can we put our universal language ruminations to rest?
09:30:10 <Oranjer> as in, so we can sleep on it
09:30:24 <Oranjer> that *is* the most integral part of creativity
09:30:33 -!- madbrain has quit ("Radiateur").
09:31:20 <Oranjer> why are our names so alike?
09:31:45 <oerjan> well in my case it _is_ my name, slightly mangled to fit in the english alphabet
09:32:17 <augur> are you kids talking about natural languages?
09:32:38 <Oranjer> actually, we were talking about constructing an artificial language
09:33:02 <Oranjer> my name is but a portmanteau of my favorite color and the first syllable of my actual name
09:33:10 <Oranjer> for universal communication
09:33:20 <oerjan> augur: to take over the world, of course. what other end is there?
09:33:28 <augur> good point oerjan!
09:33:36 <Oranjer> well, yes, oerjan, but that's not the sole purpose
09:33:45 <augur> what do you mean by universal communication
09:34:19 <Oranjer> I basically wish to create a language that can model, create, and compare even the most disparate of the human disciplines
09:34:36 <Oranjer> and no, your "mathematics" ain't universal enough
09:34:51 <augur> natural language does this pretty well enough as it is.
09:35:02 <augur> and by natural language i mean any given language.
09:35:24 <Oranjer> bah! it's hardly efficient
09:35:34 <augur> actually its quite efficient
09:35:42 <Oranjer> and it's hardly intuitive enough to be understand within the hour by any sentient creature
09:36:02 <augur> no language can be learned within an hour.
09:36:05 <Oranjer> also, the semantics hardly match the syntax!
09:36:09 <oerjan> Oranjer: let me warn you that augur is studying linguistics
09:36:12 <Oranjer> a universal language should be
09:36:18 <augur> yes, this is true oranjer
09:36:22 <augur> i am infact a professional linguist
09:36:25 <Oranjer> then....augur is a lost cause, then :(
09:36:37 <augur> at one of, if not the top theoretical departments on the planet.
09:36:44 <oerjan> ruined by the establishment :D
09:37:03 <augur> this department makes it routine to challenge conventional ideas
09:37:20 <Oranjer> (I think that is the way to represent eh raspberry)
09:37:28 <augur> natural language is not inefficient
09:37:32 <augur> it is incredibly efficient
09:37:46 <augur> furthermore, the syntax does not need to look precisely like the semantics
09:37:51 <augur> for if it did it would become less efficient
09:38:01 <Oranjer> no, I meant the other way around!
09:38:02 <augur> but it does reflect the semantics to a large degree
09:38:20 <Oranjer> wait, what's your definition of semantics and syntax? the *official* definitions?
09:38:42 <augur> syntax is all the formal structural aspects of linguistic expressions
09:39:06 <augur> broadly construed to include morphology but not so broad as to include the phonological aspects
09:39:26 <Oranjer> oops! I guess I have been using the word the wrong way all along! oops!
09:39:28 <augur> semantics is in my usage an internalist formal system of conceptualization.
09:39:37 <augur> what did you mean by syntax
09:40:30 <augur> regarding language efficiency
09:40:33 <Oranjer> I meant, by syntax, the underlying relations between the concepts represented by the semantics, the words themselves
09:40:56 <augur> given the conditions in which it must be used, the things you find inefficient, like redundancy, etc. are actually added for reliability
09:41:17 <augur> so that signal degradation != meaning degradation
09:41:19 <Oranjer> no, I never said redundancy was inefficient!
