00:00:33 idempotency is a special case of absorption 00:00:54 "So this can be used to make algrebraic structures which include absorption like idempotent semirings (which are also called dioids), but rings are not one of those structures." <-- I only mean that rings do not include the axiom a + a = a that is found in idempotent semirings 00:01:02 heyo 00:01:03 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 00:01:30 If R is a ring, it's not necessarily true that a + a = a for all a in R. 00:01:39 yeah it can't be true 00:01:50 because + forms an abelian group 00:01:51 Which is what I thought that statement said. 00:02:05 Rings are not one of those structures. That has a + a = a for all a. 00:02:07 i thought you meant absorption in multiplication 00:02:29 Idempotent semirings don't have that. 00:02:47 "In algebraic terms, the first program absorbs the second during sequential composition." <<< sequential composition = multiplication 00:03:09 so you are saying rings can't have ab = a 00:03:21 I may be misusing the term "absorb" there. 00:03:35 did you mean a + b = a? 00:03:50 then that makes no sense in the context, because sequential composition is not addition 00:03:54 I mean, in the case that the program b doesn't halt, a * b = b. Not in the general case. If both a and b halt, a * b = c. 00:04:14 okay, so you were talking about multiplication 00:04:26 and you can have ab = a in a ring. 00:04:40 so what you're saying on the page does not make sense. 00:04:48 OK, so I'll probably reword it. 00:05:47 Can you have ab = a in an infinite ring? 00:06:36 take an idempotent matrix 00:07:44 also it should be simple to construct an example with a!=b, for instance with matrices 00:08:00 i assume you know matrices form a ring, if you don't, they do 00:09:25 heyo augur 00:09:27 OK. Well, that's actually very encouraging for the possibility that programs could form a ring with * being sequential composition. You'd just have to have a * b = b for all b that never halt :) 00:09:34 oklopol hey 00:09:49 wanna hear something funky cool about english grammar that noone has a great explanation for? 00:10:20 cpressey: there's one slight problem tho, the addition must form an abelian group, how were you planning to invert parallelization ;) 00:10:32 parallel is rather naturally abelian, i guess 00:10:38 augur: yes! 00:10:51 consider these two sentences 00:10:53 i'll try to explain it without a second of thought 00:10:55 or not 00:11:16 "Which article did mary file ___?" 00:11:17 and 00:11:26 "Which article did Mary read the book before filing ___?" 00:11:42 where the ___ denotes a gap/missing word associated with "which article" 00:11:48 the first is good, the second is horrible 00:12:04 augur: Can you give an example for ____ in the first case? 00:12:15 cpressey: what do you mean? 00:12:45 augur: Can you provide a word associated with "which article" which you can include in your first sentence in place of the ____ ? 00:12:46 the ___ just denotes the space that "article" would normally be found it were this NOT a question 00:12:47 e.g. 00:13:03 "Mary read the book before filing the article" 00:13:55 in the statement, you find "the article" after "filing", whereas in the sentence you dont. so i'm just putting a ___ to denote where the article phrase would be in a declarative sentence 00:14:32 or really, you can see it as (necessarily) empty position that you understand to be associated with "which article" 00:15:39 Well, in your first sentence you have the word "file" and in your second sentence you have the word "filing". If your first sentence was "Which article did Mary filing ___?" it would be equally horrible. Moreso, actually. So I'm not sure how it's even a fair comparison. 00:15:45 the second is "Before filing which article did Mary read the book" with which article in the beginning? 00:16:11 cpressey: thats irrelevant to the point 00:16:14 maybe i'll read what's been said 00:16:24 because the non-question sentence "Mary read the book before filing the article" is fine 00:16:31 Completely lost today, I guess I am :) 00:16:33 its not about the verb, its about the gap 00:16:49 augur: See, I never bought that question-formation works like that. 00:16:59 whether you buy HOW it works is irrelevant 00:17:08 characterize it in a dependency grammar sense for all i care 00:17:33 the point is that theres this dependency between "which article" and "filing" in the second sentence which is BAD 00:17:43 but between "which article" and "file" in the first sentence which is FINE 00:17:46 augur: the sentence looked horrible to me at first, but now i'm kinda getting used to it :P 00:17:58 oklopol: thats ok, thats irrelevant to the point too ;) 00:18:00 so! 00:18:03 moving on to the interesting fact 00:18:11 lets mash these two sentences together 00:18:19 "which article did Mary file ___ before reading ___?" 00:18:22 completely fine. 00:18:44 what did mary file! 00:18:51 yeah 00:18:53 the gap in the "before VERBing ___" clause is suddenly completely fine 00:19:00 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has joined. 00:19:26 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 00:19:33 interesting 00:19:35 I don't believe there was ever a gap there. But I'm sure you'll say that's irrelevant :) 00:19:36 somehow the adverbial clause gap becomes _acceptable_ when theres also a main clause gap 00:19:47 cpressey: are you fucking listening? 00:19:54 -!- jcp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:19:56 the term gap is a purely descriptive tool 00:20:10 Did I say it wasn't? 00:20:12 whether there was a gap there is irrelevant. describe it, theorize about it, HOWEVER you want 00:20:17 cpressey: you did understand the gaps aren't variables, they just describe where the article would be if it wasn't a question? 00:20:25 i mean you can't actually put anything there 00:20:47 and by the article i mean "the article" 00:20:48 oklopol: in chomskyan linguistics, the gaps actually _are_ variables, sort of. ;) 00:21:10 well you know what i meant :) 00:21:33 i mean, if you did this with CCG there's no such thing as a gap; it all just builds up by function application 00:22:08 the point is not how you characterize it, the term gap is a purely descriptive phenomena. normally "file" and "read" have direct objects after them, but in questions they dont, so you can describe that as a "gap". 00:22:37 if you want to take that idea seriously as a part of your theoretical apparatus, fine, if you don't, fine, but the descriptive term is just a descriptive term, used to name a phenomena 00:23:14 call it "an atypical location of Direct Object" or a "question position of Direct Object" 00:23:15 i dont care. 00:23:51 now that i've given cpressey the smackdown he so rightly deserved 00:23:57 i was just checking that he had an epiphany after asking "cpressey: augur: Can you provide a word associated ..." 00:24:04 oklopol: noone reeeaaally knows how to characterize those sentences 00:24:49 cool. 00:25:05 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 00:25:08 of course, i'd appreciate this more if i knew what things do have a good characterization :P 00:25:18 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:25:45 "i'd be more interested in this linguistics stuff if i knew anything about linguistics" 00:25:57 :p 00:26:24 i'd be interested in this interesting stuff if i knew anything about interest 00:26:59 well, we have lots of great ways of describing all sorts of good sentences and bad sentences and why they're good vs. bad 00:27:00 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 00:27:01 Should I try to explain that I don't think the concept "where the article would be if it wasn't a question" doesn't really make sense when you 00:27:07 're analyzing questions? 