00:04:19 > ৭٩ 00:04:20 :1:1: lexical error at character '\2541' 00:04:36 lambdabot: you disappoint me. 00:05:57 `run python -c 'print int("৭٩")' 00:06:00 Traceback (most recent call last): \ File "", line 1, in \ ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '\xe0\xa7\xad\xd9\xa9' 00:06:28 `run python -c 'print int("৭٩".decode("utf-8"))' 00:06:29 79 00:07:22 `run python -c 'print ৭٩' 00:07:23 File "", line 1 \ print ৭٩ \ ^ \ SyntaxError: invalid syntax 00:07:53 > read "৭٩" :: Int 00:07:54 *Exception: Prelude.read: no parse 00:09:24 oh shit its my birthday 00:09:43 Phantom_Hoover, happy getting older day 00:09:56 Which getting older day is it? 00:09:57 yay 00:10:06 19 00:10:13 Yay 00:10:25 I did not get you anything, I'm sorry 00:10:30 soon i will be older than you 00:10:37 that knowledge alone is enough 00:11:25 I am afraid I have engineered events such that I am always approximately 64 days older than you 00:11:51 bastard! 00:12:18 It is a dastardly scheme tracing back to approximately 19 years ago 00:12:25 wait if i kill you you technically stop getting older don't you 00:12:31 I... am not sure 00:12:40 But do you really think you can kill me? 00:12:43 Ahahahahahaha! 00:12:48 I can turn into an elf! 00:13:07 Taneb you know how i feel about elves 00:13:23 the only way you could make it easier still for me to kill you is if you also turned into a swede 00:13:41 Have you ever successfully killed an elf, though? 00:13:59 And I'm not talking about one of those pixies you get down the bottom of your garden, either. 00:14:37 Taneb: but swedes are not elves, and as a swede it would be trivial to kill you 00:14:52 olsner, I'm also an Australian 00:15:01 Can a Swede kill an Australian!? 00:15:09 you wouldn't be if you turned into a swedish elf 00:15:18 Taneb: australia = austria = switzerland = sweden 00:15:25 Foiled again! 00:15:28 * Taneb dies 00:17:27 Phantom_Hoover, on the bright side, you're older than elliott 00:17:49 that means he'll try to kill me! 00:17:57 Taneb: who isn't? 00:18:08 olsner, hmmmmmm 00:18:30 asie wasn't was he 00:18:40 fungot, I guess 00:18:40 Taneb: and write as fnord as i'd like. but quality for sure. :) i just remembered 00:18:46 we've been here quite some time though, I guess elliott might now be older than he used to be 00:18:56 by extension nooodl probably was/isn't either? i forget though 00:19:01 fungot: are you older? 00:19:01 olsner: but there is naturally limit soon ( although not strictly conformant) c. this is only valid in one store, which is a problem 00:21:08 -!- LinearInterpol has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 00:21:56 -!- LinearInterpol has joined. 00:28:03 Phantom_Hoover, seriously, though, happy birthday 00:28:34 it's my first day back at uni HOW CAN THIS DAY BE HAPPY 00:29:09 Phantom_Hoover, you can run around the streets of Coventry screaming to the heavens about the oncoming angels 00:29:38 Do you by any chance know anyone by the name of Mr Green? 00:29:45 why would i ruin my birthday by going into coventry 00:30:09 God knows 00:30:12 i went there last term for a social, we got lost and some youths on skateboards started circling in for the kill 00:30:33 On Freshers' something similar happened to me, except they were jugglers 00:30:59 it's when they're mimes you need to really be afraid. 00:31:00 Jugglers can be terrifying 00:31:56 is there a generic god help me i'm doomed linux help channel or something 00:32:10 #esoteric, probably 00:32:17 "##Linux"? 00:32:33 aaaaah 00:32:41 1241 users, I'm sure you'll get very personal attention. 00:33:09 "The purpose of ##Linux is to provide a fun and friendly medium for new and hardcore Linux users alike seeking help, advice and constructive discussion on Linux-related topics. The channel is for ALL levels of user experience, including none." 00:33:26 (Do you self-identify as a "hardcore Linux user"?) 