00:00:01 oerjan, yeah one of the excercise was: solve the following equation x^2+1 00:00:06 Although those are more useful for stream ciphers than actual hashes. I'm sure their proofs of security are only for a finite amount of output before they hit a cycle or something. 00:00:10 fax, BWUH? 00:00:11 that's not an equation 00:00:16 oops 00:00:17 =0 00:00:18 fax: is your definition of "one of the atheist people" "someone who doesn't believe in god" 00:00:26 nice smiley :D 00:00:30 * Sgeo_ is an atheist person. 00:00:33 fax: (set it equal to 0 and tell him he's lame) 00:00:59 do you believe in angels? 00:01:06 dixon: uuuh - i need to study your reference to sponge constructions 00:01:12 -!- zzo38 has joined. 00:01:21 of course, and I beleive in paralell lines too 00:01:23 fax: adding roots of polynomials in that way is a fundamental tool of galois theory iirc 00:01:29 * Sgeo_ does not believe in anything that would commonly be considered to be supernatural. 00:01:31 hi zzo73 00:01:41 rapido: http://sponge.noekeon.org/ 00:01:49 oerjan, hm 00:01:49 http://sponge.noekeon.org/SpongeFunctions.pdf 00:01:50 i could believe in god and still find the concept of god to be impossible 00:01:54 such is believe 00:02:19 although if you are inside the complex numbers to start with, you don't really need to go outside them 00:02:29 dixan: ah, thanks! 00:02:41 rapido: They're cryptographic hashes, however. 00:03:03 dixon: cryptographic hashes are the only ones i'm considering 00:03:35 what if you believe in angels but don't believe in god? 00:03:48 * Sgeo_ pokes alise 00:04:04 rapido: But yes, by definition they're surjective when useful and thus have collisions. 00:04:19 Sgeo what abou gravity 00:04:23 it's supernatural 00:04:24 lament: Then you must've seen my girlfriend. 00:04:26 lament: then you would be a flying lunatic with wings 00:04:30 Sgeo_: hi 00:04:44 fax, lolwhat? 00:04:50 * Sgeo_ blinks a few times 00:04:54 nobody has explained it yet 00:05:05 it's like ghosts or ufos or whatever 00:05:25 fax: gravity is a scam by scientists. intelligent falling is the truth! 00:05:39 It exists, as demonstratably as possible. 00:05:57 it's God's Hand Pushing us Down From Eden 00:06:00 well intelligent falling is a much better explanation by occams razor but it does leave some key questions open 00:06:01 Ghosts and UFOs have not been observed by any measurements. 00:06:13 dixon: all that i want is a naming service that is scalable 00:06:28 rapido, let the name of the proof be the content of the proof. 00:06:31 Oranjer: no that would be more the coriolis force. eden is in the east, iirc 00:06:37 Sgeo - oh that's true I guess 00:06:43 What doe sthat mean, intelligent falling?? 00:06:46 fax, it is not a better explanation by occams razor 00:06:56 "Playing with Coq in Jack" -- paper title 00:07:00 The reason otyugh attack with only two tentacles is because one tentacle has three eyes. 00:07:00 Sgeo_: but proofs can be huge - think of computer generated proofs 00:07:02 occams razor refers to the amount of assumptions an explanation requires 00:07:12 zzo38: intelligent falling is the demonstratable fact that gravity is a lie and all things are actually being pushed down by god individually 00:07:24 alise: That cannot be demonstratable 00:07:25 alise... how you have possibly managed to find a coq paper I haven't read O_O 00:07:38 Mostly because it doesn't work. 00:08:06 zzo38: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling 00:08:08 If you want to say God invented gravity, that's different however. Still not provable, though 00:08:19 falsifiable 00:08:24 I get the feeling that I should learn Coq 00:08:28 Using bigger words make you sound smarter. 00:08:31 fax: googling for unrelated things 00:08:40 zzo38: IT WORKS!!!! 