00:27:10 sure 00:27:18 cpressey: no, because it doesnt matter 00:27:21 although you might want to /ignore augur 00:27:22 ;) 00:27:39 my use of that description was purely to make it easier to understand the issue at hand 00:28:18 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:28:32 Right, and no alternative explanation would help shed any light on it. 00:28:49 it was the first thing i tried. 00:29:13 whether or not an alternative explanation would help is also irrelevant, because you're bitching about the first thing i tried 00:29:29 which obviously WORKED because you know what the point of it was 00:29:43 You tried to analyze "file before reading" as an atomic verb? 00:29:48 that you dont like describe it in that fashion is IRRELEVANT to the communicative intent of that phrasing. 00:29:53 what 00:30:23 So that wasn't the first thing you tried? 00:30:36 explain what you're saying because now _you've_ lost _me_ 00:30:53 Shame, I gotta go home. 00:30:58 See y'all later. 00:31:00 -!- cpressey has left (?). 00:31:11 if you think of it as an atomic verb, then it seemingly makes sense, say you can't have anything but "which article did mary kill" is ok, "which article did mary file before reading" is ok, the example with the book has "two verbs" 00:31:18 *say you can't have anything but one verb 00:31:38 its obviously not a single whole unanalyzed verb 00:31:38 see ya 00:32:10 "Which article did Mary file before throwing into the garbage out back?" 00:32:26 :P 00:32:38 "file-before-throwing-into-the-garbage-out-back" is now one giant verb! 00:34:38 yeah well i was thinking file needs an object, and because it doesn't get one, you treat it as a lambda which you'll apply "article later", and the same happens with read, and "file before reading" has two lambdas around before, so you make a new verb that forks its argument to both file and read 00:34:49 not sure that makes much sense, that's how i just feel like i'm reading it 00:35:02 *just how it 00:35:03 * 00:35:05 aiuoerh 00:35:07 *i 00:35:32 right, it does need a object 00:35:53 but you dont need a gap in the second part, right 00:36:16 "which article did mary file after reading this book?" 00:36:26 and it cant simply be a fork to both lambdas 00:37:16 i mean if that WERE your explanation for the goodness of the two-gap sentence, then you have to explain why there are two classes of one-gap sentences 00:37:21 DO-of-main-verb gaps 00:37:22 which are fine 00:37:33 and DO-of-adjunct-clause-verb gaps which are bad 00:37:49 gtg, ill be back in a bit 00:38:15 well, the rule could be that the first verb needs to be the only one that needs the article; makes sense because you only need to remember what's being "whiched" until some other ...subject appears 00:39:12 so file before reading is okay because you'll make those into one verb, file before reading the book is okay, because when you reach the book, you'll "forget about the article", but your original example has the book, but you still need to remember the article 00:39:48 i mean that's just what i'd guess, you can probably easily find a counterexample, and i'm not even sure what it is i'm saying, i don't really have a good model of language in my head. 00:42:51 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds). 00:58:00 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 01:05:47 -!- augur has joined. 01:05:58 ok hello 01:06:04 sorry what was your rule, oklopol? 01:08:14 augur, 01:08:14 00:42 -!- augur [~augur@129-2-175-79.wireless.umd.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 01:09:56 augur: that you only remember what you're "whiching" until there's a first subject, so you just build up a verb that will be applied to "the article" later, until some other subject appears, then you just forget about the article. 01:10:58 basically you just have "which X does Mary V ..." where V is some verb applied to X, and ... can be any additional info 01:11:05 (like before reading the book) 01:14:30 but V can also be a fork. i have no idea what it would be in general. 01:14:41 but some sorta lambda 01:48:17 oklopol: what do you mean a first subject?? 01:48:32 the word being gapped here, which is linked to the WH phrase, isnt a subject, its an object 01:48:41 so please explain in more detail 02:00:56 sorry, i mean "object other than the one being whiched", not "subject" 02:00:57 but 02:02:18 really what i mean is you can just have one verb after the which, without an object. "which X does Mary V ..." is the only possible structure. 02:03:09 so always "which object does subject verb", but you can then continue the sentence anyway you like, you just can't add stuff in between 02:03:31 would you consider "the article mary read the book before filing" okay? 02:03:46 was just wondering if the "which" is necessary 02:04:27 no thats horrible too. 02:04:35 its pretty much ANY gapping of that sort 02:04:52 yeah 02:04:56 using a WH phrase was just a convenient way to demonstrate it. 02:05:53 see the problem is that the GOOD version has TWO gaps 02:06:15 "the article mary has always wanted to read" and stuff work, but "the article mary has a cousin who read" and friends don't work, i think it's the object that does it 02:06:26 augur: yeah and i explained it with a fork 02:06:30 so it seems like a strange thing to say that the rule is that once you see a direct object you discard the stored phrase 02:06:54 secondly, that depends on a specifically linear model, but your fork doesnt, so you have to make them work together 02:06:59 i don't think it's strange. the verb can just consist of multiple verbs 02:07:06 and thirdly, its not just english that allows it, right 02:07:17 other languages have parasitic gaps too, but in the OPPOSITE ORDER 02:07:25 so in japanese, for instance, i believe the gap structure is like this: 02:07:52 [___ V before] S ___ V 02:08:02 "augur: secondly, that depends on a specifically linear model, but your fork doesnt, so you have to make them work together" <<< i don't understand this 02:08:24 the way you explained why the bad version is bad depends on the linear order of the words 02:08:36 it doesnt have anything to do with the structure of the sentence 02:08:52 and crucially, gapping seems to be structurally, not linearly, defined 02:09:13 i see. can you give me an example where my idea doesn't work though? 02:09:27 i mean that would be much more enlightening 02:11:15 for english, no, sorry. but im not ENTIRELY clear on your description of the rule, to begin with 02:11:27 i mean, ok, i can probably give you an example without a parasitic gap 02:11:37 e.g. a sentence with a gap that linearly crosses another direct object 02:11:44 and those are trivially constructable 02:13:51 would that help you understand what i mean? 02:14:00 maybe 02:14:12 i think it would be a counterexample to my rule 02:14:54 well you could always say that your rule only applies to PGs ;P 02:15:04 so for example 02:15:07 because in my rule, which i do not claim i understand that clearly myself, you can't have a gap crossing any other object, the gap always comes right away. 02:15:36 who did [the man that john saw] speak to ___? 02:15:44 hmm 02:15:53 or well 02:16:01 that doesnt cross an in-place object 02:16:01 so 02:16:09 who did [the man that saw john] speak to ___? 02:16:16 where "john" in this one is the object 02:16:27 what are you talking about language? 02:16:28 as far as anyone can tell, these constructions have nothing to do with linear order 02:16:40 infact, no language seems to care about linear order, as far as anyone knows 02:16:42 lament: yes 02:19:10 augur: oh but i'd just apply my rule recursively, "the man that john saw" is okay, gap before direct object, then "who did X speak to" is okay, gap before direct object. 