←2007-07-12 2007-07-13 2007-07-14→ ↑2007 ↑all
00:16:18 -!- lament has set topic: Esoteric programming language design and deployment | FORUM AND WIKI: http://esolangs.org | CHANNEL LOGS: http://ircbrowse.com/ | PASTEBIN: http://pastebin.ca/.
00:16:28 -!- lament has set topic: Esoteric programming language design and deployment | FORUM AND WIKI: http://esolangs.org | CHANNEL LOGS: http://ircbrowse.com | PASTEBIN: http://pastebin.ca.
00:21:51 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection).
00:48:22 -!- oerjan has quit ("Good night").
02:25:16 * SimonRC goes to bed
02:38:13 -!- Tritonio has quit ("Bye...").
03:59:04 -!- GreaseMonkey has joined.
04:17:53 <bsmntbombdood> lament: shouldn't the log link point straight to esoteric's logs?
04:23:11 <bsmntbombdood> what is the most computational power possible in a language whose programs always halt?
04:24:12 <bsmntbombdood> or a language where the halting problem is always solvable
04:42:00 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
04:42:36 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
04:49:29 <bsmntbombdood> the highest computability class i can think of is PDA
04:57:58 <GreaseMonkey> erm, what's PDA?
04:59:06 <bsmntbombdood> push down automata
04:59:35 <bsmntbombdood> actually
04:59:48 <bsmntbombdood> the max shifts function is computable on finite memorys
05:00:04 <bsmntbombdood> so it's a turing machine with a finite tape
05:01:48 -!- GregorR-L has joined.
05:11:22 -!- lament has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
05:11:33 <oklokok> bsmntbombdood: i think you can get infinitely close to being tc by n nested for loops.
05:11:39 <oklokok> where lim n->inf
05:13:35 <oklokok> brainfor, where [...] is for(i : 0 -> current_cell's_value){...}, with i stored on every cycle into the cell that was the current cell at the beginning of the loop
05:13:59 <oklokok> i like inventing brainfuckish language stubs on the fly
05:19:48 <GregorR-L> Why do people get so freaked out when I put my cat in the garbage can? :P
05:37:11 <oklokok> to kill it?
05:37:26 <oklokok> if so, perhaps they like cats
05:37:55 <oklokok> if not, then why would you do that?
05:37:55 <oklokok> :D
05:41:04 <GregorR-L> Not to kill it.
05:41:07 <GregorR-L> For laffs.
05:41:20 <GregorR-L> Ever see a cat try to jump out of a container that's just baaaaaarely too big for it to jump out of?
05:44:33 <oklokok> sounds sick and mean, but can you film that? :)
05:45:33 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
05:45:46 <GregorR-L> Hahahah
05:45:51 <GregorR-L> It's not THAT mean :P
05:46:10 <GregorR-L> I spin my other cat on the hardwood floor, and she loves me.
05:48:19 <oklokok> heh, women.
05:54:47 <GregorR-L> And my cat who's terrified of me is so terrified of thunder that she's laying in my lap right now :P
06:02:18 <bsmntbombdood> i loves my ca
06:02:20 <bsmntbombdood> t
06:04:57 <bsmntbombdood> oklokok: huh?
06:17:31 <oklokok> bsmntbombdood: huh what?
06:17:41 <bsmntbombdood> <oklokok> bsmntbombdood: i think you can get infinitely close to being tc by n nested for loops.
06:17:58 <oklokok> plus the line after that
06:18:06 <oklokok> what exactly was unclear?
06:18:13 <bsmntbombdood> everything
06:18:43 <oklokok> well, i think you can get infinitely close to being tc by having n for-loops nested, where lim n->inf
06:18:58 <oklokok> i really don't know any other way to say that.
06:19:59 <oklokok> so... you can't answer the question you asked, because you can always get closer and closer to turing completeness by adding another nested for-loop
06:21:38 <oklokok> where for-loop stands for an iteration of a preset length here
06:24:25 <oklokok> i'm pretty sure i'm being clear here, but i haven't really slept for a while because of uberman
06:24:40 <oklokok> so everything's a bit hazy and different
06:24:47 <oklokok> pizza ->
06:29:03 -!- puzzlet_ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
07:01:35 -!- GregorR-L has quit ("Leaving").
07:34:39 <Sukoshi> Is the ability to check a Java class's class at runtime usable without importing reflection libs or sommat?
07:42:52 <oklopol> yes
07:44:31 <Sukoshi> Yay.
07:44:39 <oklopol> getClass()
07:45:05 <oklopol> will return the ref to the class object
07:45:20 <Sukoshi> Ah see.
07:45:32 <Sukoshi> Gawrsh, sometimes I miss my C-isms.
07:45:41 * Sukoshi hearts Union/Struct combo.
07:46:21 * oklopol always found that horrible
07:46:29 <oklopol> perhaps in a good way though
07:46:55 <Sukoshi> Well, I would *prefer* a dynamic language.
07:47:01 <Sukoshi> But a union/struct combo comes close.
07:47:16 <Sukoshi> It's a convenient way to determine runtime type.
07:47:21 <oklopol> dynamic as in... dynamically typed?
07:47:29 <Sukoshi> Yeah.
07:47:49 <oklopol> well, java's is a lot clearer than that
07:48:03 <Sukoshi> How is a union/struct combo not clear?
07:49:01 <oklopol> well... i guess it is
07:49:07 <oklopol> it's just it feels like a hack there
07:49:49 <oklopol> for one, you'll have the same size for every object you keep in the var
07:49:59 <Sukoshi> #define T_INT 0 #define T_STR 1 ... typedef struct __mytype_t { int type; union data { my_int *i; my_str *s } }
07:50:01 <oklopol> because an union is always the size of the biggest
07:50:14 <Sukoshi> Yeah, that's true.