00:33:26 very zen. 00:33:47 it's really exciting being dumped to some absurd initramfs 'emergency shell' and being gold i might want to save whate ever the fuck to a usb and then it doesn't let me use the keyboard and god 00:34:09 getting fucking usb power errors it's ridiculous 00:34:55 have you tried turning it off and on again 00:35:09 Bike: well i won't help you as my recent logreading has uncovered evidence that you may be a tzetze fly posing as a bike. 00:35:21 is that so 00:35:55 (also because i have no clue how to fix linux.) 00:36:53 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:37:23 I certainly don't know as much about Linux as a kernel hacker or sysadmin would 00:37:24 Well, good sysadmin 00:43:54 a kernel hacker wouldn't necessarily know much about what goes on in the rest of the system 00:44:09 "that's a userspace problem" 00:46:05 indeed the APIs used within the kernel are often a lot cleaner than the APIs by which userspace talks to the kernel 00:46:22 because there is no stability requirement on the former and a near-absolute stability requirement on the latter 00:49:19 I think windows had the right idea with putting all "kernel" APIs in userspace and making the real kernel api private (but I do wonder exactly how freely they can actually change that) 00:49:30 yeah 00:49:49 they do some pretty insane compatibility hacks within that "userspace" component 00:51:46 http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/05/3120451/wyoming-law-says-better-drive-high-possess-unsmoked-joint/ 00:57:56 olsner: oh, is that what they do? 00:58:14 I never understood windows programming and none of the resources I read spelled it out 01:02:01 at the bottom there's a DLL exporting functions for all "syscalls" that does int X/sysenter/syscall with the appropriate syscall number (and those change wildly between windows versions) 01:02:36 (but even that might technically not be part of the API you're allowed to rely on, not entirely sure) 01:03:15 is there a windows programming book for unix people? 01:04:15 -!- Sprocklem has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 01:06:16 olsner: kernel32.dll actually is guaranteed solid API. 01:06:29 Though the name is a bit of a misnomer. 01:06:47 It was kinda-sorta the kernel in 16-bit Windows. 01:07:11 and that's why it's called kernel32 amirite 01:07:39 All DLLs that were in 16-bit Windows made it to 32-bit Windows by just adding a "32" suffix. 01:07:45 usb 5-1: device descriptor read/64, error -32. supposedly indicates automatic shutoff of usb device due to high power draw. but the usb devices work fine on another OS on the same computer. 01:07:57 Also, this kinda-sorta was the case on Windows 9x. 01:08:21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_API is more what I was thinking about, seems to be below kernel32.dll maybe 01:08:21 ah, like mario 64 01:08:35 Windows is made up of dubious legacy decisions. 01:09:27 computer is made up of dubious legacy decisions 01:09:42 I,I A20 01:09:44 life is made up of dubious legacy decisions 01:09:47 Though in the case of Windows it's decisions that were dubious at the time far too often. 01:10:03 lfimduodboseayeiin 01:10:38 (what sort of monster would use UTF-16 in '93?!?) 01:10:53 did UTF-16 exist then? 01:10:58 Yes. 01:11:09 Well, arguably UCS-2 is the proper name. 01:11:11 Why not UFT-64 01:11:17 UTF* 01:11:24 UTF-16 is from 1996 01:11:34 if you believed the Unicode people when they said it would remain a 16-bit code, then using UCS-2 seems sensible 01:11:53 and that switch happened in 1996 yeah 01:12:33 Except that Windows at the time did crazy stuff to make 16-bit code build on Win32. But didn't seem to care about the idea of making Unicode-unaware code work in Unicode land. 01:12:43 And indeed still don't. 01:14:36 And now Windows is a crazy land where you either do UTF-16 or do 8-bit legacy charsets. 