09:41:29 <Oranjer> I understand it's necessity
09:41:34 <augur> well there is little else that could be said to be inefficient about language
09:42:12 <augur> well consider the situation wherein you reflect a semantics precisely
09:42:31 <augur> and lets say, for the sake of convenience, that we have a tarskian logic rather than anything as complicated as a lambda calculus
09:43:57 <augur> the sentence "the dog bit the man that the woman knows" would become something roughly like BIT(x,y) & DOG(x) & MAN(y) & KNOW(z,y) & WOMAN(z)
09:44:19 <augur> or maybe just Bxy & Dx & My & Kzy & Wz
09:44:30 <augur> now, there's a lot of redundancy of variables here
09:44:41 <augur> all those x's and y's and x'z duplicated like that
09:44:55 <augur> natural language tends to not do this
09:45:09 <augur> notice in the english, theres only one unit that refers to the woman, one that refers to the man, one to the dog
09:45:16 <Oranjer> true..but each time they are mentioned, they are describing a separate relation about that concept
09:45:19 * oerjan is disturbed that his eyes seem to confuse Oranjer's nick with Gregor
09:45:32 <augur> true, they're in different relations
09:45:41 <augur> because of the HIERARCHICAL relationships
09:46:04 <augur> [the_dog [bit [the_man [that the_woman [knows]]]]]
09:46:11 <augur> we can define certain conventions
09:46:19 <augur> wherein, for instance
09:46:19 <Oranjer> augur, you have convinced me that such redundancies to indicate popping and pushing would be strictly necessary in a universal language
09:47:00 <augur> we might take a syntactic form [the_dog [bit [the_man [that the_woman [knows the_man]]]]] and delete this lower copy of the man just in case it refers to the same man as the higher version
09:47:05 <Oranjer> we were talking about such stacking earlier
09:47:37 <augur> things could get much more complicated very quickly
09:47:53 <augur> especially since the normal semantic representations of sentences are tremendously complicated
09:48:01 <augur> i dont know what you mean by "stacking"
09:48:22 <Oranjer> I mean what you mean when you speak of nested hierarchies
09:48:43 <Oranjer> wherein the object of a relation is itself a relation, etc.
09:48:49 <augur> well thats just tree structured linguistic expressions
09:49:17 <augur> in most versions of semantics that have any worth to them, relations arent the arguments of other relations
09:49:24 <augur> the value of the relation can be
09:49:28 <augur> but the relation itself is not
09:49:49 <Oranjer> I see no problem with such a thing
09:49:59 <augur> because in a properly typed logic, relations are not objects of the system
09:50:04 <augur> oh sure, it happens in natural language
09:50:20 <augur> which is why SOME very important logics have such abilities
09:50:37 <augur> such as montague's intensional logic
09:51:07 <augur> tho its arguable that such systems are completely unnecessary
09:52:31 <Oranjer> well, hey, I hate do this, really, I know it looks suspicious and all, but I was just about to go to sleep when you came on
09:53:15 <Oranjer> see ya later, augur, oerjan, everyone else!
09:53:25 <augur> good bye my ignorant friend
09:53:32 -!- Oranjer has left (?).
09:54:47 <augur> wanna know some cool stuff about language? :x
09:54:59 <augur> but its interesting!
09:55:11 <augur> its like learning about how natural language is esoteric!
09:55:24 <augur> and thus provides ideas about making even more esoteric constructed languages!
09:56:04 <augur> suppose your semantics had the types T, U, V, ...
09:56:14 <augur> and some relations over these times
09:56:34 <augur> lets say R is T -> U -> V
09:56:48 <augur> or perhaps more accurately, T -> U -> Bool
09:57:18 <augur> (all relations looking like that; two args go to bool)
09:58:10 <augur> your syntax apparently cannot have phrases that directly include other phrases, IF...
09:58:50 <augur> if the arguments/referents of those phrases are of types T, U such that there is no relationship of type T -> U -> Bool or U -> T -> Bool
09:59:48 <augur> this also seems to lead inexorably to the emergence of certain hierarchies in the syntax that seemingly have no motivation
10:02:39 <augur> theres no apriori reason why this should be true
10:02:43 <augur> but it seems to be
10:03:22 <augur> also, even if the type system has a relation of the requisite sort, the semantics must contain such a relation connecting the relevant items
10:03:32 <augur> precisely one relation
10:03:57 <augur> so its highly constrained
10:04:08 <augur> and you could imagine that there are ways to change those constraints
10:04:17 <augur> but the result is not a naturally acquirable human language
10:06:16 <augur> you could also imagine the same constraints but with a different semantics
10:06:42 <augur> so that you get different relations and thus different possible grammars
10:07:41 <augur> so for instance normally things like tense and modality are structurally higher than things like core verbal meaning components
10:08:03 <augur> but why? perhaps you might have a languge in which tense and modality are lower in the structure
10:08:22 <augur> and so you might get very weird things out of that
10:12:10 -!- oerjan has quit ("see ya").