07:50:28 <oklopol> guess pointers get around that pretty well
07:50:38 <Sukoshi> Yeah.
07:50:49 <Sukoshi> Oh-noes. The largest type is a ... pointer!
07:50:54 <oklopol> anyway, i find OO clearer when doing stuff like that
07:51:42 <oklopol> i'm not gonna argue though, because i don't feel like saying anything intelligent right now
07:51:55 <oklopol> anyway, ankos is soon read
07:52:09 <Sukoshi> Heh.
07:52:17 <Sukoshi> Wow. I just accidentally used a pointer in Java.
07:52:21 <oklopol> i realized it's not really 1304 pages... the lase 500 are notes and summaries etc :P
07:52:30 <oklopol> *last
07:52:52 <Sukoshi> Oh :P
07:52:54 <Sukoshi> Good though.
07:53:07 <Sukoshi> Notes are needed for a book like this.
07:53:16 <oklopol> and no fucking way i'm gonna read those, gets too complicated for me to be interested for that long :D
07:54:14 <oklopol> he proves the stuff he would just tell the reader earlier in the book and such
07:55:19 <Sukoshi> I like that stuff.
07:55:39 <oklopol> who doesn't
07:55:49 <Sukoshi> You.
07:55:51 <oklopol> heh
07:55:52 <Sukoshi> :P
07:56:36 <oklopol> no, i'm just too stupid to be able to read fast enough to keep interested
07:58:14 <oklopol> and it's not certain i'm not gonna read the notes, i often also read the glossary
07:58:39 <oklopol> it's just probable, i have tons of other stuff to read :|
07:59:21 <oklopol> sleep ->
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:08:41 <Sukoshi> Heh.
08:51:20 <Sukoshi> bsmntbombdood: Do you like Guy Steele?
08:51:34 <bsmntbombdood> like him?
08:51:41 <bsmntbombdood> i've read some of his papers
08:52:22 <bsmntbombdood> what do you mean?
08:53:11 <Sukoshi> Like, as a person/his acheivements.
08:53:14 <Sukoshi> He's the co-author of Scheme.
08:53:48 <bsmntbombdood> yeah
08:53:57 <bsmntbombdood> i still don't know what you mean
08:55:44 <Sukoshi> Do you respect him?
08:56:21 <bsmntbombdood> how would i know?
08:56:38 <Sukoshi> Gah.
08:56:46 <Sukoshi> You respect a person through their acheivements, you know?
08:56:54 <bsmntbombdood> no
08:57:07 <Sukoshi> Then how do you respect someone?
08:57:14 <bsmntbombdood> you just do
08:57:20 <Sukoshi> Ah.
08:57:25 <bsmntbombdood> what are you getting at?
08:57:32 <Sukoshi> *Sigh* Nothing anymore.
08:57:38 <bsmntbombdood> whatever
08:59:28 <bsmntbombdood> he's a celebrity
09:03:05 <Sukoshi> He is?
09:03:25 <bsmntbombdood> yes
09:03:38 <Sukoshi> Oh.
09:03:56 <bsmntbombdood> enriching conversation
09:04:04 <Sukoshi> Yes.
09:59:43 -!- RedDak has joined.
10:03:19 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection).
10:20:33 -!- ehird` has joined.
10:25:45 -!- oerjan has joined.
10:33:45 -!- oerjan has set topic: Esoteric programming language design and deployment | FORUM AND WIKI: http://esolangs.org | CHANNEL LOGS: http://ircbrowse.com/cdates.html?channel=esoteric | PASTEBIN: http://pastebin.ca.
10:39:51 <oerjan> n nested for loops gives you what is known as the primitive recursive functions. Among other things, they do not include Ackermann's function.
10:41:57 <oerjan> Dependently typed languages often are terminating on a higher level than that.
10:44:20 <oerjan> The Coq theorem prover for example is terminating, but allows any function you can prove terminating in its proof system, which is apparently comparable to set theory in strength, but different.
10:45:11 <oerjan> I guess this shows that the upper bound intertwines Godel's theorem and the halting theorem.
10:47:57 <oerjan> (I.e. you eventually cannot know whether you have found a still stronger terminating system, or blown up by introducing something non-terminating.)
10:51:09 <GreaseMonkey> bye everyone
10:51:40 -!- GreaseMonkey has quit ("custom quit messages --> xchat.org <-- hydrairc sucks").
11:07:42 <ehird`> I put JumpFuck on the wiki. http://esolangs.org/wiki/JumpFuck
11:46:05 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving").
12:05:27 <ehird`> =)
13:27:14 -!- RedDak has joined.
13:56:59 <ehird`> self-modifying brainfuck is fun: [<]>[.>]
13:58:43 <ehird`> er, make that +[<]>[.>]
13:59:43 <ehird`> er,
13:59:52 <ehird`> <[<]>[.>]
14:12:39 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection).
14:28:39 -!- RedDak has joined.
15:09:18 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection).
15:16:59 -!- sekhmet has joined.
15:21:55 * GregorR smells pansymode brainfuck.
15:48:02 -!- jix has joined.
16:19:25 -!- oerjan has joined.
16:21:11 -!- jix has quit (Nick collision from services.).
16:21:25 -!- jix has joined.
16:24:37 -!- sebbu has joined.
17:06:37 -!- lament has joined.
17:20:23 <lament> THE TIME HAS COME!
17:23:13 <oerjan> oh noes!
17:27:40 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
17:31:47 <oerjan> NOW the time has come.
17:31:52 <oerjan> (for some food)
17:32:25 <lament> now that food has joined?
17:36:41 <oerjan> error: semantic mismatch
17:37:27 <oerjan> or not.
17:37:47 <oerjan> however, right now sliced bread will do.