01:16:15 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/99884 01:16:15 * pikhq honestly doesn't know why they don't let you just use UTF-8 for their char* APIs 01:17:21 nice, wikipedia seems to have quite a lot of articles about windows internals 01:17:26 Not all that relevant. UTF-16 was a bad decision at the time. 01:17:42 UTF-16 didn't exist at the time 01:17:53 Blah. 01:17:58 UCS-2 was a bad decision. 01:18:00 nor did UTF-8, probably 01:18:06 UTF-8 certainly did. 01:18:24 UTF-8 was *new* to be sure, but hey. 01:18:41 Plan 9 was completely on UTF-8 in September '92. 01:19:34 draft unicode standard: 1988; first unicode volume: 1991; windows nt release: 1993 01:19:40 utf-8 first officially presented: 1993 01:19:57 It also doesn't matter that much: UCS-2 was an awful decision even if there was no alternative way of encoding Unicode. 01:20:12 Windows has had enough opportunities to redesign that portion of the code and keep legacy APIs around only where necessary 01:20:12 my theory is that they had to pretend it would stay a 16-bit code or nobody would adopt it at all 01:21:53 I should try to learn about Windows internals 01:22:54 "Hmm, all text is in ASCII or a superset thereof. Let's use something completely incompatible! Oh, and then make it so that everyone has to rewrite all their code to work with it. Great!" 01:23:00 Sgeo: nooooo you have so much to live for 01:23:16 kmc: but everyone else here knows Windows internals. It sounds fun 01:23:37 pikhq: but they were getting ready for The Future! 01:24:29 This from a company that is yet to break DOS compatibility. 01:25:40 don't knock DOS. it lets you use / as a directory separator! it's practically unix 01:31:51 but doesn't it also use / for flags 01:35:54 http://paste.debian.net/74463/ woot woot. 01:55:37 kmc: there's an option to have / as separator and - for flags 01:55:41 but it's kind-of hidden 01:57:03 does it actually work, or does it only work for programs that happen to use some DOS api for parsing the command line? 01:58:03 olsner: probably the latter 01:59:03 iirc on DOS/Windows a program gets a single arg string and not an argv 01:59:16 it's the job of the c stdlib to break it up for main() 01:59:47 kmc: on DOS, the first command argument is actually parsed out into a file control block for you 01:59:59 but people stopped using that feature after a while because it's too inflexible 02:00:38 I just thought of something 02:00:50 minimum ascending number partition 02:01:25 So for example, 18249 could be partitioned into [18,249] 02:01:53 and 31415926535 into [3,14,159,26,5,35]? 02:01:56 But [1,8,249] would be better 02:02:01 Because the sum is smaller 02:02:12 lifthrasiir: Nope 02:02:15 ais523: what? so they just assume the first arg will be a file? 02:02:17 I don't get the point, [1,8,2,4,9] would be the best 02:02:18 159 is larger than 26 02:02:22 hm 02:02:25 It has to be ascending 02:02:30 ah 02:02:43 kmc: if it isn't, you don't use the FCB 02:02:46 so you can partition any part of the numeric string but the parts should be increasing, right? 02:02:49 but yeah, really inflexible 02:02:53 also it doesn't work with directories 02:02:55 A worst case would be something like 987654321 02:02:55 drive and filename only 02:03:02 so people don't use it past, like, DOS 1 02:03:58 Which would partition into [9,876,54321] I think 02:04:25 > sum [9,87,654321] 02:04:27 654417 02:04:31 > sum [9,876,54321] 02:04:32 55206 02:04:43 Yeah, I think [9,876,54321] is minimal 02:04:49 I think so 02:05:48 Note that in unary, all partitionings are minimal 02:06:01 So binary is the first interesting case 02:06:46 Can't do this to complex numbers since those don't have a built-in ordering 02:13:43 > sum [98,765,4321] -- i disagree 02:13:44 5184 02:14:10 I thought so* 02:14:17 ;) 02:16:43 now find one where minimizing the length of the final one is _not_ optimal. 02:17:33 FreeFull: should it be strictly ascending 02:17:49 oerjan: Nice 02:18:14 Is there one? 02:18:39 i don't even know what's causing this error. 