00:00:25 -!- tgwizard has quit (Remote closed the connection). 00:00:37 ihope: goedle showed that if you have a formal system(??) that is strong enough(??) there are things that aren't part of the system.. but the negation of the ting isn't part of the system either... 00:03:11 there is a pair of some_term_a and some_term_b that has the property that neither some_term_a == some_term_b nor some_term_a != some_term_b can be derived(??) from the axioms 00:03:25 Ah. 00:04:07 So there's an f and an x such that neither f(x) nor not(f(x)) can be proven? 00:04:13 right 00:05:16 he showed that by showing that by "writing an interpreter" of the system in itself (he only showed that it is possible) and used this to make an expression (to show that it exists) that says "i am wrong!" 00:05:48 Aiee, a Google search for "lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol" turns up results! 00:08:04 the discussion we had about the grapes and bananas is somehow related to the contents of the book "gödel escher bach" written by Douglas R. Hofstadter.... 00:08:19 i didn't finished reading it yet 00:08:44 so i don't know everything about gödel's proof... 00:08:54 but it really is interesting... 00:09:28 and he is talking about the same problem.. that there is always a next step that is able to solve more problems but you can't have an highest step that can solve everything... 00:12:40 -!- calamari has joined. 00:16:26 moin calamari 00:16:33 hi jix 00:16:35 a halt-checker for brainfuck is grape one 00:16:41 Yep. 00:16:46 an interpreter for a halt-checker for brainfuck is grape two? 00:16:50 Yep. 00:16:55 Well. 00:17:01 s/interpreter/halt-checker/ 00:17:13 but what about an interpreter. 00:17:19 a halt-checker is obviously grape two 00:17:28 An interpreter for a halt-checker is simply a halt-checker. 00:18:07 mm 00:18:35 ihope: that isn't true for brainfuck 00:18:37 yes 00:18:45 an interpreter for grape 0 is grape 0 00:18:51 a halt-checker for grape 0 is grape 1 00:19:09 Yep. 00:19:16 Unless, of course, your interpreter can halt-check. 00:19:42 ihope: let's define interpreter as it doesn't check the program for halting but it just runs it... 00:19:49 but an interpreter for grape 1 cannot be grape 1 00:19:58 lament: why not? 00:19:58 lament: why? 00:20:01 oh, can it? 00:20:08 Yes, it can. 00:20:41 the problem with brainhype is it is banana-one right? it can check any grape (but not grape-infinity because that would be a LC + will-halt right?) 00:21:14 Oh boy... 00:21:15 grape infinity would be an infinite program 00:21:17 we don't look at those 00:21:22 usually 00:21:28 Brainhype is the entire grape hierarchy, 00:21:30 s/,/./ 00:21:42 a brainhype _interpreter_ is banana-one 00:21:46 Yes. 00:22:17 i have to re-read the brainhype spec... 00:22:32 i think i've got something wrong... 00:22:43 Every Brainhype program is somewhere in the grape hierarchy, and for every place in the grape hierarchy, there's a Brainhype program that can simulate everything in it. 00:23:13 and that brainhype program is in the same level of the hierarchy. 00:23:25 Yep. 00:23:27 yes i know 00:23:59 actually i guess it's more appropriate to call a brainhype interpreter banana-0 00:24:03 since it doesn't halt-check anything 00:24:19 It halt-checks the entire grape hierarchy. 00:24:36 well, apart from that :) 00:24:58 Maybe banana 0 is the entire grape hierarchy. 00:25:09 a brainfuck interpreter is grape 0, it makes sense to make the brainhype interpreter banana 0 00:25:28 Eh, make it so, then. 00:26:48 maybe we shouldn't call it banana 0 but grape-two-0 ... because we can continue that as long as we want 00:27:31 Call that the melon hierarchy. 00:27:45 Grape = 1-melon, banana = 2-melon, etc. 00:27:58 shouldn't we start with 0? 