19:14:38 <lament> isn't it nice how capital letters are almost exclusively reserved for SHOUTING, as opposed to capitalizing words?
19:15:25 <lament> this could eventually lead to real change in grammar
19:15:59 <lament> where capital letters would be used only for emphasis, just like cursive
19:16:37 <lament> (reverting to the situation existing in the middle ages)
19:23:33 <lament> apparently for the past few hundred years there has been a trend (in English) to capitalize fewer and fewer words
19:31:22 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
19:49:23 -!- pikhq has joined.
19:50:22 <pikhq> Sal'.
19:56:24 <lament> salve
19:59:30 -!- test__ has joined.
19:59:31 -!- ehird` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
19:59:45 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving").
20:12:57 <Sukoshi> Capitalizationness is godliness.
20:14:10 <bsmntbombdood> no
20:14:19 <Sukoshi> Yes.
20:14:36 <lament> even your nick is capitalized.
20:14:42 <bsmntbombdood> lowercase unpuncuatedness is godliness
20:15:16 <lament> i like the style of english prose that makes it look like chinese
20:15:31 <lament> these two lines are an example
20:16:35 <lament> commas are avoided and so are big words
20:17:07 <Sukoshi> I prefer the more elegantly punctuated and capitalized styles.
20:17:08 <lament> where big refers to many morphemes in one word
20:17:32 <lament> in chinese every character is one morpheme
20:17:40 <lament> of course english can not be so pure
20:17:52 <lament> for one it needs plural markers
20:18:56 <lament> sukoshi likes big words and complex phrases but really he is just trying to look smart
20:19:38 <Sukoshi> No, I *am* smart ;)
20:19:55 <Sukoshi> And to repeat *again*, I'm not a he.
20:20:13 <lament> aha that is often the assumption one makes when one sees complex language
20:20:17 <lament> justified ? no .
20:20:37 <lament> sorry for not guessing your gender right
20:20:37 <Sukoshi> No.
20:20:55 <Sukoshi> That's like saying ``women are stupid''.
20:21:08 <lament> i do not understand
20:21:48 <lament> what is like to say women are stupid ?
20:22:12 <bsmntbombdood> women are stupid
20:22:18 <bsmntbombdood> it's nothing special
20:22:44 <bsmntbombdood> pretty average
20:23:01 <lament> stupid is a loaded word
20:23:27 <lament> as well as not precise
20:23:52 <lament> just as smart is
20:24:35 <lament> for example to argue about english style on I R C is stupid
20:25:52 <bsmntbombdood> it's stupid to write IRC as I R C
20:25:53 <lament> and is not a thing most women do :)
20:26:15 <lament> see already you are arguing about english style :)
20:27:51 <bsmntbombdood> hmm
20:27:56 <bsmntbombdood> i think i might ride to boulder today
20:39:28 -!- RedDak has joined.
20:43:05 <oklokok> bsmntbombdood: are you s8r boy?
20:43:10 <oklokok> *sk8r
20:57:29 <lament> do sk8rs boulder?
20:58:24 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
20:58:36 <oklokok> i don't know what's boulder :D
20:59:03 <lament> bouldering is a particular form of recreational climbing
20:59:06 <oklokok> so i guessed, "boulderi" is a finnish skating term i think
20:59:09 <oklokok> oh
20:59:10 <oklokok> indeed
20:59:13 <oklokok> it's that as well
21:01:05 <oklokok> now that i come to think of it, it's not a skating term here
21:01:15 <oklokok> heh
21:02:47 <pikhq> lament: Verbose verbiage can indicate either intelligence *or* mere egotism.
21:03:05 <pikhq> And I'd argue that Sukoshi is damned smart, not merely trying to look that way. :p
21:03:29 <Sukoshi> :P
21:04:13 * oklokok also hits on Sukoshi a bit
21:04:42 <pikhq> Also, arguing about English style anywhere is generally a good idea; how else are we to avoid some of the horrendous abuses of our language, such as "omg! im smrt!"
21:04:55 <lament> pikhq: what's wrong with these "abuses"?
21:05:13 <oklokok> roflzomg
21:05:28 <pikhq> lament: What's wrong with "*NULL=2;"?
21:05:44 <lament> that... doesn't work?
21:06:03 * SimonRC decides that the 4D shape (x*x + y*y <= 1 && w*w + z*z <= 1) is very hard to imagine.
21:06:11 <pikhq> Vi vidas?
21:06:32 <pikhq> SimonRC: I'd say it hit "hard to imagine" with the mention of "4D".
21:07:00 <lament> pikhq: no
21:07:10 <SimonRC> pikhq: compared to the other shapes
21:07:12 <lament> pikhq: "omg! im smrt!" does work :)
21:07:25 <pikhq> lament: Nope.
21:07:32 <pikhq> Care to define "smrt"?
21:07:35 <oklokok> smart?
21:07:39 <pikhq> Care to define "im"?
21:07:42 <oklokok> i'm?
21:07:52 <lament> pikhq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28linguistics%29
21:07:53 <pikhq> Oxford English Dictionary, please.
21:08:09 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
21:08:25 <pikhq> lament: Certain registers are damned stupid.
21:08:29 <lament> pikhq: human languages are for human communication. Not all of information conveyed is purely "verbal" (ie conveyed through definitions)
21:08:49 <SimonRC> pikhq: the segment pointers, for example
21:08:55 <lament> pikhq: if you don't understand non-verbal communication, well, that's a common problem many geeks have :)
21:09:14 <pikhq> lament: I, unlike most geeks, have an *excuse* for such. :p
21:09:51 <lament> just don't describe it as "stupid"
21:11:25 <SimonRC> pikhq: what's your excuse?