00:08:46 now how do I do nested theorems in coq 00:08:53 See, we don't fall off the earth! 00:09:03 Sgeo_: I wouldn't bother. You'd be in the same boat as the Haskellingtons masturbating to the Curry-Howard isomorphism. 00:09:13 * Sgeo_ knows a bit of Haskell 00:09:24 HEY LOOK GUYS I CAN PRETEND I'M A MATHEMATICIAN BECAUSE I CAN WRITE PROOFS IN COQ fapfapfapfapfap etc 00:09:31 * Sgeo_ should probably learn what the Curry-Howard isomorphism 00:09:33 *is 00:09:41 Sgeo it's nothing very deep 00:09:46 alise: What I mean is the proof desn't work. 00:09:52 s/desn't/doesn't/ 00:09:53 Sgeo -- just a notationally similarity between proof systems and type systems 00:09:59 notational 00:10:03 * oerjan has _never_ masturbated to the curry-howard isomorphism. should i try it? 00:10:14 Sgeo_: It says if you can make a type to represent a theorem and then find a value that satisfies the type, you prove the theorem. 00:10:20 look.... the coq has giving me sign - it's hanging low - it's time to go to bed.... later ... 00:10:40 -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido). 00:15:06 alise: on facebook: Jack Coq Hardi 00:15:06 Jack Coq Hardi 00:15:07 Not the Jack Coq Hardi you were looking for? Search more » 00:15:47 Jacking off Coqs in Jack 00:16:20 guh, constructing a sigma is a bitch in a coq proof 00:16:43 the coq sigma stigma 00:16:46 a sigma algebra? 00:17:00 alise just give the value and prove it correct using tactics 00:17:12 yeah but I want to give the value using proof syntax 00:17:20 a sigma algebra? 00:17:28 so I put it in another top-level theorem, which is a bitch. and then I have to do it all separately in another theorem 00:17:30 and it's all fffffffffff 00:17:40 dixon: unlikely. 00:17:53 He couldn't have meant a series? 00:17:58 not that i'm _sure_ alise doesn't know what that is, but... 00:18:47 well, for one thing alise only does constructivist things, i doubt sigma algebras qualify 00:19:21 you know constructivism isn't some crazy fringe philosophy :) 00:19:29 yes it is :P 00:19:30 Yes it is. 00:19:45 And it's a boring one, because it's shit that's been done since the 1800's. 00:21:00 -!- jcp has joined. 00:21:35 dixon: but it's very useful for masturbating to the curry-howard isomorphism, i hear 00:21:47 * oerjan ducks 00:22:04 I lol'd 00:23:06 Next all he has to say is he's a finitist 00:23:13 It may be boring and old but who cares? 00:23:21 * pikhq masturbates to finite sequences 00:23:24 dixon: fax is a finitist 00:23:24 :P 00:23:26 so... 00:23:33 you're looking at the wrong person I'm very much a believer in infinities 00:23:55 Yeah, but I already think fax is an idiot. 00:24:08 Yay! Infinities. 00:24:17 -!- Quadrescence has joined. 00:24:22 now where did you get THAT idea? 00:25:04 Mainly your berating me for not knowing anything 15 minutes after you claimed the exponential function wasn't hypergeometric. 00:25:49 oh fuck off 00:26:04 it was long before that 00:26:55 Granted being a constructivist and finitist would've just made me think you were a Zeilberger clone, and then I'd have to decide if you were thinking for yourself (in which case you would've been cool) or if you were just a copycat (in which case you would be an idiot). 00:27:23 :3 00:27:29 Perhaps we are using different definitions of constructivist. 00:27:53 I merely believe that an object must be constructed in some formal language to be proved to exist; or in the case of a proposition, a demonstration of it. 00:27:54 Looking at the page I found a lot of other things and links to pages about quantum mechanics, and so on. I have a lot of my own ideas about quantum mechanics, some of which are different from other ones. (But some ideas are similar, and have been figured out independently by me but other people generally figure it out more in the past, because they are scientists and I'm not) 00:28:03 So basically I reject the law of the excluded middle and correspondingly ~~p -> p. 00:28:06 That isn't really so crazy. 