02:18:44 what's reporting the error 02:18:53 Let's try the first 7 digits of pi 02:18:54 > pi 02:18:55 3.141592653589793 02:19:04 3141592 02:19:17 e 02:19:20 > e 02:19:21 e 02:19:24 :( 02:19:29 > exp 1 02:19:31 2.718281828459045 02:19:55 271828182 make that 9 digits 02:20:10 oerjan: do you know a way to raise a continued fraction (given as a left-to-right digit generator) can be raised to a power (also a continued fraction in the same format)? 02:20:13 > sum [27,182,8182] 02:20:13 3 14 15 92 looks plausible 02:20:14 8391 02:20:17 31, 41, 592 02:20:45 oh, lost. 02:20:51 * oerjan cackles evilly 02:21:06 quintopia: integer power? 02:21:14 I wonder if we should stay as strictly ascending, or if we should make it strictly non-descending 02:21:57 quintopia: i don't even know if there's an efficient way to _add_ numbers. 02:22:14 Bike: i don't even know a way to do it with integer power except a crap ton of adding and multiplying using the binomial theorem, but i want to know about real powers too. 02:22:32 presumably you'd exponentiate 02:23:27 quintopia: Very tricky 02:23:42 oerjan: adding only inefficient if the bottom part of the fraction is the same 02:23:43 Bike: presumably. 02:23:55 I mean, only efficient 02:25:41 > sum [2,7,18,28,182] -- tip, there's never a point in keeping the first two digits together if they're ascending 02:25:42 237 02:26:03 this problem FreeFull posed seems almost as difficult as the one about free-form series for brainfuck constants 02:26:55 oerjan: Good point 02:27:13 I think extending that to multiple digits is the answer 02:27:14 i think any example that _doesn't_ fulfil my idea of making the length of the last one minimal must be pretty long. 02:27:31 oerjan: Does it exist? 02:28:44 > sum [98,765,4321] 02:28:45 5184 02:29:03 mm. 02:29:15 FreeFull: something like 12121212121212199 02:29:39 > sum [1,2,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,199] 02:29:40 286 02:30:12 > sum [1,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,99] 02:30:13 268 02:30:19 oops not quite 02:31:00 > sum [1,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,99] 02:31:01 331 02:31:03 oerjan: Not strictly ascending anymore 02:31:07 > sum [1,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,99] 02:31:08 331 02:31:17 > sum [1,2,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,199] 02:31:18 322 02:31:45 FreeFull: i didn't hear a clear policy statement on that. 02:31:59 Let's make it strictly ascending, for now 02:32:18 0 is basically free? 02:32:41 wat 02:32:43 0 is nasty 02:32:45 It's the only case where you could have a longer sequence followed by a shorter one 02:32:54 [1,042,99] 02:33:04 for 10000000, you can't split the sequence at all. 02:33:09 I mean, the other way around 02:33:16 i would have assumed you cannot have initial zeros. 02:33:18 int-e: Yeah, there are unsplittable numbers 02:33:41 I wonder how the ratio of unsplittable to splittable changes 02:33:46 As you go up 02:34:09 well, you can split off the first digit for almost all numbers 02:34:20 All one-digit numbers are unsplittable 02:34:44 Two digit numbers are unsplittable if the first digit is larger or equal to the second 02:35:04 Should we count 03 as a two-digit number? 02:35:58 int-e: splitting off the first digit isn't always optimal. 02:36:06 If we do, that's 10 + 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 unsplittable two-digit numbers, I think 02:36:15 Or is that splittable 02:36:25 > sum [1..10] 02:36:26 55 02:36:47 I'm three quarters asleep 02:37:07 oh right sleep 02:37:17 wow i don't like the strictly ascending rule. narrows the possibilities too much 02:37:33 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Gnith). 02:38:51 FreeFull: 45 splittable, 55 non-splittable, that includes numbers with leading zeros like 00. 