21:11:53 <lament> language is a very powerful tool that works on several levels, not all of which rely only on "word definitions"
21:11:55 <pikhq> SimonRC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_Syndrome I'd say that's a fairly good one.
21:13:15 <lament> heh @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_Syndrome#Speech_and_language_differences
21:13:24 <lament> "People with AS typically have a highly pedantic way of speaking, using a far more formal language register than appropriate for a context."
21:13:25 <SimonRC> Nah, that just means you're a proper etgek.
21:13:26 <oklokok> you have that, pikhq?
21:14:01 * SimonRC considers his own tendancy to try to introduce evidentials to English.
21:14:34 <SimonRC> I use IMHO, ISRT, IIRC, AFAICT, AFAIK, etc a lot in real life as well as online.
21:14:36 <pikhq> oklokok: Yeah.
21:15:06 <lament> SimonRC: it's a nice feature, although that's not a very good implementation of it
21:15:15 <oklokok> "Tony Attwood refers to a particular child's skill at inventing expressions, e.g., "tidying down" (the opposite of tidying up) or "broken" (when referring to a baby brother who cannot walk or talk).["
21:15:16 <oklokok> err
21:15:23 <oklokok> don't all children do that?
21:15:30 <lament> SimonRC: i think an alternate mood for "to be" would be nice
21:15:41 <oklokok> my mother has a book containing those of mine :\
21:15:45 <oklokok> like 60 pages
21:15:51 <lament> SimonRC: that conveys "my opinion"
21:15:59 <SimonRC> lament: Is that the thing Spanish slightly has?
21:16:04 <SimonRC> oklokok: !
21:16:11 <lament> SimonRC: no, spanish doesn't have it, but some languages do.
21:16:12 <SimonRC> oklokok: that must be where you get it from.
21:16:16 <oklokok> SimonRC: it's more a notebook...
21:16:22 <oklokok> hand-written
21:16:30 <SimonRC> lament: define "mood" in this contet
21:16:33 <SimonRC> *context
21:16:45 <lament> SimonRC: there's some african (?) language with indicators for "i've seen it happen", "somebody told me about it", "i just think so", "it's possible"
21:17:01 <oklokok> german has it
21:17:05 <SimonRC> I thought that those were evidentials.
21:17:42 <oklokok> pikhq: do you have ber skills?
21:17:56 <oklokok> rainman is god.
21:17:57 <pikhq> oklokok: At what?
21:17:59 <lament> SimonRC: right, that one just had more stuff
21:18:00 <oklokok> err
21:18:18 <pikhq> BTW, "Rain Man" is a highly inaccurate depiction of autism at best.
21:18:20 <lament> SimonRC: and it was integrated into the verbs (i think)
21:18:25 <oklokok> pikhq: i know :D
21:18:27 <SimonRC> lament: yup
21:18:53 <lament> would be convenient in english
21:18:55 <oklokok> i've just always wanted to be like that
21:19:02 <lament> "Bach iis the best composer ever"
21:19:25 <lament> "Bach is considered by many as one of the greatest composers"
21:19:50 <lament> (iis being the hypothetical new verb)
21:19:51 <pikhq> lament: {{ weasel }}
21:20:13 <oklokok> "(SimonRC) oklokok: that must be where you get it from." <<< get what, by the way? :D
21:20:14 <lament> "I aam smart"
21:20:56 <lament> pikhq: well, if you don't see the importance of different registers, i guess you just have to take my word for it :)
21:21:43 <pikhq> lament: What, like I can do anything else?
21:22:09 <lament> pikhq: yes, you could just call them "damned stupid", but that would not be very productive.
21:22:28 <pikhq> lament: Granted.
21:22:43 * pikhq only calls the usage of certain ones damned stupid, anyways. :p
21:23:36 <oklokok> after reading ankos, i'm even more sure natural selection sucks and has not created the perfect language
21:23:53 <oklokok> and that a good language will override english some day
21:24:01 <oklokok> :)
21:24:19 <lament> pikhq: "im smrt" conveys informality, self-irony, self-deprecation, all in two short words
21:24:35 <lament> pikhq: er, and also familiarity with American pop culture.
21:24:40 <lament> that's a lot of stuff.
21:24:54 <oklokok> and laziness, in some cases
21:25:02 <pikhq> lament: Or it may convey informality, stupidity, and a blatant disregard for people reading it. (of course, this depends upon context)
21:25:09 <lament> pikhq: certainly.
21:25:17 <lament> pikhq: in both cases, it's useful information
21:25:38 <pikhq> oklokok: Jes; tia lingvo estos Esperanton, mi pensas. ;)
21:26:29 <lament> you can't have a perfect language
21:26:52 <pikhq> lament: No, but you can have one much better than English.
21:27:11 <lament> for example, by trying to minimize difficulty, you can't avoid lowering expressivity
21:27:23 <lament> and by trying to maximize expressivity you can't avoid increasing difficulty
21:27:45 <lament> pikhq: i like English a lot
21:27:50 <pikhq> One can at least encourage a few things such as having internal consistency.
21:27:58 <oklokok> pikhq: esperanto isn't that good, judging by what i've read about it
21:28:05 <lament> pikhq: ah, but internal consistency often negatively affects expressivity :)
21:28:09 <oklokok> i don't know squat about the language itself though
21:28:15 <pikhq> lament: English is wonderful for expressiveness, but it's consistency sucks.
21:28:23 <lament> pikhq: tell me about it.
21:28:28 <pikhq> Granted, there is some level of trade-off involved in that. . .
21:28:35 <lament> that's the thing
21:28:38 <lament> there're always trade-offs
21:28:41 <pikhq> But could we at *least* have a decent writing system?
21:28:48 <lament> it's hard
21:28:53 <lament> (in English)
21:29:02 <lament> a decent writing system is presumably phonetic
21:29:17 <pikhq> No, it's hard while using A-Z.