02:20:05 ok but how do you characterize the domain of applicability then 02:20:26 and then how do you get the fact that in other languages the order doesnt matter to PGs 02:21:38 can you define PG = parasitic gap, is it just this general concept of gap? 02:21:59 a parasitic gap is the second gap in "which article did mary file ___ before reading ___" 02:22:11 where if it were the only gap, it would be bad, but because of the presence of the first gap, it becomes good 02:22:46 i can't explain other languages, because i don't know them 02:22:51 oh wait i know finnish 02:22:53 let's see 02:23:01 you dont need to know another language that does this :P 02:23:07 you just have to realize that its not linear order 02:24:04 and its not about objects, either, you can cross subjects too 02:24:29 "augur: ok but how do you characterize the domain of applicability then" <<< always applies 02:24:48 no no i mean what is the domain that you recursively apply this to 02:25:05 what is the object that is recursively analyzed 02:25:16 well i dunno... i just think "the man that saw john" is a normal subject 02:25:16 its not simply all substrings of the sentence, obviously 02:25:24 ofcourse its a normal subject 02:26:39 so what we have is an instance of the pattern "who did X speak to", which is okay, and X is okay as well; i guess i'd say if there's any parsing that makes it work, it works. 02:27:40 right, but what im asking is how do you know what to look at when you're asking what is ok 02:27:53 you're segmenting the sentence into two domains to investigate 02:27:58 who did X speak to 02:27:59 and 02:28:02 the man that saw john 02:28:04 not, say 02:28:07 who did the man that 02:28:07 and 02:28:11 saw john speak to 02:28:33 "if there's any parsing that makes it work, it works.", segment it into any amount of domains, if it works with some segmentation, it works. 02:29:17 you cant just say if theres ANY segmentation that makes it work 02:29:36 why not, is it obviously false? 02:30:00 "which file did mary read the book before filing ___" 02:30:04 segment this into two parts 02:30:18 which file did Mary VP before filing ___ 02:30:26 and VP = read the book 02:30:32 thus in VP theres no violation 02:30:37 i mean i don't think this phenomenon happens on the same level as parsing, i think i already know it's "who did [the man that saw john] speak to ___?" when i start thinking about gaps, so the recursion works 02:30:39 hmm 02:30:40 and in the other one theres no violation 02:31:23 there's no violation in VP, but there is in "which file did Mary VP before filing ___", therefore it doesn't work. 02:31:29 no there isnt 02:31:36 sure there is, VP has an object 02:31:43 yes but so does X in yours! 02:31:56 hmm, yes 02:32:02 let me think, maybe you're right 02:33:55 oh but umm, even though X does have an object, the "type of X" is clearly just a subject. the type of "Mary VP before filing" is not a verb, and does not fit the pattern "which file did mary verb before filing" 02:34:07 yeah but what does that have to do with it 02:34:17 this is why i said whats the domain of these analyses 02:34:41 because if i can just choose any object in the syntax to separate along, e.g. the VP, then theres no problem 02:34:55 i'm saying there is a violation in "which file did Mary VP before filing ___", because it's not of the form "which file did mary V ...", which is the only allowed pattern. 02:35:13 what do you mean the only allowed pattern 02:35:53 that all sentences that start with "which file did mary " must be followed by a verb without an object, forming a lambda that's then applied to "file". 02:36:51 and "Mary VP before filing" isn't a lambda in this case, i don't know why it isn't, my guess was that VP contains an object, i just know verbs are, and certain forks are. 02:37:18 thats not true tho 02:37:22 which file did mary ask john about 02:37:46 which person did mary talk to john about 02:38:03 who did mary give the pot to 02:38:06 etc etc 02:38:28 not questioning the subject does not mean questioning the object 02:38:43 what building did mary read the book in 02:40:00 the first ones i think roughly follow my idea, the last one doesn't 02:40:49 now it's okay to have another object before the gap because it isn't a verb that's applied to building, there's a preposition 02:42:00 anyway if you feel like i'm on the wrong track, i'll just trust on your intuition even if i don't trust in your counterexamples. 02:42:17 probably i haven't solved the problem if linguists haven't. 02:42:18 who did mary tell john about 02:42:29 tell obviously can take a person as a direct object 02:42:31 well again 02:42:32 and who can be that object 02:42:33 tell takes two args 02:42:44 "so tell john about" is just a one-arg verb 02:42:55 what 02:42:55 so i still don't think that's a counterexample 02:42:59 no its not 02:43:05 it IS a counter example 02:43:12 your rule does not rule it out 02:43:15 "to tell john about X" is a verb with one argument 02:43:25 "to tell john about X" is not a verb 02:43:30 oh. 02:43:38 its a whole fucking phrase :P 02:43:48 its also an infinitival subjectless sentence 02:44:02 and again, Japanese. 02:44:15 or Irish. 02:44:55 i'd just say tell is a verb that takes two right arguments, in "to tell john about" you've just curried the first one 02:45:49 What's this about Japanese? 02:45:55 i mean what the fuck does it even matter if that's not something that usually makes sense, if it makes sense in this case, i have fitted your counterexample in my model. 02:46:21 or more like it already fit in it, i just probably have a weird model of language in my head because i don't know any of your fancy linguistics stuff. 02:46:22 * pikhq logreads 02:47:10 augur: Yeah, that is the gap structure of Japanese. 02:47:56 oklopol: ok, let me put it to you this way 02:48:18 "who did mary give the pot to" how is this not a direct application of my idea? "give the pot to" is a verb with one argument 02:48:22 give me a full _algorithm_ that is not ambiguous or vague. 02:48:56 oklopol: fine, but then the VP in the bad sentence is ALSO a verb with one argument 02:49:15 also, "give the pot to" is a two argument verb 02:49:20 the object of giveing-pot-to 02:49:22 and the subject 02:49:24 oh wait right 02:49:33 i didn't notice, because it doesn't matter 02:49:38 right 02:49:44 you just shift the argument number up one 02:49:49 but umm 02:50:14 you are right about the VP thing, my rule is pretty vague 02:50:19 the point is, the linear ordering doesnt matter 02:50:29 because other languages with different linear ordering have the SAME constraint 02:51:36 dont try to solve it oklopol, its not an easy problem to solve :p 02:51:57 okay i can't really explain why "Mary does something before filing ___" is not okay while "mary tells john about ___" is, i can just explain why the latter one clearly is (currying). 