02:40:24 Three-digit numbers are trickier 02:40:35 http://www.twitch.tv/speeddemosarchivesda 02:41:09 Actually, for three digit numbers it might just depend on the first two digits anyway 02:41:20 FreeFull: not really. 55 of those are non-splittable. 02:41:22 No, it doesn't 02:41:38 FreeFull: because if the middle digit is non-zero then the number is splittable 02:41:39 I mean, for 3-digit 02:41:48 FreeFull: so do I 02:41:59 int-e: 100 isn't splittable 02:42:11 that has a zero center digit 02:42:26 Ah, I misread your sentence 02:42:40 Yeah, you're right 02:42:52 Are you sure it's 55 though? 02:43:20 Hmm, 001 to 009 are splittable 02:43:42 000 is splittable too 02:43:55 a(0)b is splittable if a < b. 02:44:01 it's the same as with two digits. 02:44:51 Yeah, you're right 02:44:57 What about four digits? 02:45:10 55 nonsplittable ones, again 02:45:25 n000 is non-splittable, trivially 02:45:37 For any number of zeroes after the n 02:46:02 And then I guess there is a00b for any number of 0s 02:46:12 more to the point, you can split abcd into a,bcd if bc>0 or if a err ... a So are there only 55 non-splittable numbers total, for any fixed digit size? 02:47:21 greater than 1, yes. 02:47:30 What if it's not fixed? so 10 and 010 are different 02:47:41 Infinite then 02:47:46 int-e: 2011 meets your criterion doesn't it? 02:47:49 oh 02:47:51 b*c 02:47:53 nvm 02:48:02 2,011 02:48:23 quintopia: no, bc was juxtaposition there. but we allowed leading zeros. 02:48:28 I bet the ratio is actually something quite boring 02:48:29 oh 02:49:06 Leading zeros make any number instantly splittable 02:50:35 FreeFull: We treated 10 and 010 as different inputs in that analysis. 02:50:47 10 is not splittable; 010 is. 02:50:58 Yep 02:51:03 so we're really working with digit strings at the moment. 02:51:52 The notion of splitting doesn't really work if you aren't working with digit strings 02:53:10 😶 02:53:21 well, you can still forbid leading zeros in the input sequence and/or the parts of the output sequence. 02:53:48 -!- Sorella has quit (Quit: It is tiem!). 02:57:15 You could 02:57:18 It is a choice 02:57:32 You could get rid of zeros altogether 02:59:06 -!- conehead has joined. 03:02:18 i'm getting actual kernel panics fuuuuuck 03:03:15 Some mathematician probably has already gone over this ages ago 03:03:25 Bike: Could be just hardware failure 03:04:02 -!- ter2 has joined. 03:04:15 -!- tertu3 has joined. 03:04:51 -!- tertu3 has changed nick to tertu. 03:05:05 FreeFull: i actually think it's a new problem 03:05:33 quintopia: I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't 03:05:54 no but who ever is? 03:06:05 cutting edge mathematicians i guess 03:08:28 -!- yorick has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 03:11:08 > let v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n <= head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) . show in f 987654321 03:11:09 [98,765,4321] 03:11:28 > let v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n <= head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) . show in f 9876543210 03:11:29 [9,87,654,3210] 03:11:47 is that a brute force search? 03:12:16 > let v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n <= head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) . show in f 1212121212121212199 03:12:17 [1,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,99] 03:12:21 ah 03:12:26 > let v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n < head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) . show in f 1212121212121212199 03:12:27 [1,2,12,121,212,1212,12199] 03:12:50 No, it's the "natural" dynamic programming approach. So it's rather efficient. 03:13:34 not clear what the natural dynamic programming approach would be here 03:13:40 and i am shit at parsing haskell 03:14:45 explain? 03:18:54 Well, we have this sequence d_i (1 <= i <= n) of digits that we somehow split into numbers. Assume that one of these numbers is d_(k..l). Then how to split d_(l+1)...d_n optimally does not depend on d_1..d_(k-1). 