00:29:42 dixon I wasn't berating you for not knowing anything anyway, you were making some ridiculoulsy stretched joke about 'dixons identity' 00:31:54 I also reject the law of excluded middle but only in some contexts. You can use tristate logic with quantum superposition/entanglement and with presuppose (so for some proposition P you could make Pre(P)) and a new kind of imply operator, distinct from the old one (but both of which are used, for different purposes). 00:32:32 zzo38 have you read any linear logic? 00:32:58 There are then three truth values instead of two values. The standard operators still act in the standard way when dealing with only standard truth values. 00:33:09 zzo38: I reject the law of the excluded middle because I believe that axioms not in the current system that nevertheless are fine to add are neither true nor false. 00:33:19 You cannot prove them true, you cannot prove them false; it is fine to add their negation, it is fine to add them. 00:33:38 So if you could say it is true, then the negation would be inconsistent, and vice-versa, yet this is not the case. 00:33:53 alise: There certainly can be things that are neither true nor false. 00:34:24 moral dilemma: I followed a link allegedly to Rick Astley rickrolling someone himself 00:34:29 and it was actually what it claimed to be, rather than a rickroll 00:34:34 alise: Is'nt the law of the excluded middle about statements that can be derived from the axiomatic system in question? 00:34:34 have I been meta-rickrolled? 00:34:36 wow I want to see it! 00:34:57 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4hqv6USkoU 00:35:02 pikhq: It says that for any given proposition P, I will tell you that either P is true, or P is not true. 00:35:05 Meta-rickrolled? 00:35:05 basically, it was a Thanksgiving Day's parade 00:35:10 alise: Ah. 00:35:12 Okay, then. 00:35:14 and he was hiding on one of the floats, and just came out and started singing live 00:35:21 However, there are things that are neither. 00:35:28 So the law of the excluded middle is fail. 00:35:52 alise: Tell me one such proposition? 00:36:13 pikhq: Consider the Continuum Hypothesis. 00:36:16 alise: would you say that if X implies Y, and not X implies Y, then Y can be considered to be true? 00:36:18 ZFC + CH is consistent, as is ZFC + ~CH. 00:36:21 ais weird lol 00:36:25 IMO, that's a weaker situation than the law of the excluded middle 00:36:30 I don't think it's a rickroll 00:36:34 With tristate logic things can be true, false, or tristate. Pre(P) is true if P is not tristate. 00:36:38 ais523: p \/ q = (p -> r) -> (q -> r) -> r 00:36:44 fax: well, it did /say/ it was a rickroll at the end 00:36:57 oh 00:36:57 perhaps this is some sort of meta-meta-rickroll 00:36:58 p \/ ~p = (p -> r) -> (~p -> r) -> r 00:37:03 ais523: Answer: No. 00:37:07 oh it is a rickroll 00:37:11 alise: the law of the excluded middle implies that 00:37:17 pikhq: So, then, how, in plain ZFC, is CH true or false? 00:37:19 but, I think it can be true even without 00:37:24 ais523: no, p or q is literally the same thing 00:37:28 as (p->r)->(q->r)->r 00:37:35 proof: 00:38:02 \f g porq. case porq of theone x -> f x; theother x -> g x 00:38:02 and 00:38:05 erm 00:38:10 \porq f g. case porq of theone x -> f x; theother x -> g x 00:38:19 that's p\/q -> (p->r)->(q->r)->r 00:38:23 now the other way: 00:38:31 the other way is the way I care about 00:38:47 (p->r)->(q->r) -> p \/ q 00:39:07 \f. f theone theother 00:39:17 filling in the arguments we get 00:39:22 first is (p -> p \/ anything) 00:39:22 alise: you must have typoed somewhere 00:39:28 alise: you are missing -> r 00:39:28 second is (q -> anything \/ q) 00:39:34 right right 00:39:37 the implementation is right 00:39:38 so 00:39:42 fill in p and q for the respective anythings 00:39:44 and we get p \/ q 00:39:47 Q.E.D. 00:40:09 If there is no present king of France, the statement "The present king of France has stopped robbing banks" cannot be true or false, because it presupposes that there is a king of France. 