02:52:11 yeah true 02:52:25 well its not just "does something" right 02:53:06 its "does something" where that phrase, whatever it is, doesnt have a gapped item 02:53:12 its not even direct object, right 02:53:21 "which book did mary tell john about ___ before reading ___" 02:53:42 "which book did mary see ___ burn to pieces after reading ___" 02:53:45 etc 02:53:55 tho interestingly, not the other way around 02:54:22 "which book did mary read ___ before ___ burnt/burning" 02:54:45 wait that's not okay? 02:55:53 not on the reading where the book just spontaneously burnt to pieces 02:55:54 "augur: its "does something" where that phrase, whatever it is, doesnt have a gapped item" yeah as i said, it's okay if it results in a one-arg verb, otherwise not. gap = one-arg verb 02:56:01 if it was mary doing the burning then sure its fine 02:56:15 "which book did mary read ___ before ___ fell/falling shut" 02:56:28 oh right 02:57:03 im not saying it doesnt have to do with the VP being a one-arg/two-arg thing right 02:57:10 im saying it doesnt have to do with the LINEAR ORDER 02:58:24 okay maybe i'm not understanding correctly what you mean by linear order, you mean it can't be the case that it actually wants the gap to be just to the right of the "which article" thingie, but that the reason must have to do with something else? 02:59:23 i mean it has nothing to do with the dependency crossing an object 02:59:46 lets try to construct a different example 03:00:35 "mary read the book before filing yesterday the article" is bad where yesterday modifies "read" 03:00:50 "mary read before filing yesterday the article" is fine where yesterday modifies "read" 03:00:52 -!- coppro has joined. 03:01:10 so in this case "the article" is to the right of its gap 03:01:28 so the dependency doesnt cross another direct object 03:01:34 and yet its still unacceptable 03:02:23 the sentence is not of the form "the X that ...", i don't directly see what these have to do with each other 03:02:44 neither is the original! 03:03:01 well yeah it was "which" 03:03:02 "which article did mary read the book before filing" is not of the form "the X that ..." either 03:03:02 same thing 03:03:14 "the article mary read the book before filing" 03:03:14 and we already established that it has nothing to do with the "which" 03:03:30 oklopol 03:03:42 i just showed you that the CONSTRAINT STILL APPLIES 03:03:48 and yet your description of the required sentence DOESNT 03:04:15 you have failed to explain the phenomena because you have no explanation for the RIGHTWARD filler-gap badness 03:04:27 my description was only about cases where you have some sort of "the X that ..." or "which X ..." 03:04:34 yes and thats the problem 03:04:38 i agree 03:04:45 your description ONLY explains the leftward filler-gap case 03:04:49 but not the rightward one 03:05:14 and more generally, its OBVIOUSLY got nothing to do with the direction --- the violations are EXACTLY the same regardless of direction 03:05:24 i don't even think "mary read before filing yesterday the article" is a good sentence. 03:05:34 well, you might need a heavier NP 03:05:50 "mary read before filing yesterday every TPS report that had been left on her desk in the last week" 03:06:11 oh right, i see 03:06:15 silly me 03:06:18 Yeah, that parses just fine. 03:06:45 It just seems very unusual with that syntax structure and having only a single noun as the object of "read". 03:06:55 5yeah 03:07:14 Make it longer, and it's magically idiomatic. 03:07:23 ... Not the correct word in this context. 03:07:23 :P 03:07:31 rightward extraposition is almost always done for weightedness of the phrase being moved 03:07:35 Magically normal-seeming. 03:07:37 There we go. 03:09:32 you also need the right intonation 03:09:35 thats another thing, right 03:09:46 sometimes without the correct intonation a sentence will sound horrible 03:09:51 i have to go do some homework, i admit i have no idea how to solve the problem in that sort of sentence, cya. 03:10:01 Oh, certainly. 03:10:08 oklopol, dont worry, noone else does either :) 03:10:16 pikhq: presumably its because intonation indicates structure 03:10:33 so without the right intonation, you're just not conveying the right structure, so it IS bad 03:10:43 augur: Yeah. 03:10:57 -!- Sgeo_ has changed nick to Sgeo. 03:11:04 i usually draw parentheses in the air with my hands with complicated sentences 03:11:05 thats the problem with language, we cant enforce a structure, we have to use this linear mechanism 03:11:10 but the question is ALL about structure 03:11:25 oklopol: sure, but that also sort of doesnt work with the average person 03:11:41 Y'know, it's kinda funny... It seems to me many people have this odd idea that intonation is limited to various Asian languages... (Y'know, since Chinese is tonal and all) 03:11:58 Even though there's probably not a language *without* intonation being significant in some way. 03:12:18 (if there is a language without significant intonation, its name is Lojban.) 03:12:20 pikhq: no no intonation isnt what people think is limited to many asian languages 03:12:26 rather, TONE is 03:12:29 well not just but 03:12:32 augur: Right. 03:12:33 english doesnt have TONE 03:12:37 but it has intonation 03:12:41 the two are not the same 03:12:43 augur: Intonation is merely ignored. 03:12:51 indeed 03:13:16 augur: Sorry. Minor bit of confusion there. 03:13:20 I really should know better. 03:13:30 it isn't tone that questions have in the end? 03:13:48 oklopol: well, intonation and tone are closely related 03:14:06 in that both are primary tone, right 03:14:15 so questions have high intonation at the end of them, usually 03:14:33 but tone is a property of words or syllables 03:14:44 true 03:15:08 i mean i don't know what primary tone is, but otherwise 03:15:15 er 03:15:35 also the tone at the end of questions is mostly ignored as well 03:15:36 the tone underlying the harmonics 03:17:20 okay sleep and/or homework 03:17:21 -> 03:17:38 see ya 03:21:10 -!- SimonRC_ has joined. 03:27:20 -!- SimonRC has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 03:27:54 -!- bsmntbombdood__ has joined. 03:29:59 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 03:38:24 -!- oerjan has joined. 03:39:54 -!- Asztal has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 03:54:41 -!- yiyus has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 04:01:56 -!- MizardX has quit (Excess Flood). 04:02:05 -!- pthing has changed nick to Pthing. 04:03:00 -!- oklopol has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 04:03:32 -!- MizardX has joined. 04:07:10 -!- yiyus has joined. 04:09:00 -!- jcp has joined. 04:11:53 -!- MizardX has quit (Excess Flood). 04:12:16 -!- MizardX has joined. 04:27:29 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 04:31:32 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 04:32:20 -!- coppro has joined. 04:39:13 -!- MissPiggy has quit (Quit: Lost terminal). 05:08:13 -!- bsmntbombdood__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds). 05:16:51 -!- MizardX has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 05:25:09 -!- bsmntbombdood__ has joined. 05:27:26 -!- augur has joined. 05:40:09 -!- bsmntbombdood__ has changed nick to bsmntbombdood. 05:44:21 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 05:45:05 -!- coppro has joined. 05:54:40 -!- jcp has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 05:55:52 -!- jcp has joined. 06:08:49 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 06:43:08 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Verily So). 06:56:43 -!- jcp has quit (Quit: I will do anything (almost) for a new router.). 07:06:08 -!- deschutron has joined. 07:58:15 -!- oklopol has joined. 07:59:02 -!- addicted has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:13:45 `swedish This is an example sentence right here. 08:13:50 Thees is un ixemple-a suntunce-a reeght here-a. \ Bork Bork Bork! 08:26:33 -!- MizardX has joined. 08:27:30 -!- Asztal has joined. 08:30:20 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 08:33:21 -!- deschutron has left (?). 09:03:30 -!- oklopol has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 09:03:54 -!- oklopol has joined. 09:07:38 -!- gm|lap has quit (Quit: 2 hour UPS expired. Shutting down laptop.). 09:10:30 -!