00:28:20 You were the one who said banana should be number 2... 00:28:34 I guess it can start with 0, then. 00:28:36 ihope: well i do make mistakes... 00:28:43 i'm still not convinced there IS a banana hierarchy... 00:29:04 lament: so you think there is a contradiction in the banana hierarchy? 00:29:09 and i'm certainly not convinced of existence of a hierarchy beyond the banana one 00:29:23 what would go in that one? 00:29:40 i think there is nothing behind the grape-0 00:29:42 Things that could solve the Halting problems for everything in the banana hierarchy. 00:29:46 in reallaty 00:30:01 jix: well, that's because reality is Turing-complete :-) 00:30:24 yeah 00:31:12 there's gotta be a contradiction somewhere :) 00:31:31 otherwise, we have a gigantic transfinite system of hierarchies 00:32:00 <_wildhalcyon_> What if reality has bounded storage? 00:32:01 once i thought my contradiction could be a valid banana-0 / 1-melon-0 program 00:32:04 The contradiction would be at infinity. 00:32:11 _wildhalcyon_: it does. 00:32:23 There is neither a grape-infinity nor a banana-infinity. 00:32:54 nor an infinity-melon-infinity 00:33:03 but i think they would be all the same if they would exist... 00:33:08 they could all solve all problems 00:33:29 obviously not 00:33:42 they can only halt-check things that are lower on the hierarchy 00:33:55 lament: well they are on the highest place of the hierachy 00:34:37 wait 00:34:53 what level is a program that can halt-check an arbitrary Brainfuck program? 00:35:01 grape-1 00:35:08 are you sure? 00:35:13 {program} doesn't count 00:35:26 lament: there is a brainfuck interpreter in branfuck 00:35:38 {brainfuck-interpreter-that-reads-source-from-memory} 00:35:42 ohh 00:35:47 yes 00:35:58 however, you can't do that with brainhype 00:36:07 ? 00:36:30 lament: you can write an interpreter for grape-1 in grape-2 00:36:39 yes 00:36:47 but waht about banana-0?? 00:36:58 * lament gets all confused 00:37:15 lament: well we just defined it can solve all grape halting problems 00:37:15 What about banana-0? 00:37:27 jix: you can write an interpreter for grape-1 in grape-1 00:37:39 lament: uhm yes 00:37:58 nargh i always write interpreter 00:38:04 when i want to write halt-checker 00:38:17 this is so confusing 00:38:22 * bsmntbombdood wants to know what all these fruits are 00:38:36 bsmntbombdood: they are different computational classes 00:38:41 can we get a better understanding of what banana-0 includes 00:38:49 They're hierarchies of computational classes. 00:38:50 apart from (obviously) a brainhype interpreter 00:38:51 jix: I figured that 00:39:10 grape-0 includes all Brainfuck programs 00:39:14 Should I write a Wiki article on the fruit hierarchies? 00:39:15 bsmntbombdood: i like some of them... and i dislike some of them... imho banana tates terrible... 00:39:22 bsmntbombdood: grape is tasty 00:39:34 grape-42 includes all brainhype programs with up to 42 levels of braces 00:39:38 what does banana-0 include? 00:39:47 bsmntbombdood: melon too but i'm allergic against(??) it 00:39:57 Allergic to it? 00:40:13 ihope: yeah i don't know the right wort to fit between allergic and it... 00:40:30 the german word there would be "gegen" that translates to "against" 00:40:42 allergic to it 00:40:47 is banana-0 a computational class at all? does it include anything other than a brainhype interpreter? 00:41:31 i mean, brainhype interpreter is the only thing in banana-0 that's not on the grape hierarchy somewhere 00:41:44 lament: banana-0 is the set of all programs that can build arbitrary Brainhype programs and run them. 00:41:56 i'm not sure but wouldn't an instruction & added to brainhype that evaluets a finite piece of code stored on the tape be banana-0? 