03:20:58 @let splitOptimal = f where v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n < head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) . show 03:20:59 .L.hs:152:62: 03:20:59 No instance for (Show a0) arising from a use of `show' 03:20:59 The type variable `a0' is ambiguous 03:20:59 Possible cause: the monomorphism restriction applied to the following: 03:20:59 splitOptimal :: a0 -> [Integer] (bound at .L.hs:143:1) 03:21:35 @let splitOptimal :: Show a => a -> [Integer]; splitOptimal = f where v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n < head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) . show 03:21:36 Defined. 03:21:46 A bit hairy 03:22:04 -!- ter2 has quit (Quit: Leaving). 03:22:08 > splitOptimal 100001 03:22:10 [100001] 03:22:20 > splitOptimal 101101 03:22:22 [1,1101] 03:22:37 > splitOptimal 101102 03:22:39 [101,102] 03:22:40 v n < head t <-- that's the strictly increasing version. 03:22:47 > splitOptimal 31415926535897932 03:22:47 Yep 03:22:48 [31,41,59,265,3589,7932] 03:23:04 It'd be nice to have some sort of proof it is optimal 03:23:08 -!- myndzi\ has changed nick to myndzi. 03:23:13 > splitOptimal $ 2^100 03:23:14 [1,2,6,76,506,22822,94014,96703,205376] 03:23:34 trust me? ;-) 03:23:52 > splitOptimal 10000000000000000000001 03:23:54 [10000000000000000000001] 03:27:30 > splitOptimal 0000032 03:27:32 [32] 03:27:41 I see, it just truncates the zeroes off 03:28:54 @let splitOptimalS = f where v = foldl' (\n r -> n*10+r) 0;m = minimumBy (comparing sum);b [] = [[[]]];b xs = let b' = b (tail xs) in [v n : m t' | (n,t) <- zip (tail (inits xs)) b', let t' = filter (\t -> null t || v n < head t) t, not (null t')] : b'; f = m . head . b . map (fromIntegral . digitToInt) 03:28:55 Defined. 03:29:23 > splitOptimalS "000000000000001" -- hmm, it'll still drop zeros in the output. 03:29:24 [0,1] 03:41:01 quintopia: http://sprunge.us/fPSP works out a couple of steps of the dynamic programming idea. 03:42:33 int-e: no what little you explained is enough. it's kind of what i was thinking of anyway. 03:44:05 int-e: and the running time should be something like n^2? 03:45:37 n^3, I think (for each pair 1 <= k < l <= n, we have up to n candidate lists to sift through. Oh and as implemented it's worse, because the sums of the list elements are not cached.) 03:47:56 int-e: it still looks like n^2 to me (not counting the recomputation of sums) 03:48:29 int-e: if it's n^3, what are the three dimensions of the "table"? 03:48:39 quintopia: just look at the worked out example; there are O(n^2) rows, and each row has O(n) lists to consider. 03:48:51 quintopia: there are only two dimensions, but computing each entry takes O(n) steps. 03:48:57 ah 03:49:55 (Which I think can be reduced to O(log(n)) but that would be messy and require arrays, perhaps even mutable ones. So ... no.) 03:51:15 oh i see. n^3, but the coefficient is very low (like 1/3 maybe) 03:51:19 1/6 03:52:10 right. 03:53:42 "ask for 11 numbers to be read into a sequence S" 03:53:46 wtf is this shit? Groovy? 03:53:57 I thought Groovy was supposed to be like a scripting Java 03:54:08 i feel slightly embarrassed every time i go to hang out in sda chat because i have ops and probably nobody knows why 03:54:08 lol 03:54:15 Oh, that's from pseudocode describing an algorithm 03:54:16 derp 03:54:28 good job 03:55:28 Pah. A program should not simply ask for numbers. It should beg, it should plead, it should grovel! 03:56:59 YUCK. (x > 400 ? cout << "TOO LARGE" : cout << x) << endl 03:57:21 Somebody really went out of their way to prove that C++ code would be shorter than C. 04:02:29 Ugly 04:02:44 << returns the stream? 04:02:46 Unnecessary spaces though 04:02:48 x > 400 && puts("TOO LARGE"); // Like this? 04:02:52 Bike: Yes. 04:03:21 Bike: yes. that's why std::cout << x << "," << y << std::endl; works. 04:03:26 great 04:03:32 pikhq: Doesn't output the x 04:04:27