- addicted has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 09:11:18 -!- addicted has joined. 09:44:41 -!- kar8nga has joined. 10:19:24 -!- FireFly has joined. 10:21:44 hm 10:22:26 -!- tombom has joined. 10:22:27 what about a piet/bf polygot? I do think it would actually be possible, since bf ignores anything but +-<>[],. 10:22:57 so as long as the image header or such requires that there is unbalanced [] in it or similar it should be possible 10:23:21 s/such requires/such doesn't require/ 10:24:11 a piet quine also sounds quite interesting 10:26:47 -!- Asztal has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds). 10:44:14 -!- oklopol has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 10:44:45 -!- oklopol has joined. 10:54:14 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 10:58:21 AnMaster: If you use the PPM image format, a piet/bf polyglot is boringly trivial: the PPM format is ascii-based, the "header" is just the string "P3", all the data is just decimal digits and newlines ignored by bf, and lines starting with # are PPM comments, so you can stick any brainfuck program there. 10:59:26 fizzie, hm, what format is usually used for piet? 10:59:31 png? bmp? ppm? 10:59:38 I don't really know, png would be my guess. 10:59:42 right 10:59:53 fizzie, a piet quine sounds more interesting 11:01:32 Yes. Or maybe even a multistage quine, where you have a .png file that's a Piet program that outputs a .bmp, which is a Piet program that outputs a .tiff, which is a Piet program that outputs the original .png. 11:01:41 hehe 11:02:03 Sounds nontrivial to write, though. 11:05:00 -!- addicted has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 12:19:12 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving). 13:03:56 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 13:26:49 nono you should make a chain of piet programs p1 ... pn s.t. pi outputs p(i+1), pn outputs p1, and they form an animation of some sort 13:27:00 like a dancing dude 13:27:36 -!- oerjan has joined. 13:32:11 oklopol: I am sure that sooner or later that sort of thing (incl. a Piet browser plugin to run them) will deprecate Flash for doing animated web ads. 13:34:08 probably also interactive stuff 13:50:48 -!- paramananda has joined. 14:00:09 * oerjan vaguely suspects paramananda is in the wrong channel 14:00:32 this is for esoteric programming languages, nothing to do with swamis of any kind :D 14:02:48 i don't think we have yet found a good esotericism channel to point people to 14:04:26 -!- lament has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 14:04:28 hm actually according to http://irc.netsplit.de/chat/esoteric.php, the #esoteric at DalNet looks promising 14:04:42 *DALnet 14:05:37 well, apart from having just 1 user, that is 14:05:53 -!- lament has joined. 14:06:39 alas, http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/details.php?room=%23esoteric&net=DALnet shows that being the mac 14:06:42 max 14:08:25 the rusnet one looks more promising actually (8 users), but you'd have to know russian 14:10:38 (topic transliterates as "ezoterika, mistika, magiya") 14:30:47 -!- paramananda has left (?). 14:40:46 -!- FireFly has joined. 14:56:54 Who said anything about swamis? 14:57:37 `google paramananda 14:57:43 Swami Paramananda (1884-1940) was one of the early Indian teachers who came to the United States to spread the Vedanta philosophy and religion in America. ... \ [13]Biography - [14]Works - [15]Books on and by Swami Paramananda 14:58:11 Ah 14:58:36 the -ananda is usually a dead giveaway :D 14:58:51 Well, I have to get ready to go to school 15:08:50 -!- cpressey has joined. 15:13:43 -!- Pthing has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 15:29:33 -!- deschutron has joined. 15:33:33 -!- Suprano has joined. 15:33:57 -!- Suprano has left (?). 15:37:50 hi fungot 15:37:51 deschutron: i don't know anyone who speaks latin would like to join in r.a.w...? 15:38:10 reductio ad whateverum 15:39:18 haha 15:39:36 sure, fungot, count me in 15:39:36 deschutron: deleted by fnord white user fnord 19:56, 20 october 2006 ( utc 15:40:02 fungot: i was deleted?! 15:40:03 deschutron: ' ' ' 15:40:21 fungot: fungot 15:40:22 deschutron: operation blue star: this was the first black man to receive a kbe. but, unfortunately the error function. but is the constitution the enabling act, or 15:40:57 ^style 15:40:58 Available: agora alice c64 ct darwin discworld europarl ff7 fisher ic irc jargon lovecraft nethack pa speeches ss wp* youtube 15:41:52 so fungot can be set to a style, can it? 15:42:17 ^style lovecraft 15:42:18 Selected style: lovecraft (H. P. Lovecraft's writings) 15:42:36 fungot: hey there, how's it hangin'? 15:42:58 fungot: fungot 15:43:10 ^style speeches 15:43:11 Selected style: speeches (misc. speeches from Project Gutenberg) 15:43:39 fungot: what is the only thing to fear? 15:53:14 fungot: stop ignoring deschutron please 15:53:16 oerjan: gentlemen, flushed with hope, burning with animosity, they agree in their votes, so to speak, or for iphicrates in the field, and in the course of athenian education, the administration of justice. 15:53:52 (it has a five response consecutive limit per person) 15:54:02 i see 15:54:38 fungot: what is the only thing to fear? 15:54:40 deschutron: the great french soldier, de fnord fnord fnord atque fnord fnord, saw the royal family: so as on one hand, and caused the seal of that great people were peculiar to themselves, the interest became still more absorbing. the fnord understanding, the rudest hand, is not a good hat, and asked me who had been talking prose all their lives without knowing anything of the sort since he built the tower of babel. the foreign 15:55:31 fnords to live by 15:55:34 Àêt¬r~lx@115-166-55-84.ip.adam.com.au: what an ignorance of human nature, that whoever takes a view of the court of louis. he was in truth a monster in jurisprudence. it signifies nothing whether a court for this purpose too the druids performed all their ceremonies in the bosom of france itself; we have been speaking had been members of large communities, and of which he had knocked down osborne and bidden defiance to 15:55:34 lol "the great french soldier, de fnord fnord fnord atque fnord fnord" 15:55:54 what the heck? 15:56:51 he must have noticed me quoting him 15:57:06 adam.com.au is my isp 15:57:52 well there's a bug in that... 15:58:02 also, i thought this channel censored colors 15:58:31 -!- scarf has joined. 15:59:31 ^bf +[.+] 15:59:32 .. !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬­®¯°±²³´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ ... 16:00:11 heh, my client interpreted that as a CTCP 16:00:16 mine too 16:00:16 with colour codes in! 16:00:40 oh i got no color (other than inverse video). hm... 16:00:43 ^bf ++[.+] 16:00:44 .. !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬­®¯°±²³´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐ ... 16:00:51 whoa 16:01:32 in fact that was what i wanted to test. why did the one above (just befor scarf joined) have colors? 16:01:40 i got no colour on that 16:02:06 i got no colour on the one before scarf joined 16:02:06 huh, i did. blue on black. 16:02:35 maybe that's just bold + inverted in my terminal 16:02:37 i'm using pidgin 16:02:38 or something 16:02:40 irssi 16:04:10 oh well, it was a strange bug - fungot giving a malformed response to deschutron without deschutron saying anything (afaict) 16:04:12 oerjan: speusippus. to sup with fnord. i have that inward and dignified consciousness of my own meditation. with eyes dimmed with fond and melancholy tears, she leaned over the fnord, if more and better food is any standard of melioration. they work more, it was the duty of such a compliment; and therefore, in a general way to know why he was in power, and that 16:04:28 fnords to live by 16:04:47 -!