11:01:30 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
11:10:21 -!- nooga has joined.
11:13:25 <nooga> anyone played with llvm-as?
11:31:14 <fizzie> Deewiant: But have you PLAYED with it? Have you given it enough LOVE? Have you treated it as a PERSON?
11:31:33 <fizzie> No! You just USE it, like it's a piece of code with no FEELINGS!
12:15:49 -!- Asztal has joined.
12:46:15 <nooga> another reason for i hate C++: there is no way to specify unescaped string literals
12:47:17 <nooga> and thus my regexp engine needs something like that: regex_compile("blah\\."); instead of "blah\."
12:47:34 <Deewiant> Strictly that hate is at the C preprocessor, but yeah.
12:48:08 <nooga> in ruby i've got "" vs '' and it's okay
12:48:30 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote closed the connection).
12:50:29 <nooga> on the other hand i must admit that C++'s exceptions are useful
12:51:51 <nooga> pumping errors up by hand from a bunch of parser functions that call themselves sucks
13:20:52 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
13:36:05 -!- ais523 has joined.
13:47:51 -!- FireFly has joined.
13:48:54 -!- nooga has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
13:57:07 -!- ais523_ has joined.
13:58:14 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
14:01:42 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais532.
14:01:43 -!- ais532 has changed nick to ais523.
15:30:02 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
15:49:51 -!- coppro has quit ("I am leaving. You are about to explode.").
16:07:03 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
16:11:28 -!- ais523 has joined.
16:17:46 -!- oerjan has joined.
16:19:04 <oerjan> <nooga> another reason for i hate C++: there is no way to specify unescaped string literals <-- on the bright side, that is also a missing feature of haskell
16:31:00 <oerjan> now where is that rascal AnMaster
16:31:31 <oerjan> you have not spoken in over 1 day
16:31:50 <oerjan> so i assumed you were not here
16:32:08 <oerjan> also: fiendish, obi-wan :D
16:33:28 <oerjan> oh and for iwc with the recent mythbusters arc, this leaves me confused which universe the joneses actually _are_ in...
16:59:22 -!- kar8nga has joined.
17:52:55 <Warrigal> unescaped = init . tail . show
17:53:46 <Warrigal> main = putStrLn $ unescaped "A newline is \n; a bell is \a."
17:59:42 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection).
18:04:03 <oerjan> !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "A newline is \n; a bell is \a."
18:04:31 <EgoBot> A newline is \n; a bell is \a.
18:05:26 <oerjan> I foresee no problem with that method.
18:10:56 -!- fax has joined.
18:13:09 -!- augur has joined.
18:26:46 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
18:45:13 <Gracenotes> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daudiobooks&field-keywords=kant .. I didn't know they had CDs back then
18:46:06 <oerjan> it's categorically a disk
18:47:57 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection).
18:51:41 <Warrigal> I do foresee a problem with that method.
18:52:07 <Warrigal> !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "A newline is \10; a bell is \7."
18:52:09 <EgoBot> A newline is \n; a bell is \a.
18:53:11 <Warrigal> !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "\Let\'s \jus\t p\ut \bac\ksl\ash\es \in \ran\dom\ pl\ace\s."
18:53:33 <Warrigal> !haskell EgoBot, does your silence mean that my string has a lexical error?
18:53:44 <oerjan> You do not easily recognize sarcasm memes, i take
18:54:29 <oerjan> well at least i think i saw it in dilbert
18:56:08 <oerjan> indeed lexical errors should be possible
18:56:46 <oerjan> !haskell let unescaped = init . tail . show in putStrLn $ unescaped "\ \etc. \ \etc."