00:40:13 alise: Clearly, the veracity of CH is a boolean. 00:40:15 hmm, I always get confused trying to follow nonstandard models of logic 00:40:33 That the value of the boolean cannot be determined is beside the point. 00:40:36 in one seminar I went to, someone quantified over all systems of logic, which was /really/ confusing 00:40:40 Prelude> let or2f porq f g = case porq of Left x -> f x; Right x -> g x 00:40:40 Prelude> let f2or f = f Left Right 00:40:40 Prelude> :t (or2f, f2or) 00:40:40 (or2f, f2or) 00:40:40 :: (Either t t1 -> (t -> t2) -> (t1 -> t2) -> t2, 00:40:41 ((a -> Either a b) -> (b1 -> Either a1 b1) -> t11) -> t11) 00:40:44 alise: you had an implied forall r in there 00:40:51 ais523: Since I have proved that (P->Q) and (Q->P), P is equivalent to Q. 00:40:54 pikhq: booleans have /nine/ values, 01XLHWZU- 00:40:58 alise: ok 00:41:11 Well, f2or actually needs a more specific type, but. 00:41:20 ANY LANGUAGE IN WHICH BOOLEANS HAVE FEWER THAN NINE POSSIBLE VALUES IS DEFICIENT 00:41:23 ais523: Then we are clearly discussing the law of the excluded 10th. 00:41:25 btw, I'm not sure which one maps to file_not_found 00:41:28 pikhq: haha 00:41:38 alise: Clearly, the veracity of CH is a boolean. 00:41:39 Really? 00:41:41 ((p->(p\/q))->(q->(p\/q))->(p\/q)) -> (p\/q) 00:41:43 fax: have you decided whether that was a rickroll or not yet? 00:41:59 pikhq: ZFC + CH is consistent iff ZFC is consistent. ZFC + ~CH is consistent iff ZFC is consistent. 00:42:08 In ZFC, CH can neither be true nor false. 00:42:18 If we can prove it true, then ZFC + ~CH would be inconsistent. 00:42:23 If we can prove it false, then ZFC + CH would be inconsistent. 00:42:25 In ZFC, CH cannot be shown to be true or false. 00:42:28 I think I've caused a logical gap in rickrollness 00:42:29 It is neither true nor false. 00:42:38 pikhq: But it has some platonic "real truth"? 00:42:49 That's metaphysical mumbojumbo: you are talking about things in the system that are not from the axioms. 00:42:49 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:42:53 ais523, I am not really sure 00:43:01 You are referring to some platonic space of "ZFC truths" but no such thing exists, just manipulation of the axioms. 00:43:06 Are you sure you want to go down this path> 00:43:10 fax: hmm, so you're metaundecided? 00:43:11 Please explain what the nine boolean values 01XLHWZU- are meant for. 00:43:57 zzo38: 0 = false, 1 = true, X = both false and true, L = false unless contradicted, H = true unless contradicted, W = somewhere between true and false, Z = no truth value at all, U = as yet unknown, - = irrelevant 00:44:07 OK. 00:44:19 VHDL actually implements all these 00:44:21 yes 00:44:38 *path? 00:45:05 alise: It certainly has no "platonic real truth". It just simply can be said to be one of true or false. 00:45:35 pikhq: Okay. 00:45:38 So suppose it is true. 00:45:44 Then ZFC + ~CH is inconsistent. 00:45:47 So suppose it is false. 00:45:50 Then ZFC + CH is inconsistent. 00:45:58 But we know that ZFC plus either CH or ~CH is consistent iff ZFC is. 00:46:00 So it cannot be both true and false. 00:46:04 No. 00:46:06 It cannot be either. 00:46:12 Because *both systems are consistent*. 00:46:13 How so? 00:46:14 (if ZFC is). 00:46:27 pikhq: OK, let us say that in ZFC, we have proved CH. 00:46:34 I didn't know VHDL implements those. But I suppose it is possible. 