- MissPiggy has joined. 16:05:19 perhaps it was that the long response it was already giving got broken up into two lines somehow... 16:05:27 "the great french soldier, de fnord fnord fnord atque fnord fnord" 16:05:55 deschutron: i saw that after fungot's weird response, last time 16:05:56 oerjan: the objectors, education among the people for that object. they wish us to do is a mysterious and searching question which those may answer who know what it is. 16:06:34 oh 16:06:50 i sent it before i received his weird response 16:09:04 -!- kar8nga has joined. 16:10:04 by the way oerjan, i like your language CHIQRSX9+ 16:10:11 I like that last fungot quote, btw 16:10:12 scarf: nothing is more natural than that the parliament has possessed great power in the democracy under napoleon. napoleon might probably have lacked the information that certain monsters of virtue ever had existence. but it is not in the power of the keys of the fortress on his knees is daily studied, no sectarian ill-will nor narrow human dogma is permitted to do it. 16:10:40 thanks 16:11:41 i came across it recently. 16:12:11 oh, food -> 16:13:04 food? 16:14:21 oerjan: Yes, there's a sort of a "known bug" in that sometimes fungot gives partially corrupted spurious replies. It's proven to be a bit of a heisenbug. 16:14:23 fizzie: revolution, the french monarchy so low in the scale upon which they will intrigue to obtain, or of negligence scarcely less culpable. mr mitford has nevertheless told without any qualification, and at once the grand distinction to be asked to come amongst you. this is the subject of representation; much on the art of cementing the ties of party had superseded those of country, have been more pleasing. i shall introduce 16:17:08 deschutron: i'd been forgetting to eat 16:17:42 fizzie: i was wondering if it was related to having very long replies that get split somehow? 16:18:02 right. 16:18:21 i know the feeling 16:18:44 oerjan: It is possible that the reply-generation overflows something, yes. I don't remember if I have a hard limit for the number of tokens there, it has a stopping probability that grows as the number of already generated tokens increases though. 16:19:37 well does the formula for the stopping probability ever reach 1? 16:20:01 otherwise it's at least possible to grow without limit 16:21:00 I'm not sure, it's not completely trivial to read from the code. And I think it still will only stop if the model permits that, so if there's a nonzero-probability "loop" (context-wise, I mean) of nodes in the n-gram graph that do not have the "can stop" flag, it's possible to get stuck. 16:21:23 Might also be that there's a sensible limit of tokens, but the token → text conversion overwrites something. 16:21:24 ^style 16:21:25 Available: agora alice c64 ct darwin discworld europarl ff7 fisher ic irc jargon lovecraft nethack pa speeches* ss wp youtube 16:22:19 I have a feeling the speechification might have a larger average token length that something like IRC. But that's just a guess. 16:23:06 sesquipedalian loquaciousness, you mean 16:23:14 Yes, that. 16:31:01 -!- deschutron has left (?). 16:42:48 oklopol: I reworded http://catseye.tc/cpressey/louie.html#Potro -- hopefully it's clearer now. 16:48:15 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has joined. 16:49:02 tbh i'm still not completely happy with it :P 16:49:21 just thinking about "Unfortunately, we would need ..." 16:49:23 i mean 16:49:30 couldn't you just append them, and it halts it if halts 16:49:56 you don't actually have to know, because you can't invert programs anyway 16:49:59 Maybe. 16:50:18 True, I think I am still thinking along those lines. 16:51:04 Although, I suspect it's something to do with distributivity. I'll try to work it out. 17:01:27 try using it in a sentence 17:04:20 Well, I'm kind of working from an insight I had while working out Cabra. But I'm starting to think whatever that insight was, it was depending on + meaning parallel execution. 17:06:55 Say program a always halts but program b never halts. 17:07:24 In a ring, (a + b) * c = (a * c) + (b * c) 17:07:37 But b never halts, so b * c = b 17:07:45 But that still seems fine. 17:07:59 Just a little weird I guess. (a + b) * c = (a * c) + b 17:09:04 -!- oklogon has joined. 17:11:00 -!- oklopol has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 17:12:19 Hm. Damn, this might actually work! 17:14:38 No, not sure about that now. Say a never halts, b never halts, c always halts. Then: a * (b + c) = (a * b) + (a * c) = a + a. But: (a + b) * c = (a * c) + (b * c) = a + b. 17:15:04 No, wait. Maybe that's OK. 17:15:24 Nothing says a * (b + c) = (a + b) * c :) 17:17:07 OK, so. I admit, it looks like * in a ring could be pretty well suited to being sequential execution. 17:19:03 I would guess the bigger problems, now, are with making + commutative and invertible and non-absorptive. 17:21:08 Having a + b = b + a where a always halts and b never halts pretty much drives the semantics of + towards something parallel. 17:23:33 No, wait again. 17:23:37 Damn, need more coffee. 17:26:20 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 17:28:57 -!- scarf has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 17:29:33 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 17:33:42 Is it OK for every element of a ring to be its own additive inverse? a + a = e for all a? 17:33:53 -!- coppro has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 17:34:26 yes, those are rings of characteristic 2 iirc 17:34:40 Nice. Then I might have an idea. 17:36:04 (if you have a 1, and 1+1 = 0, then it follows automatically for everything else) 17:37:32 you and your "iirc" :P 17:38:43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_(algebra) 17:39:50 oklogon: well i did bump into it the other day during one of our discussions 17:40:18 i'm not sure if i knew the term applied to non-fields before 17:41:31 hmm well true i've never heard it with anything but fields 17:42:57 it would seem to include at least boolean rings among other things i already knew about 17:52:21 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 17:55:24 Hm, problem: additive inverses don't seem to play well with absorption. Say a never halts. Then a * (b + c) = a. Then a = (a * b) + (a * c) = a + a. So a = e. 17:55:52 Although, that does suggest the possibility of just making e = bottom :) 17:57:18 -!- coppro has joined. 17:59:27 *That* derivation is why it's so nice to have an algebra that gives you a + a = a. 18:03:18 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 18:05:03 i suppose doing something in parallel with something that never halts is pretty equivalent to doing it alone, intuitively, if you go by something like what results you eventually get... 18:08:21 multithread with one process checking the other to see if it ever loops 18:09:28 cpressey: also, e is intuitively additive 0, while bottom is intuitively multiplicative 0 18:10:08 oerjan: Yeah. I banged my head repeatedly against this particular wall while designing Cabra. 18:16:20 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 18:21:05 -!- coppro has quit (Quit: zoo time). 18:34:16 Hate to keep asking these things, but is it OK for every element of a ring to be idempotent wrt addition? a + a = a for all a? 18:34:43 nope 18:35:00 a + a = a <==> a = 0 18:35:08 Ah, because then what is a' in a + a' = 0. Right. 18:35:10 by adding the additive inverse 18:35:25 (to get from left to right) 18:35:43 -!- jcp has joined. 