18:57:11 <oerjan> (no that was not an attempt at a lexical error)
18:59:44 <fax> why SHOULD they teach logic in school?
19:00:44 -!- kar8nga has joined.
19:01:28 <pikhq> Logic is fundamental to understanding math, science, and debate.
19:01:54 <pikhq> Oh, and philosophy.
19:01:55 <fax> is it though?
19:02:43 <pikhq> fax, how much math do you know?
19:02:53 <fax> all of it !
19:03:05 <fax> I don't know how to answer that really
19:03:06 <pikhq> Care to demonstrate?
19:03:43 <pikhq> A claim that logic is not fundamental to understanding math can, insofar as I can tell, only be born out by ignorance regarding what math actually *is*.
19:04:20 <fax> lets not talk about it then
19:04:39 <Warrigal> fax: if you did know how to answer that, how would you answer it?
19:04:50 <oerjan> as for debate, it is important to know enough logic to detect when others are _not_ arguing sensibly
19:04:58 <fax> Warrigal how could I possibly answer your question? :P
19:05:14 <pikhq> Debate is almost entirely composed of logic. Informal logic, mind, but still.
19:05:44 <pikhq> (well, logic and logical fallacies)O
19:05:49 <fax> kinda lose the will to discuss something when people start telling me it's ignorance
19:06:22 <oerjan> fax: well math at higher levels is based on proof, and proof is logic
19:06:49 <Warrigal> fax: if you knew the answer to your rhetorical question, what would it be?
19:07:01 <Warrigal> If these questions weren't positively silly, how would you answer them?
19:07:05 <fax> Warrigal stop paradoxing me!!!
19:07:16 <Warrigal> If it weren't a paradox... oh, never mind.
19:07:59 <pikhq> oerjan: "At higher levels"? I'd almost hesitate to call it math before you start discussing proofs and logic.
19:08:27 <oerjan> and science is much about testing hypothesis - and to test hypotheses you need to be able to reason about their consequences, thus logic
19:09:01 <Warrigal> Eliezer Yudkowsky would say that rationality should be taught in school!
19:09:25 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Remote closed the connection).
19:09:33 <oerjan> pikhq: well yeah but it is a bit insulting to people who can do numbers well but never get that far...
19:10:26 <pikhq> oerjan: But computation != math...
19:10:59 <oerjan> and programming requires logic too - to find bugs you have to reason about what the program should do and what it actually does...
19:18:02 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined.
19:23:54 -!- adam_d has joined.
19:46:13 -!- Oranjer has joined.
20:08:24 <Deewiant> http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs51/f/2009/265/c/0/Sauna_Time_by_humon.jpg
20:09:01 <Oranjer> ha, what? is the lesson Finland's an asshole?
20:09:17 <Oranjer> or do Finnish sauna's really do that?
20:09:37 <Deewiant> Yes, all of that is normal. :-)
20:11:44 <Oranjer> speaking of personifications of abstract, non-human concepts
20:12:36 <Oranjer> I intend to draw several such things
20:13:06 <Oranjer> and someone I know wishes to write a story about such embodiments of facets of reality
20:13:35 <Oranjer> and someone else I know wishes to make a game revolving around such anthropomorphisms
20:14:30 -!- BeholdMyGlory_ has joined.
20:14:56 <Oranjer> anyone got a concept for me to draw?
20:15:25 <fax> Oranjer when you learn about a new thing then it appears everywhere
20:15:45 <Oranjer> or at least, it /appears/ to appear everywhere, yes
20:16:08 -!- jix has joined.
20:16:15 <Oranjer> a common result of a human having a limited amount of memory, and of having what is called a "recency bias"
20:16:34 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Nick collision from services.).
20:16:37 -!- BeholdMyGlory_ has changed nick to BeholdMyGlory.