00:42:13 jix: I think that would be contradictory. 00:42:24 As long as you could put & on the tape, that is. 00:42:40 ihope: nargh that evaluates a brainhype program stored on the tape 00:42:44 so no & 00:42:54 Okay. That would be banana-0, then. 00:43:08 ok i want a banana-n language... 00:43:35 the piece of code on the tape that is going to be evaluated has to be smaller than the current code? is that banana-n complete? 00:43:47 Hmm... 00:43:55 you can nest as many & as you want but not infinite... 00:44:07 I think so. 00:44:09 why can't you nest &, anyway 00:44:22 ihope: no... 00:44:23 in lisp, you can nest eval as much as you like 00:44:35 eval (or &) does not move you up the hierarchy 00:44:37 lament: but you may not add a will-halt to lisp 00:44:46 oh 00:44:47 that would be a contradiction 00:44:53 hmm 00:45:07 so you're saying that the presence of {} must be balanced by lack of eval 00:45:12 Yep. 00:45:23 interesting 00:45:26 At least, the lack of an unrestricted eval. 00:45:39 or a lambda calculus like behavior... 00:46:08 so banana-0 has one level of &, banana-1 two levels of & 00:46:25 ...I think so. 00:46:47 ihope: but the evaluated code must be smaller than the original would throw it into the grape hierarchy... 00:46:51 which means the next hierarchy (after the banans) would have arbitrary levels of & and therefore would be inconsistent? 00:46:53 it would limit the numbers of {}... 00:46:56 *bananas 00:47:23 lament: arbitrary but not infinity.... 00:47:38 lament: as long as you don' reach infinity you don't have a problem 00:47:59 I want a stack-based brainfuck type lang 00:48:07 bsmntbombdood: BF-PDA? 00:48:16 i think really the same thing (applied to formal systems or something like that) was discussed in the book i am reading 00:48:18 but the level of nesting of & cannot be determined in advance, anyhow 00:48:36 I think grape-infinity, banana-infinity, and, in general, n-melon-infinity are all inconsistent. 00:48:44 You guys are all confusing me... 00:48:50 ihope: yes and i think they are all the same 00:50:20 ihope: kind of like bf-pda 00:50:27 oh and did i say that Douglas R. Hofstadter started to invent nonsense names for this things too? just to get the reader away from the usual (pre-justiced??) thinking.... 00:50:29 ihope: I will just write my own 00:50:59 Grape, banana, and melon all have very complex and meaningful histories. :-P 00:51:37 seriously 00:51:53 if banana-0 is brainhype with a & which is not allowed to be nested. 00:51:58 ihope: but they have NOTHING to do with the things we are talking about 00:52:09 and banana-1 is brainhype with a & which you can nest only once 00:52:13 then you're screwed right there 00:52:23 because you can't tell in advance how many times the & will be nested 00:52:23 lament: why? 00:52:31 by looking at the program 00:52:34 Banana-0 can't use & for more banana-0, I think. 00:52:48 It can use it for any grape, but not for banana-0. 00:52:53 lament: well you have a nesting count and if the nesting count reaches 2 the instruction & is a NOP... 00:52:54 ihope: that's what i said. 00:52:59 jix: hah 00:53:06 lament: what? 00:53:08 jix: that feels really dirty. but i guess you're right. 00:53:43 jix: but it still means the next fruit will be inconsistent 00:53:51 LOL if someone would stand behind me and read my logs he would think we are all crazy... 00:54:07 2-melon-0 would only be able to use & for bananas. 00:54:30 ihope: that's also true of bananas 00:54:46 Banana-0 can only use & for grapes. 00:54:51 it would add an instruction / that reads the number of allowed & from the tapes and evaluates code read from the tapes... 