18:35:49 Well, that 18:35:56 That's why it's hard to get a ring. 18:36:58 Actually - forget "all a". Say there exist idempotent b and c, where b + b = b and c + c = c. Can b =/= c? 18:37:12 I don't think so. 18:37:55 a + a = a <==> a = 0, so b = c. 18:38:13 yes, b = c = 0 18:38:56 So there can only ever be one element where a + a = a. But if there is any "absorbative" element x where forall y, xy = x, then x + x = x. 18:39:15 So there can only be one "absorbative" element. 18:39:33 (There is probably a better word for "absorbative") 18:39:58 projections ? 18:41:24 Maybe projection... not sure. 18:41:51 -!- Asztal has joined. 18:42:16 Anyway, that means there can only be one program that never halts. Or, all programs that never halt are considered equivalent. 18:42:17 i don't see why "x where forall y, xy = x" wouldn't be possible, 18:42:48 cpressey: "zero" 18:43:08 oh i completely ignored the x + x = x 18:45:22 oerjan: Yes. 18:45:25 cpressey: also, if two programs x and y never halt, then x = xy = y 18:46:01 or wait 18:46:07 is there a name for an algebraic system with an infinity? 18:46:46 But for all programs x, there needs to exist a unique x' such that x + x' = 0. If bottom is zero, then x' is not unique. 18:46:52 oklogon: i've got this on my watchlist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory 18:46:58 non-halting could be infinity 18:48:02 oklogon: If addition is commutative, you'd need negative infinity too. 18:48:56 yes, the part where i ask for the name of such a structure was my main point 18:49:42 oklogon: Sorry, thinking of it in the context of my current train of thought. I don't know if such things have a specific name. 18:50:33 Kleene star is a kind of infinity, maybe. 18:54:09 oerjan: i'll have to check that out in-depth, would the extension of reals be the extended reals? 18:54:33 wait, kleene star is a value? 18:54:58 No. I should say, it's a kind of infinity-generating-operator-thing. 18:55:10 :) 18:56:14 -!- augur has joined. 18:56:55 Say 0 is bottom. Then a + 0 = a (where a =/= 0) means something like "run a in parallel with loops-forever, take a's result when done." a * 0 = 0 means something like "run loops-forever after a". Both are good. 18:57:00 But then, for a there is some a' where a + a' = 0. But what could you run in parallel with a that would equate to loops-forever? Maybe something that interferes with a (and only a) in such a way that causes a to loop forever. 18:57:00 oklogon: i'm not quite sure what it is, although there is at least both distinct 1/0 and 0/0 iirc 18:57:59 what's a watchlist 18:58:27 oklogon, on irc? 18:58:35 on wp 18:58:38 * AnMaster has not read context 18:58:54 cpressey: you could think of 0 more as "never gives a result", in which case looping forever may not be mandatory 18:58:58 oklogon, oh that, a way to "subscribe" to edits to certain pages 18:58:59 I believe it makes Wikipedia message you somehow whenever the page changes. 18:59:21 (that description is basically a simplification, but you get the idea) 18:59:36 i think that may be an option, although i just visit my watchlist page... 18:59:38 oerjan: OK, then a' is the "result killer" of a (and only a) 18:59:47 cpressey, yes it will also email you (there is a setting iirc for that) 18:59:59 (grammar fail) 19:00:26 oklogon, hm have you used your current nick before? 19:00:30 I don't remember seeing it 19:01:04 it's new 19:01:06 -!- oklogon has changed nick to oklopol. 19:01:09 cpressey: what you might want then, is for results to form a group 19:01:10 oklopol, it sounds like the name of a noble gas 19:01:21 and a' gives the inverse result of a 19:01:25 I guess I'm thinking of argon and such 19:02:20 oerjan: yes, that sounds like a good way to proceed. 19:03:09 Hm. Maybe food will help me think. bbl. 19:03:20 clearly an oklogon is a polygon with strange non-euclidean angles 19:03:24 "oklogon" must be some sort of an irr{egular,esponsive,ational,everent} shape, by way of analogy from polygon. 19:03:32 Gaah, oerjan strikes faster again. 19:04:14 And that was supposed to be irresponsible, not some strange "irresponsive". A compound fracture, I mean, failure. 19:06:11 a fractal compound 19:06:32 farctal 19:11:28 oerjan: Problem: We say b + 0 = b means "when b finishes, take its result". What if we have b + x, and b finishes before x. Do we take b's result or do we wait for x? If x is 0, we can't wait for it. But x might not be 0, so we have to wait for it. 19:11:43 I'm just reliving Cabra :) 19:11:50 Away for lunch for real this time. 19:12:21 the result only becomes known asymptotically 19:13:18 i suppose this could be a problem if it never stabilizes 19:28:46 -!- kar8nga has joined. 19:40:57 Or another way to put it would be, you need an oracle. if you have that, or you restrict the set to programs that always halt, I don't think there's a huge problem. 19:41:24 mhm 19:42:22 Say 0 maps all tapes to blank tapes, and programs refuse to run when the tape is blank. Obviously the initial tape can't always be blank, but whatever. 1 is the identity function on tapes. 19:42:59 Then, a + b -> run both and add their tapes. a * b -> run a then b. 19:43:13 err yes, obviously the -gon is from polygon 19:43:19 you were both slow 19:43:35 i was also oktagon at some point 19:43:40 * oerjan quickly swats oklopol -----### 19:43:42 possibly not here tho 19:44:56 cpressey: that won't distribute (a + b) * c properly unless c is linear 19:45:04 oerjan: Re wheels: it reminded me of an algebra I considered once, over the reals - {0}. Division, multiplication, addition are defined everywhere, but subtraction is not. 19:45:30 oerjan: Hm, I think you're right. 19:46:17 addition? how does that work? 19:46:37 or do you mean positive reals 19:47:23 Sorry, yeah. Addition of numbers with the same sign. (If subtraction is not defined, then neither is addition of different-parity numbers.) 19:47:44 addition of the numbers with the same sign? so it's a partial algebra 19:48:23 usually in an algebraic structure every function should be defined for all inputs 19:48:27 s/parity/sign/. don't know what i'm saying :) 19:48:38 yes that was clear 19:48:47 Well, I was inspired by division by zero being undefined in the reals. 19:48:54 (parity and sign are the same group) 19:49:55 |a| + |b| and -|a| + -|b| are defined, and you could consider them two new operations. 19:49:56 well, Q\0 and R\0 are both abelian groups w.r.t. multiplication, it's just adding the addition doesn't make, afaict, make it any known structure 19:50:26 but then you already have subtraction because -|a| + -|b| can be negative 19:50:29 unless it's partial 19:50:38 (some functions defined only for some inputs) 19:51:14 well anyway i need to go to sleep 19:52:38 Well, |a| + |b| and -|a| + -|b| are defined everywhere, but |a| + -|b| and -|a| + |b| are not defined everywhere. Maybe the terms "addition" and "subtraction" are misleading in this context. 19:53:06 'Night oklopol. 19:54:54 oerjan: From the Cabra doc: "I will go so far as to conjecture that, in fact, any semantics for parallel composition a+b (in an otherwise Cabra-like language) that combines results from both a and b will not be right-distributive." 19:55:41 That might be hard to get around, even for only the programs that always halt. 19:56:10 hm right the problem is how to run c on the results 19:56:21 if it can do anything with them 19:59:04 the * operation needs to distribute the multiple/negated results from the left part to different invocations of the right part 20:17:45 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Good night). 20:46:27 "oklogon" must be some sort of an irr{egular,esponsive,ational,everent} shape, by way of analogy from polygon. <-- possibly discworld related? 