20:16:54 <Oranjer> where, obviously enough, humans remember the last thing that happened more than those that came before
20:17:19 <Oranjer> do you wish me to draw the concept of "when you learn about a new thing then it appears everywhere"?
20:18:05 <fax> have you seen GregorRs programming languages?
20:18:14 <fax> personifications
20:18:29 <Oranjer> what are you talking about?
20:18:42 <fax> well there isn't a link
20:19:38 <oerjan> http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/ORK maybe?
20:20:07 <fizzie> I don't think it's really considered polite to whack *others* with a vihta/vasta/is-there-an-English-name-for-it; certainly applying it to yourself is a very common sauna behaviour though.
20:20:36 <Oranjer> that's why I asked if Finland is an asshole
20:21:19 <Oranjer> the file didn't take, I think
20:23:07 <Oranjer> it seems to keep breaking down right when it starts, sorry
20:23:40 <Oranjer> so uh what's up with this connection you say between these esoteric languages and personifications?
20:28:25 <Oranjer> I am waiting for transfer to begin
20:30:20 <Oranjer> I have discovered the problem
20:30:31 <Oranjer> it cancels the file transfer
20:30:44 <Oranjer> can you just email it to me?
20:36:41 <Oranjer> personifications of programming languages! yes!
20:38:29 <fax> I love it so much lol
21:05:05 <fax> Oranjer didn't you get it?
21:05:27 <Oranjer> I mentioned that that was exactly what I was talking about
21:05:49 <Oranjer> personifications, embodiments, avatars, anthropomorphisms, etc. of abstract concepts
21:14:44 -!- ais523 has joined.
21:25:03 <Oranjer> hello ais523!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21:25:34 <AnMaster> ais523, to avoid confusion (or not) oerjan != Oranjer
21:25:51 <ais523> and I met Oranjer outside #esoteric first
21:26:01 <ais523> how come every nomicer seems to end up here?
21:26:08 <oerjan> also apparently Gregor != Oranjer
21:26:25 <pikhq> Because nomics are quite awesome?
21:36:20 -!- Gracenotes has joined.
21:36:23 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Remote closed the connection).
21:44:07 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
21:46:21 -!- jix has joined.
22:45:06 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote closed the connection).
22:45:23 -!- Oranjer has left (?).
22:46:44 <AnMaster> fizzie, there? About that OpenTTD adder. What if you had used a faster type of train? And possibly faster railway too (like maglev)
22:47:24 <AnMaster> fizzie, oh and did you use path based signaling or just pre-signals/normal ones
22:47:40 <fizzie> Well, it'd be faster by a constant factor.
22:48:07 <fizzie> With a faster train and a faster railway.
22:49:27 <AnMaster> fizzie, what about the path based signal-stuff?
22:50:30 <fizzie> And path-based signaling wasn't in OpenTTD way back when I did that stuff. I had to use a SVN checkout even to get the "new pathfinding" (NPF) stuff, which was quite some time ago, since they already have made a third "new" pathfinding (YAPF) thing.
22:51:05 <fizzie> Latest release at that time was 0.4.0.1.
22:51:27 <AnMaster> fizzie, so is that likely to work on modern openttd?
22:51:37 <AnMaster> anyway, what was the url now again
22:51:49 <fizzie> zem.fi/ and the link's on the front page.
22:52:12 <AnMaster> I mean, the save game or whatever
22:52:21 <fizzie> I don't think I ever got save games uploaded anywhere, actually.
22:52:43 <fizzie> Not... necessarily. But it is possible.
22:53:19 <fizzie> Only png files in the web-directory, at least. Let's check other places.
22:53:44 <fizzie> home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 21065 2005-10-21 19:49 home/fis/.openttd/save/gate.sav
22:53:45 <fizzie> home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 21578 2005-10-21 22:17 home/fis/.openttd/save/gatemap.sav
22:53:45 <fizzie> home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 21198 2005-10-23 13:16 home/fis/.openttd/save/gate20.sav
22:53:45 <fizzie> home_fis.tar.gz.lst:-rw------- fis/fis 32124 2005-10-23 17:00 home/fis/.openttd/save/4adder.sav
22:54:40 <fizzie> Extricating; will take a while to gunzip all that stuff.