00:55:07 jix: aiee 00:55:12 jix: aieee 00:55:21 -s-s 00:55:25 we have only one tape right? 00:55:28 jix: are you SURE that's not equivalent to banana-0 in some way 00:55:39 Don't complicate things in your attempts to simplify them... 00:55:49 lament: no... should i? 00:55:54 Anyway, look up "one-banana problem". 00:55:59 jix: it sounds complex enough that it might be 00:57:05 i wish i had a banana-0 interpreter to play with 00:57:11 :-) 00:58:21 lament: can't be banana-0 you can write a banana-n interpreter in it 00:58:45 You can only write a banana-0 interpreter in banana-0. 00:58:57 ihope: i'm talking about my 2-melon-0 00:59:03 you know what. 00:59:04 <_wildhalcyon_> this is a weird convo... 00:59:05 you're all wrong. 00:59:18 _wildhalcyon_: go paste it on bash.org 00:59:35 lament: no... 00:59:54 What are we wrong about? 01:00:20 i dunno 01:00:28 Oh... 01:00:59 <_wildhalcyon_> jix, that website is crazy 01:01:24 i don't like the & instruction 01:01:35 Neither do I. 01:01:38 i want a better banana-0 language 01:01:42 lament: neither i 01:02:20 but you get a m+1-melon-0 by taking a m-melon-0 and adding another kind of & instruction that reads the number (n) of the desired m-melon-n from the tape and executes a m-melon-n program from the tape 01:02:42 thus there is a m-melon-n for every finite but arbitrary high m and n 01:03:26 and you get a m-melon-n+1 by taking a m-melon-n by allowing to nest the added & kind instruction one level deeper... 01:03:39 nooooo 01:04:01 lament: hard to imagine isn't it? 01:04:09 the problem with this 01:04:16 er, nevermind 01:04:17 there is one? 01:04:19 * lament thinks 01:04:40 i guess there isn't 01:05:39 it's still ugly 01:05:47 but what is when we want a interpreter for an arbitrary m-melon-n ? lets say m-melon-n is the same as 0-basket-of-m-melon-n 1-basket-of-0-melon-0 is able to interpret all m-melon-n... is this possible? 01:05:49 lament: i know... 01:05:58 i want a better x-melon-y language 01:06:06 lament: we all want it.. 01:06:18 Whee. 01:06:24 Yes, there can be baskets. 01:07:21 jix: see, this "basket" thing 01:07:29 jix: like i said, this just leads to a transfinite hierarchy 01:07:40 What does "transfinite" mean? 01:07:56 jix: you can assign an ordinal number to every class 01:08:14 lament: i don't understand that.. my english isn't good enough... 01:08:15 0 is TC 01:08:28 1 in brainhype with 1 level of braces 01:08:37 1 is brainhype with 1 level of braces 01:09:16 Oddly enough, this is all related to some thing I had once... 01:09:22 I think it was called F-TR1. 01:09:23 omega_0 is 1-melon-0 01:10:11 omega^omega is, probably, 1-basket-of-0-melon-0 01:10:17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_numbers 01:11:55 lament: yes you're right 01:13:15 ihope: is he? 01:13:25 Um, lemme see... 01:14:57 Eh, I don't know. 01:15:01 lament: wait isn't omega^2 1-basket-of-0-melon-0? 01:15:46 i think omega^omega would give you a contradiction 01:16:06 because that would be 1..........0-baslet-of-0-melon-0 01:16:24 How do you know it's infinite and not arbitrary? 01:16:44 nargh i don't get this anymore... 01:16:48 i should go to bed instead 01:17:17 Me too. 01:17:18 heh 01:17:25 it's 2 am here... 01:17:50 (that's night right?) 01:17:52 This discussion started about 2 hours ago. 01:17:58 i always confuse am and pm... 01:17:58 jix: either that or morning :-) 01:18:37 * ihope tries to think of a good mnemonic 01:18:49 a is after and p is past... 01:18:51 uhm wait? 01:19:00 Well, A comes before P in the alphabet. 01:19:04 a is "antes" 01:20:57 or maybe not :) 01:21:07 Isn't it? 01:21:42 it should be 01:23:22 <_wildhalcyon_> anybody have non-constructive criticism on my crawl post? 01:24:08 like L0l n00b h0w ST00p4T?? 01:24:31 _wildhalcyon_: YOU SMELL!!! 