21:29:20 <oklokok> well, a few generations and people won't be taught to talk anymore
21:29:22 <lament> we can't have that easily because 1) we have a LOT of phonemes, and 2) differences between dialects
21:29:25 <oklokok> it's overrated anyway
21:29:36 <pikhq> There's 30-something phonemes, and 26 graphemes.
21:29:50 <pikhq> oklokok: Dubious.
21:29:54 <oklokok> lament: how is it hard getting a character for every phonem? :\
21:29:57 <lament> pikhq: differences between dialects is the killer
21:30:04 <pikhq> lament: True.
21:30:08 <lament> pikhq: and the changes the language undergoes over time
21:30:09 <oklokok> after all, there is already a phonetic alphabet
21:30:24 <pikhq> English's writing system once *was* phonetic. . .
21:30:50 <lament> one possibility would be to _always_ write phonetically and have no orthography
21:30:50 <oklokok> yes, but no one kept it that way
21:30:57 <pikhq> Of course, then came the change from Middle English to Modern English, changing pronounciations while largely leaving spellings intact. . .
21:30:58 <oklokok> because the world sucked back then
21:30:59 <oklokok> and now
21:31:00 <lament> so that you write exactly as you say
21:31:12 <lament> but then dictionaries would be almost impossible :)
21:31:17 <oklokok> why?
21:31:28 <lament> because the same word could be spelled in many different ways
21:31:34 <oklokok> hmm
21:31:34 <lament> depending on the pronunciation of the speaker
21:31:39 <oklokok> oh
21:31:43 <pikhq> lament: Or have one set of 'formal' phonetics for writing purposes, pissing off various English-speaking countries no matter what.
21:31:43 <oklokok> well, that's a minor problem
21:31:55 <oklokok> why teach multiple pronunciations
21:31:56 <lament> pikhq: yeah, that would be pretty bad
21:32:13 <lament> oklokok: the real reason is that english is trying to break apart into several languages
21:32:26 <pikhq> So, I say it'd be *nice* to have a better writing system, but damned difficult to pull of.
21:32:30 <pikhq> s/of/off/
21:32:41 <lament> pikhq: yes, and i'll agree that english is just not very good for this
21:32:43 <oklokok> well, if you want to use english
21:32:54 <oklokok> i don't see anything in it worth keeping
21:32:59 <oklokok> i'll stop trolling now :)
21:33:05 <oklokok> ->
21:33:14 <lament> pikhq: something like hawaiian can easily have a good writing system :)
21:33:16 <pikhq> lament: I'd argue that that effect is being signifigantly reduced with the increase in international communications.
21:33:59 <pikhq> oklokok: There's plenty of things in English worth keeping. . . Like the huge number of speakers at present. :p
21:34:07 <pikhq> (not that that helped, say, Latin. . .)
21:34:13 <lament> latin didn't die
21:34:15 <lament> latin evolved :)
21:34:26 <pikhq> Latin evolved into different branches.
21:34:32 <lament> right
21:34:39 <lament> who knows what would have happened if they had internet
21:34:53 <pikhq> We can guess.
21:35:26 <lament> english is still a nice language
21:35:42 <pikhq> "\/3|\| \/1|) \/1(!!!"
21:35:53 <lament> all "reforms" would just lead to it being a bit easier to learn
21:36:05 <lament> and since i have already learned it, i don't care :)
21:40:44 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
21:47:18 <lament> hey, cpressey contributed to the wiki today
21:48:12 * test__ notes how common asperger's syndrome is in channels like this
21:49:15 <pikhq> test__: I think it's near 100%. :p
21:49:24 <test__> indeed
21:50:53 <oklokok> people have told me i might be autistic when i've recited 60 digits of pi xD
21:51:10 <oklokok> that's a pretty supernatural talent.
21:51:19 <test__> heh
21:52:01 <oklokok> some day i'll learn the rest.
21:52:10 <oklokok> (that joke just never gets old)
21:52:18 <oklokok> (and it's never funny)
21:52:39 <test__> THE LAST DIGIT OF PI IS 3 (in base reverse-10)
21:52:42 <pikhq> ;)
21:52:55 <pikhq> The last digit of pi is 0! (in base pi)
21:53:05 <test__> the problem with writing pi in base reverse-10, is that you can't really start.
21:53:16 <lament> as i understand, there's a controversy about whether aspergers even exists.
21:53:55 <test__> lament, bullshit - only idiots tend to argue against its existance
21:54:08 <test__> it is very high on the "exists" scale
21:54:09 <pikhq> lament: There's also a controversy about whether we landed on the moon.
21:55:20 <test__> autism and asperger's syndrome are both very real, rooted in reality things
21:56:17 <oklokok> sometimes i wonder if the people in irc are real
21:56:25 <oklokok> that'd be weird
21:56:36 <test__> sometimes i wonder if the people in the world are real SPOILER: no we're part of the matrix
21:56:36 <lament> pikhq: do we call stupidity a "syndrome"?
21:56:47 <test__> lament, Are you comparing Asperger's to stupidity?
21:56:51 <test__> lament, Because if so, shut the hell up.
21:57:05 <lament> test__: yes, i am.
21:57:25 <oklokok> seriously speaking, i've never really believed in any syndromes
21:57:50 <oklokok> why start calling it a syndrome when someone gets very bad at something and suddenly start accepting it
21:58:06 <test__> The collective IQ of this room just dropped a few places.
21:58:21 <oklokok> :)
21:58:51 <oklokok> i'm pretty bad at pretty much everything other than programming
21:59:02 <oklokok> but i'm just called stupid
21:59:05 <oklokok> :|
21:59:10 <lament> that's what i'm saying
21:59:14 <oklokok> why can't that be a disorder
21:59:14 <lament> should we call stupidity a syndrome? :)
21:59:24 <oklokok> there was an article about that
21:59:25 <lament> we could name it in honour of oklokok
21:59:28 <pikhq> lament: No, we should call it punishable by death. :p
21:59:58 <test__> lament, How about naming it after "People who refuse to believe that very real syndromes exist international"?
