00:22:27 <esolangs> [[SolboScript]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92238&oldid=92222 * Kaveh Yousefi * (+11) Completed the syntax of the BWEEE command which lacked the usual (variable) portion.

00:46:45 <esolangs> [[Category:Brainfuck equivalents]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92239&oldid=89555 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+1) facilites -> facilities

01:21:30 <esolangs> [[Talk:Yoctostack]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=92240 * Salpynx * (+721) /* Branching */ new section

01:21:32 <esolangs> [[Talk:TinyBF]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92241&oldid=92237 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+431) /* Category Brainfuck_equivalents */ reply

01:23:05 <esolangs> [[TinyBF]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92242&oldid=92193 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+35) equivalent

01:23:37 <esolangs> [[PocketBF]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92243&oldid=92220 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+35) yes it is

01:24:23 <esolangs> [[InstructionPointerBF]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92244&oldid=92219 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+35) it is

02:50:02 <esolangs> [[User:DigitalDetective47/WIP]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92245&oldid=91912 * DigitalDetective47 * (-76)

02:50:35 <esolangs> [[User:DigitalDetective47]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92246&oldid=91904 * DigitalDetective47 * (-81) Removed link to current project as it has been moved to its final location.

02:58:51 <esolangs> [[Cratefuck]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=92247 * DigitalDetective47 * (+6741) Created page with ":''This article is currently incomplete, and will be moved to '''Cratefuck''' upon completion.'' '''Cratefuck''' is an esoteric programming language created by User:DigitalD..."

02:59:17 <esolangs> [[Cratefuck]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92248&oldid=92247 * DigitalDetective47 * (-97) Removed erroneous article incomplete message.

03:00:06 <esolangs> [[Cratefuck]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92249&oldid=92248 * DigitalDetective47 * (+0) /* Program structure */ Adjusted the formatting of the word rooms

03:16:41 <esolangs> [[Hello world program in esoteric languages (nonalphabetic and A-M)]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92250&oldid=91828 * DigitalDetective47 * (+1578) Add Cratefuck

03:21:12 <esolangs> [[Language list]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92251&oldid=92201 * DigitalDetective47 * (+16) /* C */ Add Cratefuck

03:29:01 <esolangs> [[User:DigitalDetective47]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92252&oldid=92246 * DigitalDetective47 * (+337) Add Cratefuck

06:03:13 <int-e> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join-calculus "espite this limitation, the join-calculus is as expressive as the full π-calculus." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-calculus#Turing_completeness

06:11:20 <imode> I wonder if there's a higher order version of this, where the reaction rules themselves are molecules.

08:19:36 <esolangs> [[User talk:Photon Niko]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=92253 * Photon Niko * (+52) talk

09:03:50 <b_jonas> I have a question that maybe you #esolangs have already met and know the answer off-hand.

09:05:10 <b_jonas> Suppose you get as inputs two rational numbers given as numerator and denominator pairs. You want to compute their bitwise and, as if you wrote them as binary fractions and took bitwise and of the corresponding digits with same weights, then express the answer as a reduced fraction with shortest numerator and denominator.

09:05:54 <b_jonas> How long can the numerator and denominator of the result be? I know it's at most exponentially longer than the input numerators and denominators, but do we know if it can actually be that long? Or is there a smaller bound for some reason?

09:44:47 <tromp> please use variables to clarify your problem. are you asking about (a and c) /(b and d) from two fractions a/b and c/d ?

10:51:13 <fizzie> I thought the question was clear enough. Given a/b and c/d, write both a/b and c/d as binary fractions (101010.00110011...), do a bitwise and of all corresponding bits, and represent the result as x/y.

11:06:53 <tromp> the effect should be the same as adding fractions; numbers at most double in size (#digits)

11:07:42 <tromp> if one fraction repeats every x bits, and the other every y bits, then their and (xor, or) repeats every x*y bits

11:12:22 <wib_jonas> I should try to implement it and experiment with fractions that have a long period

11:13:36 <wib_jonas> tromp: the problem is that if the denominator is q, then in some bad cases the fraction can be O(q) digits long, or more precisely phi(q) where phi is the Euler phi function. that's where the exponential comes in

11:15:05 <wib_jonas> in particular, in decimal the repeating part of 1/7 has 6 digits, and the repeating part of 1/19 has 18 digits

11:15:31 <wib_jonas> these are decimal, and we need binary instead, so 1/7 or 1/19 needn't be the worst cases, but the general idea is the same

11:17:27 <fizzie> Yeah, but if the denominator *values* are n and m (so lengths log n and log m), the maximum periods are n-1 and m-1 respectively; after the and operation, the result has a period of at most n*m, so the denominator value is also at most n*m; and its length is therefore log n*m = log n + log m, or the sum of the lengths of the inputs.