01:24:46 <_wildhalcyon_> well.. slightly more constructive than that 01:24:51 <_wildhalcyon_> lament is on the right track 01:25:12 _wildhalcyon_: GO TAKE A SHOWER!! no, that's constructive 01:25:24 <_wildhalcyon_> lol, I suppose it is 01:25:40 Is brainscrambler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainscrambler turing complete? 01:26:23 it seems to 01:26:41 bsmntbombdood: I'm pretty sure it is. 01:26:49 i like this line: "You must have 3 infinitely (within reason) long stacks" 01:27:06 would it be turing complete with only one stack? 01:27:12 Nope. 01:27:29 But with two, it would be. 01:30:36 HAHA lemonlimeskull: You know you've been chatting too long when you think C:/> is some kind of depressed Arab smiley. 01:30:51 <_wildhalcyon_> lol, that's... sad 01:31:13 C:/> IS a depressed arab smiley. 01:31:23 C:\> is command prompt when you're on drive C: 01:31:34 ihope: are you User:Ihope127 on wikipedia? 01:31:35 lament: i copy&pasted from bash.org 01:31:38 bsmntbombdood: yep. 01:33:41 <_wildhalcyon_> :-D tetris is so unrealistic 01:37:22 yeah when I drop blocks I can't change their direction and position mid-fall 01:37:28 gah. 01:37:30 -!- Asaph has changed nick to Robdgreat. 01:45:12 tetris rules 01:45:17 oh and i should go to bed 01:46:14 <_wildhalcyon_> alright, g'night jix 01:50:53 Dang, I keep mistyping "define" as "defube". 01:58:01 oh and i should go to bed 02:03:37 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 02:05:35 oh and i should go to bed 02:16:31 * ihope contemplates an IRC server with only three channel names, but infinite channels 02:17:15 Joining a channel would simply create a new one, but being invited to a channel would put you into the existing one. 02:18:04 LOL 02:19:54 <_wildhalcyon_> The general rule on about people on IRC seems to be "Attractive, single, mentally stable: choose two" 02:21:33 Alternatively, channels wouldn't have permanent names: you'd join a channel, and if you've seen a channel with that name before, you join it; otherwise, a new channel is created. 02:21:45 Inviting someone to a channel would allocate a random channel name. 02:22:10 I suppose there would have to be some sort of service to keep you from "losing" channels... call it A. 02:22:39 ihope: oh and you don't have nicks.. 02:22:44 Oh my. 02:22:46 the first person you see is going to be A 02:22:49 the 2nd person B.... 02:23:08 oh and i should go to bed 02:23:13 Eh, maybe A would always be the service bot, but nicks would be given randomly. 02:23:46 Well, maybe not randomly. 02:23:55 nargh gn8 02:23:56 It'd start with 0, then go to 1, 2, 3, 4... 02:24:00 Good night. 02:24:02 -!- jix has quit ("HAHAHAHAHAHA"). 02:24:05 <_wildhalcyon_> I prefer the random idea 02:24:22 <_wildhalcyon_> I think it would be lots of fun to receive a new random name every time 02:24:57 Yeah, it would be. 02:25:00 -!- _wildhalcyon_ has changed nick to random. 02:25:27 Yay! 02:25:56 Right after you choose a nick, it'd say nick!user@hostmask NICK :Hedral or something. 02:26:41 That would work 02:28:31 I regularly tomato eat lampshades... 02:58:20 The general rule on about people on IRC seems to be "Attractive, single, mentally stable: choose two" 02:58:23 ^ Not true. 02:58:27 It's usually choose zero. 03:02:04 * SimonRC goes 03:03:46 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out). 03:07:31 good point gregor 03:08:07 some one have any brainscrambler programs? 03:12:00 I just wrote an interpreter and I need to test it 03:52:47 -!- rhudson has joined. 03:53:16 Hi All! 03:54:02 -!- rhudson has quit (Client Quit). 03:54:32 -!- rhudson has joined. 03:54:54 Um Hi all again 03:55:25 -!- rhudson has changed nick to ronhudson. 