00:46:41 We know that ZFC + ~CH is consistent iff ZFC is. Yet we have CH and ~CH. 00:46:54 Reverse it to see that it cannot be false, either. 00:47:06 You can keep running around in circles, but the only real solution is to reject the excluded middle. 00:47:26 alise: "We know that ZFC + ~CH is consistent iff ZFC is. Yet we have CH and ~CH." Uh... Wha? 00:47:38 OK, let me spell it out for you. 00:47:52 Near as I can tell, "proving CH in ZFC" would imply that ZFC + ~CH is inconsistent. 00:48:23 And assuming the proof that ZFC + ~CH is consistent is valid, then clearly you cannot prove CH in ZFC. 00:48:54 and if you did both, then it would show ZFC is not consistent. 00:49:03 dixon: Yes. 00:49:03 because that's a contradiction 00:49:15 pikhq: 00:49:16 By the law of the excluded middle, we know that in ZFC, either CH is true or ~CH is true. I will demonstrate that it cannot be either. 00:49:18 Let us assume that CH is true. It has been proved at the meta-level that ZFC + ~CH is consistent iff ZFC is. Since we are working in ZFC, we assume its consistency. But then ZFC + ~CH cannot be consistent, for we have CH and ~CH. But ZFC + ~CH has been proved to be consistent. Contradiction; CH cannot be true. 00:49:18 Let us assume that CH is false. It has been proved at the meta-level that ZFC + CH is consistent iff ZFC is. Since we are working in ZFC, we assume its consistency. But then ZFC + CH cannot be consistent, for we have CH and ~CH. But ZFC + CH has been proved to be consistent. Contradiction; CH cannot be false. 00:49:25 Therefore, CH cannot be true and it cannot be false. 00:49:44 alise: You have proven that CH cannot be proven in ZFC. 00:49:44 Although we cannot use this to disprove excluded middle from inside ZFC, because it is a meta issue, it is still present. 00:49:48 Excluded middle is false. 00:49:53 pikhq: No, I made no references to proofs in the above. 00:49:57 Clearly it can be one or the other; you can use it as an axiom. 00:50:01 The law of the excluded middle means that ONE must be true. 00:50:19 -!- Quadrescence has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 00:50:21 -!- Quadresce` has joined. 00:50:44 -!- Quadresce` has changed nick to Quadrescence. 00:51:25 And you use ZFC's consistency as an axiom. Again, if you prove ZFC + ~CH and ZFC + CH iff ZFC is consistent, it means ZFC is not consistent. Hello mathematical logic. 00:51:39 Is "false unless contradicted" in a digital circuit like a pull-down resistor? 00:52:01 alise: Fine. I shall start using a form of limited law of excluded middle. "Any proposition which can be reasoned about in an axiomatic system must be either true or false in that axiomatic system." 00:52:05 :P 00:54:00 If ~CH in ZFC, how do you get CH? 00:54:05 erm 00:54:23 n/m, I agree with pikhq 00:54:53 Well, this has taught me something: Never bother trying to talk about excluded middle. 00:55:03 People are absolutely sure it is true at any cost. 00:55:52 People don't like the implication that you could define the following: ZFC + CH & ~CH. :P 00:57:53 Without realizing that proving both at the same time shows ZFC's inconsistency. 01:02:26 Off topic: Have you ever invented any spell/power for D&D game? 01:02:39 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving). 01:03:08 dixon: Of course it does. 01:04:24 Then it says nothing about CH... 01:04:49 And your whole law of the excluded middle being false idea is inane with that example. 