22:00:08 <test__> Then we'd even have a spokesperson!
22:00:14 <oklokok> http://newsbiscuit.com/article/dyslexic-child-was-stupid-as-well
22:00:15 <oklokok> heh
22:00:29 <lament> test__: stupidity is also very real.
22:00:38 <lament> test__: i repeat, should we then call it a "syndrome"?
22:00:41 <test__> No.
22:00:45 <test__> Oh, that's great logic
22:00:53 <test__> 1. X is real. 2. We should call X a syndrome.
22:00:56 <lament> test__: okay then, what is the essential difference?
22:01:05 <test__> 1. Lament is real. 2. We should call lament a syndrome.
22:01:16 <test__> 1. Your mother is real. 2. We should call your mother a syndrome.
22:01:20 <lament> oh shut up already
22:01:22 <oklokok> guess stupidity arises from the surroundings, not the physical brain itself
22:01:23 <test__> :)
22:01:28 <lament> either argue seriously, or don't argue at all
22:01:40 <lament> oklokok: many people claim that for aspergers, as well.
22:01:50 <lament> oklokok: and many people disagree with that for stupidity.
22:02:19 <test__> lament, Your arguments are silly. My retorts are silly.
22:02:23 <oklokok> i agree with both those, and on the other hand i don't see a crucial difference between those anyway.
22:02:44 <lament> test__: i'm arguing in good faith.
22:03:04 <test__> lament, You're comparing Asperger's to stupidity -- doesn't sound like good faith to me
22:03:33 <lament> test__: i'm not saying people with aspergers are stupid. :)
22:04:30 <test__> Seriously -- Asperger's and autism are real, and you have no real claims to back up the position that it is not
22:04:33 <lament> test__: facts: both are obviously real problems affecting people in visible ways. Both are likely partly physiological in nature. One is called a syndrom and the other, well, tough luck.
22:04:41 <test__> "then stupidity should be a syndrome!" is circular reasoning
22:05:18 <lament> is there some problem with my facts? :)
22:05:44 <lament> there must be a feature of aspergers that makes it more worthy of clinical attention; what is it?
22:05:46 <oklokok> hmm, i could give test__ an article i wrote about this if i'd actually written it on the computer
22:05:47 <test__> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism Educate yourself
22:05:53 <lament> test__: i know what they are
22:06:05 <test__> Evidently you don't know enough.
22:06:23 <oklokok> test__: you haven't exactly explained why the fact those are physiological somehow makes them more acceptable
22:06:30 <lament> (besides, i don' ttihnk i ever mentioned autism)
22:07:15 <lament> oklokok: stupidity could well be physiological in part
22:07:33 <pikhq> lament: High-function autism ~= Asperger's.
22:07:53 <oklokok> lament: indeed, but you don't need to use that card before test__ has even explained that.
22:08:15 <test__> pikhq, Asperger's is a high-functioning autism for all reasonable purposes.
22:08:28 <lament> oklokok: that would be the case if he were actually arguing in a more or less logical fashion, which he isn't
22:08:29 <pikhq> test__: Thus why I said "~=". . .
22:08:32 <oklokok> i _assume_ the crucial difference is physiological-arising from the surroiundings
22:08:33 <lament> oklokok: instead he's just insulting me
22:08:36 <oklokok> *surroundings
22:08:42 <oklokok> yes
22:08:44 <test__> pikhq, ~= in what sense? In swirly = sense?
22:08:59 <pikhq> test__: About-equal.
22:09:13 <test__> pikhq, I think you might want to use "is a member of"
22:09:17 <oklokok> lament: it seems that happens a lot with you :)
22:09:26 <oklokok> which i find odd
22:09:39 <pikhq> test__: . . . True.
22:09:50 <test__> Asperger's ∈ High-functioning autism
22:10:11 <lament> oklokok: that's what happens when a mathematician tries to argue :)
22:10:18 <oklokok> heh
22:11:44 <oklokok> happens to me all the time, i was once arguing with my aunt about something and started a sentence with "let's assume you use n euros for this" and she lifted a finger and said "okay, one assumption, i'll count these"
22:12:00 <oklokok> i'm pretty sure you could see my brain explode.
22:12:12 <lament> hah
22:13:25 <pikhq> oklokok: I can't see it over my own cranial explosion.
22:13:31 <test__> honestly, the logic in this room is completely lacking
22:13:43 <lament> i agree
22:13:46 <oklokok> test__: yes, you haven't supplied yours yet :)
22:13:58 <oklokok> can you tell me the crucial difference?
22:13:59 <test__> because there is no point arguing about this
22:14:01 <oklokok> oh
22:14:17 <test__> if anyone else wants to go ahead and win the argument, they're welcome, but i've got better things to do (well. maybe.)
22:14:29 <lament> test__: so far all you've done was insult me and give me a couple links to "educate myself"
22:14:50 <oklokok> i don't want to win an argument, i want to know what exactly you think is the difference, i've never understood it myself
22:14:58 <oklokok> and almost everyone seems to
22:15:04 <pikhq> The difference between what and what?
22:15:22 <oklokok> having a physiological / psychological source
22:16:32 <pikhq> Physiological implies that it's physical in origin; genetic, environmental, etc. Psychological would imply that it's, so-to-speak, "all in your head".
22:16:46 <lament> pikhq: does the latter make any sense?
22:17:27 <pikhq> lament: I, personally, highly doubt that a psychological source would make any sense whatsoever.