03:55:45 * ronhudson peers about looking for real people 03:56:03 Hi EgoBot 03:58:43 Hmm did I do that? Hey anybody see my new toy language on the esolangs wiki? 04:00:48 -!- ronhudson has quit ("Xirc - MacOSX"). 04:01:03 -!- rhudson has joined. 04:01:24 hello again? 04:01:54 I don't quite have the hang of XIRC yet.. Is anyone out there? 04:02:48 yes 04:03:01 If you all are talking, I can't hear you? 04:03:22 well then you're screwed 04:03:30 Oh bsm I see you 04:04:02 Are you interested in computer languages? 04:07:07 that's why I'm here 04:07:35 Did you design one of your own? or do you use one of the others? 04:08:17 I've invented a few toy languages 04:08:43 Does my text actually look blue on yellow to you, should I pick better colors? 04:09:12 I am building a small language myself, it's called Tiny. 04:09:12 how about default 04:09:50 Now black on white. 04:10:00 Hi Robgreat 04:10:15 strange. on my black background everyone else's text shows as white. 04:10:28 but yours shows as black (i.e. invisible) 04:11:18 Ok, a light blue visible on both white and black backgrounds.:^) 04:11:47 What languages have you built BSM? 04:12:11 nothing you have heard of 04:14:24 There's a write up of tiny on the esolang wiki, another guy did a good re-write after 04:14:38 I wrote a terse entry. 04:16:49 It's slow here. 04:17:22 How many of those 22 users are bots? 04:17:50 one i think 04:18:41 Rob have you written any languages I may have heard of? 04:18:46 no way 04:18:53 I just idle here because it's entertaining 04:19:49 I wrote tiny just recently, I think I am just about finished and have almost everything working. 04:21:04 so I am trying to get people to comment on it. 04:21:32 It's about equivalent to a "tiny basic" 04:22:51 Well, I have to travel tomorrow. So I gotta getup early. 04:23:00 night all! :^) 04:23:07 -!- rhudson has quit ("Xirc - MacOSX"). 04:58:05 -!- calamari has joined. 05:15:40 -!- Arrogant has joined. 05:37:58 -!- lindi- has quit (Remote closed the connection). 05:50:04 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 05:56:00 -!- puzzlet has joined. 06:04:37 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection). 06:06:20 ugh, colored fonts 06:06:46 -!- ChanServ has set channel mode: +o lament. 06:06:54 -!- lament has set channel mode: +c. 06:06:58 -!- lament has set channel mode: -o lament. 06:07:22 * lament likes exercising his tyrannical op powers 06:08:49 -!- puzzlet has joined. 06:09:50 tyranny 06:10:42 yep 06:14:59 noooooooooooo 06:15:37 -!- random has changed nick to wildhalcyon. 07:14:31 Hmm. Single inheritence. 07:15:22 -!- Arrogant has quit ("Leaving"). 07:15:22 uh huh? 07:15:24 what about it? 07:20:47 it sucks. 07:52:20 -!- sedimin has joined. 07:53:01 hi there 07:59:29 'lo 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:18:15 -!- sedimin has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 08:22:01 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 08:55:57 -!- CXI has quit (Connection timed out). 09:34:45 -!- CXI has joined. 11:57:32 -!- sedimin has joined. 11:58:34 -!- tgwizard has joined. 12:07:02 -!- ihope_ has joined. 12:07:13 -!- ihope_ has changed nick to ihope. 12:23:18 -!- jix has joined. 12:23:25 hey 12:23:26 jix 12:25:46 moin 12:33:27 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Remote closed the connection). 13:46:04 Hmm, how do I turn word wrap off in a text box? 13:50:45 in what? 13:51:00 in what framework or gui toolkit? 13:51:03 A multiline text box in a web browser. 13:51:07 Firefox, on Windows. 13:51:11 in html, so? 13:51:24 From within the browser. 13:51:46 and the text box is contained in a page, right? 13:52:34 Yep. 13:52:40 hm 13:52:44 I came to this: 13:52:52 Attribute for