11:21:34 <wib_jonas> those aren't necessarily the only cases to care about here, but they're probably where I should start experimenting

11:26:29 <tromp> so the idea is that in a/b,c/d, the cycle lengths are O(b) and O(d), while in and(a/b,d/d), the cycle length of O(bd) is sublinear (maybe even logarithmic) in the new denominator

12:25:20 <Taneb> I'd think about what being based on sounds lets you do that more conventional languages wouldn't be able to

14:14:20 <wib_jonas> if I calculate correctly, 1/29 & 2/29 = 318/158369, with the above mentioned bitwise or on rationals

14:20:05 <riv> so I would not really expect any pattern or bound beyond the bound you would get from analyzing a random version

14:26:09 <wib_jonas> riv: it's not a random version. I deliberately chose a bad divisor. in particular, 1/43 & 2/43 = 40/5461, and that's the worst you can get with 43 as the divisor. so not all divisors are that bad.

14:28:12 <wib_jonas> similarly bitwise anding two numbers with divisor 89, you only get four decimal digit divisors. but 1/83 & 2/83 = 1428779509760/182518930210733 is fifteen digits.

14:28:38 <wib_jonas> but all this is preliminary, I'll have to check those calculations properly later

14:41:23 <esolangs> [[XAH]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92254&oldid=85940 * LegionMammal978 * (+24) cat

14:47:46 <wib_jonas> and 1/121 & 2/121 = 1670295609603574/4359484439294640007 a long result with non-prime divisor

15:05:44 <wib_jonas> the original idea was to consider an esoteric language that has rational number arithmetic built in, so I was wondering what operations it would need to have. obviously it would have rational constants, add/subtract, multiply/divide, lessthan/lessequal/equal/notequal, min/max, then I thought you should throw in gcd/lcm (so you can easily extract

15:05:44 <wib_jonas> the denominator of x like x/gcd(1,x)). then I thought it should have bitwise operations too like a normal language that has integer arithmetic built in, and wondered about the consequences of that.

15:08:35 <wib_jonas> I wasn't thinking of fractran, this was for an idea different from that, and it probably doesn't even need rational numbers, but my thoughts led to a weird place

15:09:04 <esolangs> [[User:DigitalDetective47]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92255&oldid=92252 * DigitalDetective47 * (+154) /* Languages */ Changed sort values of personal rating category

15:09:06 <wib_jonas> but apparently there's a good reason why you don't include bitwise operations when computing with rational numbers, because the resutls can be too long

15:17:08 <wib_jonas> though of course you could just add bitwise operations that only take the integer parts of the input

16:20:12 <esolangs> [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92256&oldid=92151 * Fgsilver * (+170)

17:57:57 <esolangs> [[Talk:QuineLang]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=92257 * Fgsilver * (+172) Created page with "I think this might be Turing complete. The commands `<>+-[]` do the same in brainfuck. ~~~~"

17:58:29 <esolangs> [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92258&oldid=92256 * CappyIsCrappy * (+241)

17:58:39 <esolangs> [[User:CappyIsCrappy]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=92259 * CappyIsCrappy * (+203) Created page with "Hello for all you guys! Yeah, i like how my username explains everything about cappy in Mario odyssey. ~~~~"

18:06:47 <esolangs> [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92260&oldid=92258 * CappyIsCrappy * (+22)

18:07:14 <esolangs> [[User:CappyIsCrappy]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92261&oldid=92259 * CappyIsCrappy * (+22)

18:34:01 <zzo38> Can a adjacency matrix be used to canonize a unlabeled graph (even without storing the adjacency matrix, possibly)?

18:43:45 <b_jonas> zzo38: if you mean both the vertexes and edges are unlabeled, the kind of no, as in not in a way that's both fast and uses a simple algorithm. the problem is that a fast algorithm would imply that you can solve the graph isomorphism problem fast, and while that is probably possible, we don't have an algorithm known for it.

18:45:34 <b_jonas> zzo38: if you are willing to spend exponential time, then yes, you can absolutely canonicalize the graph: just consider all node permutations, permute the matrix rows and columns according to it, and take whichever permuted adj'cy matrix is lexicographically the first among all permutations.

18:53:03 <int-e> (They focus on finding graph automorphisms, but the same techniques can also be used to canonicalize graphs)

21:37:35 <esolangs> [[Ppencode]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92262&oldid=87938 * LegionMammal978 * (+87) fix dead links

21:41:00 <esolangs> [[Aboba]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92263&oldid=89142 * LegionMammal978 * (+14) fix title

22:14:30 <esolangs> [[Udymts]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92264&oldid=87313 * LegionMammal978 * (+14) fix title

22:33:00 <esolangs> [[User:Bo Tie]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=92265&oldid=80181 * Bo Tie * (-59)