22:55:31 <AnMaster> fizzie, just extract the relevant files?
22:55:50 <AnMaster> (pretty sure tar supports that)
22:55:55 <fizzie> It's a .tar.gz; it will necessarily have to gzip everything to *find* the relevant files.
22:56:25 <fizzie> I did extract only those, but since there's no tar-index-outside-the-gzip-stream, it can't really take any shortcuts.
22:57:09 <fizzie> I'm not quite sure which file is which, but at least http://zem.fi/~fis/4adder.sav is the most complicated four-adder configuration.
22:57:53 <fizzie> Whoops, forgot to mount my public_html directory.
22:58:41 <fizzie> Yes; it's physically on the web server, I just mount it to ~/www/ on this desktop to share things.
22:58:43 <fizzie> Anyway, now it's there.
22:59:25 <fizzie> I'm not sure what to share. I should run openttd and check.
23:00:17 <fizzie> There's "logic {1,2,3,4}.sav" and a "logic broken.sav" and "2logic, fixed.sav" and I don't quite know what the names mean. The one-track logic part is not especially interesting, since it's just so fiddly with the clocking.
23:01:06 <fizzie> I'll try to find the messy nor gate and the generic two-input logic gate, though.
23:03:13 <fizzie> I seem to have OpenTTD 0.7.3 installed here, that's pretty recent.
23:03:31 <AnMaster> fizzie, any easy way to remove the trains and then replace them there? I mean, to use the "upgrade track" thingy, the trains must be removed :/
23:04:10 <fizzie> Ugh, I don't really know. I seem to think there was some sort of trick to upgrading trains without having to manually copy the rulesets.
23:04:34 <AnMaster> fizzie, well yes but also the trains are *everywhere*
23:04:41 <AnMaster> and moving them all to depots is ugh
23:05:20 <fizzie> You can send them into depots from the train list.
23:06:04 <AnMaster> fizzie, is that safe to keep the state? Hm
23:06:35 <AnMaster> as in, will things break when you send them out again
23:07:14 <fizzie> They shouldn't, though I'm not sure what those "input trains" at the A0 .. B3 labels will do.
23:07:32 <fizzie> They don't have any depots to go to, so I would hope they don't start wandering around.
23:07:45 <AnMaster> wait, you could split them up into another list
23:08:14 <fizzie> The actual per-gate trains should be safe to send to depots, since they do that all the time by itself too.
23:08:27 <fizzie> Anyway, you can also wait until I find the single gate; it's smaller to play with.
23:08:58 <fizzie> The nor gate is at http://zem.fi/~fis/nor.sav -- it seems to complain quite a lot about trains having too few orders, but other than that I think it still works.
23:09:30 <AnMaster> argh the messages about too few orders
23:09:48 <fizzie> You can probably disable those from the message settings.
23:10:12 <AnMaster> fizzie, prettu sure it is a openttd.conf thingy
23:10:13 <fizzie> http://zem.fi/~fis/gate.sav is the generic gate (configured as nand) I think I used to copy all over the map.
23:11:00 <fizzie> It could be that "Advice / information on company's vehicles" setting, but I guess that covers more.
23:11:36 <AnMaster> fizzie, oh btw that huge image can be shrunken with several hundred kb at least
23:11:46 <AnMaster> 3319743 3201065 96% ttd_4adder.png
23:12:08 <fizzie> I'm pretty sure I don't really care, though. :p
23:12:27 -!- adam_d has quit ("Leaving").
23:16:40 <AnMaster> fizzie, oh btw you can't make those trains actually reach a depot
23:17:18 <AnMaster> they just go back and forth between a pair of signals
23:18:27 <AnMaster> seems they can't find a route, any of them
23:18:28 <fizzie> Oh, right; you'll probably have to clear the inputs (move the A0 .. B3 trains to the "neutral" area so that they don't occupy either the 0 or 1 track) to get the gate-trains to depots.