01:05:19 "alise: For one, you can have RAM with so much error checking that it is physically impossible for it not to detect an error for the computation you are doing..." <<< may i see this article 01:06:26 oklopol: wut 01:06:43 imagine filling the entire universe with one 16 bit pattern, say 01:07:04 I'd be highly surprised if it was physically possible for all those bits to spontaneously flip in the certain maximum time it takes to do a given computation 01:08:27 1. you would probably be pretty surprised if you suddenly turned into an elephant, too, that's not what physically impossible means 01:08:30 2. oh, you linked it 01:09:36 well i guess i could start enumerating every single way a bit could be flipped :))) 01:14:48 it's pretty stupid to claim computers can't make errors 01:14:50 It is difficult to repair a watch while falling from an airplane. 01:15:09 of course they can make errors 01:15:35 some unicorns can turn bits with their tongues from miles away 01:15:39 I never claimed that 01:15:58 but if you thought that was true, you might 01:16:09 can't really unclaim that one huh 01:16:13 i should go to sleep 01:17:37 I recently added something to esolang wiki 01:22:29 -!- zzo38 has quit (Quit: ERR_QUIT). 02:33:02 err bye 02:34:38 bye 02:34:47 wait what 02:35:16 02:22… zzo38 has quit IRC (Quit: ERR_QUIT) 02:35:16 04:32… oklopol: err bye 02:35:34 it was all sorts of funny stuff 02:35:57 but i actually am going to sleep now -> 02:36:36 oklopol :) 02:36:49 I have an idea about this OR thing 02:36:55 but it's probably wrong 02:36:59 I'll try it out tommorow 02:37:23 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Tomorrow OR not tomorrow, that's the question). 02:46:49 [["Anime is a prime example of why two nukes wasn�t enough." - NH Democrat State Rep., Nick Levasseur]] 02:46:51 Oh, America. 02:47:37 * Sgeo_ .. doesn't like nor dislike anime 02:47:57 That's rather orthogonal to the hilarious extremity of bad taste found in that quote :P 02:47:58 It's just another medium, albeit one for which there's a .. website that lets me watch for free 02:57:27 It's just another medium, albeit one which is generally made in a language that I happen to be studying. :P 02:58:22 ANATA WA BAKA DESU ZO 02:58:47 dixon: you violated the syntax anime := desu | anime anime 02:58:51 dixon: That's quite formal of you. 02:58:54 do not pass go do not collect 200 pounds 02:59:25 Why would I collect pounds? I'm an American, we're fat enough. 02:59:41 pikhq: thanx. 02:59:44 Try something more like 馬鹿ぜ、あんた！(baka ze, anta 02:59:46 ) 03:00:18 Really? I was going for the "You sir, are an idiot!" meme. 03:00:49 Oh, *that's* what you were going for? 03:01:47 My Japanese is flaky, but yes. 03:02:58 -!- adu has joined. 03:03:04 pikhq: Please translate this to exquisitely formal Japanese: "Your asshole is a skyscraper-sized orifice which receives bread daily, fuckwit." 03:03:26 Someone has to have translated that already, it being such a common insult. 03:03:30 Is that even an insult? I can't tell. 03:03:40 SL? 03:04:16 Whoa, he gets free bread? 03:04:20 Try more of Pikhqどのはお馬鹿で御座るとお思いになります。(Pikhq dono wa baka de gozaru to o-omoi ni narimasu) 03:04:27 ... I *think*. My keigo sucks. 03:04:47 dixon: NO COST AT ALL 03:05:08 alise, is that a quote from SL? 03:05:15 Sgeo_: Schawhat? 03:05:18 Have you heard it before or something? XD 03:05:35 No, but it sounds like the sort of thing a certain character might say 03:05:42 alise: Sadly, I know not the vocab for that. 03:05:48 I'm not saying the full name of it in the presence of a minor 03:05:53 alise: I shall let you know when I can translate that, though. 03:06:04 Sgeo_: Does it have RUDE WORDS in it???? 03:06:12 It has naked people and sex in it 03:06:17 OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 03:06:42 My beacon-of-light emitting orifices will all be brutally penetrated by its hostile influence of filth and putridness, such that I may never lay claim to someone of sound mind again. 03:06:48 Anyway, since when do I have Second Life installed? 03:06:56 alise, SL != Second Life in this case 03:07:12 Oh, that webcomic. 