22:17:37 <lament> right
22:18:13 <lament> (is stupidity "psychological"? Getting drunk makes people more stupid, that's a direct physiological influence)
22:18:25 <pikhq> Stupidity may be either.
22:18:48 -!- jix has quit ("CommandQ").
22:19:13 <pikhq> (for example, one can merely act stupid because you've been told that you *are* stupid, or because you're drunk.)
22:24:37 <test__> i'm glad this silly argument has slowed to a standstill.
22:25:13 <lament> yes, those arguing have reached an agreement :)
22:25:38 <test__> we have?
22:25:44 <test__> that's news to me
22:25:56 <lament> you were never arguing
22:26:09 <lament> only insulting and refusing to answer direct questions
22:26:37 <bsmntbombdood> oklokok: ride = bike
22:26:42 <bsmntbombdood> boulder = city
22:26:45 <oklokok> oh
22:27:17 <oklokok> you a bIkr boy?
22:27:17 <oklokok> :P
22:27:50 <lament> bsmntbombdood: Boulder is the name of the city?
22:27:56 <bsmntbombdood> yes
22:28:00 <pikhq> Boulder, CO.
22:28:15 <lament> that's a cool name.
22:32:31 -!- kwertii has joined.
22:32:57 <ttm> CO should be the abbreviation for a more polluted state.
22:32:59 <pikhq> Hmm. An emacsite Esolang coder. :)
22:33:05 <pikhq> ttm: ?
22:33:13 <ttm> really dbc.
22:33:30 <lament> using an alternate nick because you don't have any fractals to paste?
22:33:56 <ttm> No, I could probably dig one up.
22:41:16 <bsmntbombdood> ?
22:42:36 <test__> I wonder what the simplest (in both syntax AND semantics) turing-complete programming language is.
22:42:43 <test__> Iota doesn't count - its semantics are quite complex.
22:42:45 <test__> Whirl's more so.
22:44:03 <lament> devising a good metric for simplicity of semantics would be... interesting :)
22:44:31 <pikhq> Unlambda?
22:44:33 <test__> iota is not a pure combinator, as it uses nested lambda expressions (S and K)
22:44:50 <test__> pikhq, With just ` s and k right?
22:44:58 <pikhq> test__: Yeah.
22:45:06 <test__> If not -- definately not. If so -- I'm not sure, it's certainly near the top
22:45:21 <oklopol> 110 might be close to being the simplest
22:45:26 <oklopol> 1d ca rule 110
22:45:37 <oklopol> it's proven tc in ANKOS
22:46:01 <pikhq> Probably.
22:46:06 <oklopol> well, i guess the turing machine version of it
22:46:32 <test__> oklopol, that's not an esolang though -- well it wasn't intended as one =)
22:47:08 <pikhq> test__: He wasn't asking for simplest esolang. Just simplest turing-complete language.
22:47:10 <bsmntbombdood> boolfuck or P''
22:47:19 <test__> pikhq, He is me
22:47:28 <bsmntbombdood> or single combinator systems
22:47:29 <oklopol> boolfuck is a lot more complex than 110, bsmntbombdood
22:47:36 <test__> bsmntbombdood, P'' is just BF without IO... and that requires defining the semantics of a tape, the operations on it, etc
22:47:48 <test__> iota would be close but iota is not in fact a combinator since it uses inner lambdas (S and K)
22:47:50 <lament> we still haven't quantified complexity, not even approximately.
22:47:58 <bsmntbombdood> test__: huh?
22:47:59 <test__> lament, it's subjective
22:48:07 <lament> well, then so is the answer :)
22:48:07 <bsmntbombdood> iota certainly is a combinator
22:48:10 <pikhq> bsmntbombdood: Boolfuck is P'' with a two-letter alphabet and output.
22:48:15 <test__> bsmntbombdood, not a pure one
22:48:23 * SimonRC has been ignoring you lot for the last 90 minutes.
22:48:24 <oklopol> well, i guess you could define complexity in the number of letters the shortes interpreter has in it's code
22:48:26 <bsmntbombdood> test__: what's a pure combinator?
22:48:28 <oklopol> that ^-1
22:48:31 <SimonRC> I have scrollback, but TLDR
22:48:43 <pikhq> oklopol: Specify language.
22:48:44 <lament> bsmntbombdood: a pure combinator combines its arguments.
22:48:55 <oklopol> pikhq: say, python
22:48:58 <lament> bsmntbombdood: so \x.ax is not a pure combinator, because of that 'a'
22:49:09 <lament> bsmntbombdood: it wasn't an argument, so you can't use it
22:49:10 <oklopol> most languages will have it the same relative length
22:49:21 <lament> bsmntbombdood: s, k, i are pure combinators, and iota isn't
22:49:23 <test__> bsmntbombdood, A lambda without inner lambdas
22:49:27 * pikhq creates the simplest language: self-interpreting Brainfuck. Brainfuck with the "|" instruction, which makes the program act as a self-interpreting Brainfuck interpreter.
22:49:46 <test__> \x.xSK <-- S and K are lambdas in the direct source.
22:49:52 <bsmntbombdood> hmmm
22:50:00 <test__> \x.\y.x contains no literal lambdas, therefore it is pure
22:50:07 <bsmntbombdood> it's still simple
22:50:20 <test__> but it is, by definition, not a pure combinator
22:50:24 <oklopol> i find it easy to imagine 110 working with atoms, then again combinator logic is pretty hard a concept for many, it's not at all simple.,
22:51:16 <oklopol> brainfuck is a lot simpler than combinator logic, unless you already know what functions are (i assume everyone knows what numbers are)
22:51:36 <test__> oklopol, not simple to understand
22:51:40 <test__> simple to /define/
22:51:52 <oklopol> and brainfuck is about a million times more complex than 110
22:52:01 <oklopol> to define
22:52:10 <test__> exactly
22:52:15 <test__> but 110 is not an esolang
22:52:22 <oklopol> i though you were talking about the complexity
22:52:24 <pikhq> But you didn't ask for an esolang.