23:19:00 <AnMaster> fizzie, where is the neutral area?
23:19:29 <fizzie> Yes. The place where they don't occupy either one of the outgoing tracks.
23:19:50 <AnMaster> hrm no waypoints set there. Could move signals though
23:20:30 <fizzie> Don't the trains just start moving blindly if you release them? You can reverse them manually to move them to the right direction.
23:20:51 <fizzie> Alternatively, you could stick depots into the pointy ends, then you'd get it working by doing a global send-all-to-depots thing.
23:21:51 <fizzie> The gate trains won't move until the inputs change, to make sure that when the input "signal" is stable, they stay in the track area that's responsible for generating the output signals.
23:24:50 <fizzie> The nor gate's real messy, but the switchable generic two-input gate has a reasonably clear and simple structure; you have the gate-train branching first left/right depending on whether the A0 or A1 track is occupied, then doing another such branching based on B0/B1; then it ends up in a track segment that's connected to the output switchboard (so you can select which output signal is generated by any Ax, Bx pair), and finally the corresponding occupied track
23:24:50 <fizzie> s are connected so that it can't move until that input track clears.
23:26:07 <fizzie> That's just a mess, I have no idea how it works.
23:26:10 <AnMaster> fizzie, does the bridge type matter btw?
23:26:44 <fizzie> No, nothing goes over the bridges anyway (except signals).
23:27:29 <AnMaster> fizzie, will a dual length train mess up anything?
23:28:01 <fizzie> I don't think so, at least in the generic gate there's quite a lot of space wasted.
23:29:00 <AnMaster> anyway you have to upgrade one by one, though orders are kept
23:29:04 <fizzie> Actually I seem to have sort-of documented how the nor gate works on that web page; it seems to be a bit of a simplification since when A=1, (A nor B) is always 1 too, and so the gate train doesn't need to make that many decisions.
23:29:52 -!- augur has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
23:30:06 <fizzie> I don't suppose you can use the autoreplace feature to upgrade trains?
23:30:26 <fizzie> I haven't really looked at these newfangled things.
23:31:03 <fizzie> Deewiant: Why then does the Replacing Vehicles wiki-page say "Naturally it is not possible to upgrade between different types of train because the train would need to be able to enter a depot and leave as a new type"?
23:31:20 <AnMaster> Deewiant, you can, except when you upgrade rail type
23:31:30 <Deewiant> fizzie: It means you can't go from monorail to maglev, for instance
23:31:40 <Deewiant> Since a monorail depot is not a maglev depot
23:31:44 <fizzie> Deewiant: Right, well, that's what I meant by "upgrade".
23:31:44 <AnMaster> Deewiant, that is what we are discussing here
23:31:58 <fizzie> I guess it might not be standard terminology.
23:32:06 <Deewiant> I didn't see that in about 5 lines of context so I assumed generic upgrading
23:32:24 <fizzie> Deewiant: AnMaster wants faster trains so my logic gates would work faster. :p
23:33:56 <fizzie> I'm trying to think of a suitable analogue here, something about improving inherently useless things to be "better" but still useless, but can't come up with anything right now.
23:34:25 <fizzie> (Gone for a while now.)
23:36:26 -!- FireFly has quit ("Later").
23:36:57 -!- Oranjer has joined.
23:38:32 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection).
23:38:48 <AnMaster> fizzie, you said they didn't go over bridges? they do when neutral
23:39:34 <AnMaster> Oranjer, http://zem.fi/ttd_logic/
23:40:35 <Oranjer> reminds me of some sorta logical psychogeography
23:41:26 <Oranjer> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography
23:56:01 -!- FireFly[DS] has joined.
23:58:13 <Oranjer> oh? what time is it there?
23:58:44 <Oranjer> heh, I'm usually up 'til 4 in the morning anyway
23:59:07 <Oranjer> it's 7 in the evening here, EST! whoo!
23:59:43 <Oranjer> you got 6 hours of sleep, right?