20:49:34 cpressey, couldn't you do addition with different sign as long as you don't have the same value on both sides? 20:50:17 unless I completely misunderstood you 20:50:42 after all 1 + (-42) = -41, but 1 + (-1) = 0, so the former case should work but the latter not? 20:51:12 -!- gm|lap has joined. 21:00:07 -!- jcp has quit (Quit: I will do anything (almost) for a new router.). 21:06:39 AnMaster: Yeah. It is defined, just not defined everywhere. Specifically a - a isn't defined. A bit like a / 0. 21:07:41 Well, I updated the Potro bit of my LoUIE page again, FWIW with the algebra fans asleep. :) 21:08:01 cpressey, indeed 21:10:00 I thought it was a nice "dual" of a field in some sense. 21:13:14 It might be a partial algebra, but if that's true, fields are partial algebras too. 21:56:48 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Quit: Leaving). 22:27:24 -!- kar8nga has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 22:32:48 oerjan: i solved it. 22:32:56 -> 22:34:46 cpressey, for R_+ \ {0} shouldn't addition, multiplication and division all be completely defined? Not substraction for a - b where b >= a though 22:35:12 oklopol, oerjan wasn't connected when you said that 22:35:14 AnMaster: Well, as oklopol pointed out, x + y isn't defined when x = -1 * y 22:35:32 AnMaster, hey I think you are right 22:35:38 * AnMaster considers that 22:35:45 cpressey, wut? I must be too tired 22:36:00 x = -1 * y can't happen in R_+ \ {0} (aka R_+) 22:36:04 AnMaster: Addition is subtraction when you have opposite sign values :) 22:36:10 MissPiggy, well yeah 22:36:14 Oh sorry 22:36:21 Didn't see the + in R_+ 22:36:24 R_+ meaning all positive reals (although some people use positive to include zero, when it's convenient..) 22:36:27 cpressey, right 22:36:41 MissPiggy, well I also added "\ {0}" after that 22:36:47 which should clearly exclude zero 22:37:08 AnMaster: Yes, your statement about R_+\{0} is true. 22:37:08 :( 22:37:17 why are you saying that I can tell you added \ {0} by reading 22:37:27 MissPiggy, what? 22:37:39 I can't even parse the grammar of that, nor the meaning 22:38:10 maybe some comma is missing? 22:39:20 cpressey, would it be possible to make some set where addition, multiplication, division are all defined for all possible combinations of values? 22:39:50 apart from the empty set that is ;P 22:40:52 alternative: define what division by zero means 22:41:13 cpressey, I suggest we "leave it to the reader/ask the user" ;P 22:42:42 AnMaster: Isn't R+_\{0} such a set? 22:43:19 cpressey, as I said, substraction is not 22:43:29 oh 22:43:31 Oh, did you mean to include subtraction? 22:43:32 I forgot that from the list 22:43:33 -_- 22:43:34 Ah. 22:43:35 cpressey, yes 22:44:38 it seems to me that subtraction and division are mutually exclusive when it comes to "defined for all values" 22:44:51 I agree. 22:44:53 I can't prove this though 22:45:03 cpressey, well the exception would be for the empty set of course 22:45:24 but I don't think that even makes sense 22:45:49 Every operation on elements of the empty set is well-defined! :) 22:46:10 cpressey, you could sometimes define division by zero as the limit when going towards zero I guess 22:46:24 doesn't work for all possible functions though 22:46:34 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 22:46:34 (such as constant functions) 22:47:08 Yeah, I'm not so happy with that. 22:47:11 or diverging (sp?) functions 22:48:51 -!- Sgeo has quit (Quit: Leaving). 22:49:08 cpressey, other things not to be happy with: that lim_{x→0}(sin(1/x)) is undefined. 22:49:13 -!- Azstal has joined. 22:49:25 Same for lim_{x→0}((sin(1/x))') of course 22:50:43 -!- Asztal has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 22:52:03 cpressey, why not add a NaN? Like we have i 22:52:12 as in, make NaN a real number 22:52:16 XD 22:52:28 NaN + NaN = NaN 22:52:39 cpressey, same goes for aleph_0 though 22:52:40 Therefore NaN = 0 22:52:48 cpressey, err no 22:52:56 (in context of ring theory stuff I was talking about earlier only :) 22:53:07 by that logic aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0 gives aleph_0 = 0 22:53:14 which is ridiculous 22:54:52 Earlier we were talking about how in a ring, if a + a = a, a must be 0. 22:56:32 Which might explain why aleph_0 doesn't often appear in the ring of reals. 22:57:01 cpressey, true 22:57:23 cpressey, neither does i. Since it by definition isn't a real 22:57:32 cpressey, but then the complex numbers are not a ring? 22:57:44 oh wait 22:57:46 it may be 22:57:56 We could define 1/0 as 1/0, irreducible. Basically, work on pairs of integers. 22:58:07 Probably falls apart somewhere. 22:58:07 true 22:58:32 I don't do complex numbers. :) 22:58:47 why not? 22:58:55 cpressey, you should do quaternions even 22:59:01 I dunno, they just never held any interest for me 22:59:42 cpressey, what about calculations with alternating current? They are rather useful there 23:00:11 or maybe you don't do that kind of stuff 23:02:45 Heh 23:03:13 Yeah, complex numbers might come in handy for computational induction. 23:03:22 hmm? 23:03:35 ahh 23:03:44 induction like electromagnetic currents 23:04:19 "Execution of instructions in one program induces execution of instructions in another, nearby program." Yes. 23:04:53 Which is an extremely silly idea. But fun. 23:06:18 "Execution of instructions in one program induces execution of instructions in another, nearby program." Yes. <-- I first thought "what are you messing around with by doing induction over an uncountable set" 23:06:35 Ha! Ugh. 23:07:03 hm is that possible btw? 23:07:09 I can't see how it would be 23:07:22 Well, I've heard of "transfinite induction" but I don't know if it's the same thing. 23:07:30 I see 23:07:33 * cpressey defers to the real mathematicians present 23:07:49 cpressey, oerjan is *not* present 23:08:31 "Execution of instructions in one program induces execution of instructions in another, nearby program." Yes. <-- you should make an esolang based on this 23:08:31 Well then I defer to wikipedia. 23:08:32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_induction 23:08:38 like, alternating ips 23:08:40 or something 23:09:13 I'd like to make an esolang of it, but I have too many other ideas, and no good idea where to start. 23:10:15 cpressey, so throw all the ideas into one esolang 23:10:45 I tried that. It's not pretty. 23:10:53 Also, it never gets finished. 23:16:12 -!- tombom has quit (Quit: Leaving). 23:21:58 from * import * 23:23:42 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 23:23:58 cpressey, does that work in python? 23:24:14 it would be rather interesting if it did 23:27:57 Alas, you can't have wildcards in the module-where-to-import-from. 23:28:07 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: Leaving). 23:30:39 No, but I was (briefly) considering supporting it in my own language... 23:31:56 -!- coppro has joined. 23:37:03 cpressey, I can think of reasons not to 23:38:53 Yeah. 23:40:28 But, the awesomeness. 23:40:33 "Just import everything." 23:43:07 What about #include <*> as a GCC extension? Read all headers in the system include directories. 23:44:06 :P 23:44:13 the go slow button 23:44:50 fizzie: YES 23:44:54 #include "**" too 23:45:00 Include every header file in . 23:45:01 Recursively 23:47:24 fis@eris:~$ ls /usr/include/*.h | sed -e 's%/usr/include/%#include <%' -e 's/$/>/' > test.c 23:47:24 fis@eris:~$ gcc -c -o test.o test.c 2>&1 | grep 'error:' | wc -l 23:47:24 1144 23:49:26 -!- coppro has quit (Quit: I am leaving. You are about to explode.). 23:50:59 -!- Asztal has joined. 23:53:02 -!- Azstal has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 23:58:35 Blahaha.