03:07:17 Yes >.> 03:08:47 pikhq: Okay, translate this too when you can: "My beacon-of-light emitting orifices will all be brutally penetrated by its hostile influence of filth and putridness, such that I may never lay claim to someone of sound mind again." :P 03:08:58 Again, FORMAL AND POLITE! 03:09:45 alise: "Fuck You". 03:09:57 "No" 03:12:50 Fine, I'll give you a shockingly rude statement instead. 私は日本人達を殺したい。なぜ？アジア人が大嫌い！ 03:13:41 That is probably the most racist thing I have ever typed, in jest or otherwise. 03:13:58 Translate it! Translate IT! 03:14:35 "I want to kill all Japanese. Why? I hate Asians!" Now, alise. Say it to every Japanese person you meet. :P 03:15:08 （watashi wa nihonjintachi wo korositai. naze? ajiajin ga daikirai!）, BTW 03:15:50 Fags should die, naturally: we should have killed them all at the start. But niggers, niggers are the worst. We should relegate all the niggers to their own country so we can bomb the place. Put the asians there too, the fucking worthless pieces of shit. But the only thing worse than a nigger is a nigger fag. 03:15:56 RACISM CONTEST 03:16:22 "Nigger" is untranslatable. 03:16:33 >:| 03:16:40 why not, do all japs love nigs or sth 03:16:54 It is a term that literally only exists in English. 03:17:25 The closest you can get in Japanese is "gaijin". Which... Refers to everyone other than Japanese. 03:17:42 I have a friend who ran in a marathon! 03:18:05 Is he a nigger?! 03:19:46 "Rincewind had always been happy to think of himself as a racist. The One Hundred Meters, the Mile, the Marathon -- he'd run them all." 03:20:01 hehe 03:20:04 I GET IT!! 03:20:05 groan 03:25:47 pikhq: 君は日本人ですか？ 03:26:17 adu: いいえ。僕は日本語を勉強する人です。 03:27:10 pikhq: あ、わかた 03:28:12 今漢字を勉強してます。1810字を知って、232字を勉強するつもりです。 03:28:31 ちょっと難しいです。でも、面白いと思います。 03:28:52 pikhq: 僕も日本人が大嫌い 03:29:20 なるほど。w 03:29:45 ぜんぜん 03:30:17 jk 03:30:39 分かった。^_^ 03:31:57 僕は６年かん日本にすんでいました。 03:32:43 わ〜。 03:33:07 でも、たくさんわすれた 03:33:40 desu 03:33:45 desuuuuu 03:33:51 lol 03:34:06 4年間高校で日本語を勉強しました。この後、２年間勉強しなくて、いまもっと勉強を始めてます。 03:34:27 s/いま/今/ 03:35:34 そですか？すごい！がんばってね 03:36:07 どうもありがとうございます。 03:36:14 lol i've never seen sed and japanese used together 03:36:23 w 03:37:15 どもありがと Mr. ロボト 03:37:36 :) 03:37:42 w 03:41:07 aduさんがなぜ日本に住んでいましたかな。 03:42:03 ぶくも, but i've been away for 10 years, so i've forgotten so much 03:42:14 I'm going to bed now. 03:42:21 Cheerio, fellows. See you tomorrow. 03:42:22 alise: night 03:42:25 -!- alise has quit (Quit: Leaving). 03:43:21 日本語で、「僕も、でも10年間住まなくて、たくさん忘れた」と思います。 03:44:16 sounds about right 03:47:12 僕の日本語は悪いです。 03:50:20 なるほど。 03:50:56 勉強するつもりじゃないんですか。 03:53:22 勉強したくない 03:55:04 残念ですね。 04:01:45 -!- ais523 has set topic: this topic is incorrect today but will be correct tomorrow | last topic change: 1 day ago | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=M;O=D. 04:01:50 -!- fax has quit (Quit: Lost terminal). 04:03:41 * Sgeo_ brainmelts 04:22:15 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 04:46:18 It's incorrect and will remain incorrect forever. 04:46:40 So will 1+1=2 04:46:42 erm, 3 04:53:27 -!- jcp has quit (Quit: I will do anything (almost) for a new router.). 05:29:53 -!- jcp has joined. 05:39:30 -!- adu has quit (Quit: adu). 05:53:08 -!- Oranjer has left (?). 06:55:55 -!- jcp has quit (Quit: I will do anything (almost) for a new router.). 07:04:12 -!- coppro has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:57:45 -!- lifthrasiir has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 08:59:03 -!- lifthrasiir has joined. 09:04:07 -!- lifthrasiir has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds). 09:51:13 -!- ais523 has quit. 10:04:09 -!- Quadrescence has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 10:05:16 what? 10:05:30 me looks up at the non-latin script 10:05:32