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