22:52:32 <lament> test__: but the definition of lambda calculus depends on the definition of functions :)
22:52:46 <pikhq> The Turing machine doesn't, though.
22:52:50 <oklopol> test__: pikhq's point, plus you can always make it an esolang in 5 min
22:52:52 <pikhq> Just depends upon a tape.
22:52:58 <oklopol> it's not that crucial no one has done that :)
22:53:09 <SimonRC> Google is excessively smart. It automatically searched for the expanded acronym ANKOS.
22:53:18 <oklopol> well, actually, tag systems
22:53:26 <oklopol> that's pretty much on the same level as 110
22:53:30 <SimonRC> When I entered "ANKOS".
22:53:31 <oklopol> and there's esolangs for that
22:53:47 <oklopol> for example bitwise cyclic tag
22:53:54 <SimonRC> is that TC?
22:53:57 <oklopol> yes
22:54:02 <pikhq> Yes.
22:54:08 <SimonRC> woah
22:54:16 <oklopol> tag systems are, and bct can be proven to be able to simulate any tag system
22:54:43 <SimonRC> BCT is a great way to show that many queue-based esolangas are TC
22:54:44 <oklopol> ankos simulates a turing machine using a tag system
22:55:34 <oklopol> yeah, unfortunately no one seems to be able to program with q's
22:55:43 <oklopol> at least i haven't really seen any programs
22:56:23 <oklopol> or are there ones on the wiki? i'll take a lookie
22:57:14 <lament> bct does seem to be pretty simple
22:58:53 <oklopol> i recall reading that page and wondering "ok, i get this queue thing, now where's the commands?"
22:59:02 <lament> haha
23:05:40 <SimonRC> Who in here was the Calxist?
23:05:59 <SimonRC> (Unless it wasn't in here.)
23:06:40 <lament> google hits are cryptic.
23:08:48 <test__> Hmm. So if <, > is left, right, ^, v is up, down, ` is northeast, , is southeast... what's northwest or sourthwest?
23:09:08 <lament> unicode characters :)
23:09:12 <test__> :P
23:09:17 <test__> * will do, i guess.
23:09:28 <lament> (i've never seen a "southwest" character.. does it actually exist?)
23:09:36 <lament> backcomma?
23:09:41 <test__> probably not
23:09:51 <test__> Aha
23:09:57 <test__> ¬ can be northwest
23:10:02 <lament> that's not ascii
23:10:05 <test__> so what
23:10:21 <lament> if you're not limited to ascii, just use the quotation mark
23:10:28 <lament> like ` but the other way
23:10:44 <test__> ¬ is easy to type on most keyboards.
23:10:50 <lament> it is?
23:10:56 <lament> how?
23:11:02 <test__> shift-`
23:11:06 <lament> ~
23:11:13 <test__> bleh.
23:11:24 <lament> test__: not on any keyboard i've ever seen, although i suppose it's different in Europe
23:11:27 * SimonRC suggests ^7>JvL<F
23:11:42 <SimonRC> or better, kulnjbhy
23:11:44 <SimonRC> :-)
23:12:07 <oklopol> not in finland
23:12:10 <SimonRC> (weirdly I could write that most easily by imagining a game of nethack in front of me)
23:12:15 <oklopol> that char is in no keyboards here
23:12:21 <oklopol> well, none i've seen
23:12:28 <lament> use nethack direction letters
23:12:32 <lament> :)
23:12:49 <SimonRC> jbhykuln
23:12:56 <test__> well, here's
23:12:59 <SimonRC> lament: like I just said, sigh
23:13:09 <test__> an example of the game-like language i mentioned a while ago:
23:13:15 <SimonRC> anyway, none of you seem to be Calxists.
23:13:22 <test__> } is southwest, btw:
23:13:22 <oklopol> no!
23:13:26 <test__> http://pastie.caboo.se/78713
23:13:48 <test__> each frame is a picture of each state hitting some wall and changing direction
23:14:19 <test__> erm, the last one is wrong
23:19:55 <test__> conditionals etc would be done with special walls that change direction depending on some condition
23:23:38 <test__> it can't be that bad =P
23:24:27 <lament> fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Latin_alphabet_world_distribution.png
23:24:31 -!- sebbu2 has joined.
23:36:49 <SimonRC> sebbu2: wow, you shut us up
23:37:07 <SimonRC> sebbu2: you aren't the Calxist, by any chance, are you?
23:40:49 <oklopol> test__: where's the closure?
23:43:43 -!- sebbu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
23:50:30 <test__> oklopol, ?
23:50:47 <test__> the closure is an >enclosure<
23:50:53 <test__> it encloses the >
23:52:53 <oklopol> oh
23:52:59 <oklopol> i though you mean closure
23:53:02 <oklopol> *meant
23:53:53 <oklopol> i'm having trouble changing between english and finnish
23:54:00 <oklopol> not that i'd have made that many errors
23:54:24 <oklopol> i just constantly get the feeling i used the wrong language
23:58:14 <lament> with two languages as similar as english and finnish, no surprise you get confused :)
23:59:06 <oklokok> it's weird how i can immediately spot small errors in writing, but i can sometimes be completely unable to actually tell which language i'm looking at
23:59:40 <oklokok> not immediately as in i'm supergood at that
23:59:40 <lament> well, there're certain symptoms that are usually a dead giveaway.
23:59:42 <oklokok> but pretty good
23:59:54 <oklokok> what's a dead giveaway? :D
←2007-07-12 2007-07-13 2007-07-14→ ↑2007 ↑all