00:00:12 olsner, it is low latency stuff. Anyway wine doesn't use it. It uses alsa directly. I have hardware mixing. SB Live 5.1 00:00:57 arva c'frta deîmu xÅ“t'yr • pala'ds fvrofvr ta'ãr 00:01:25 olsner: OSSv4. Problem solved. 00:01:32 jack replaces alsa? or goes around it somehow? 00:01:51 olsner, nop. jack uses alsa. 00:01:56 Uses ALSA. ITs for professional audio work 00:01:58 Bye. 00:02:02 olsner, but it runs daemon with realtime priority and such 00:02:22 ok, sounds fancy 00:02:27 -!- ehirdiphone has quit (Quit: Get Colloquy for iPhone! http://mobile.colloquy.info). 00:02:30 olsner, well I guess so 00:04:02 olsner, anyway, last I tried spotify didn't work well in wine at all. Hm. 00:04:16 other apps, like portal, works fine in there 00:04:29 Portal? the game? 00:04:32 yes 00:04:38 olsner, didn't like it very much though 00:05:01 olsner, I mean, sure it is innovative to a degree. But I really dislike the FPS concept 00:05:16 how does GHC implement currying? 00:05:23 does it depend on context? 00:05:35 no 00:05:41 currying always happens 00:05:47 well right, but I meant 00:05:53 -!- cpressey has joined. 00:05:55 the way it's compiled, is that always the same? 00:05:56 olsner, I much prefer the third person perspective of for example nwn 00:05:59 oh, I have no clue 00:06:24 it seems like for a typical function call GHC would avoid explicit currying. 00:06:26 my setup for flawless spotify sound: disable hardware acceleration in spotify, choose alsa driver and "hardware acceleration: Emulation" in the wine configuration 00:06:53 olsner, eh, hw acceleration in wine? don't remember that setting. What does it do 00:07:03 there is a JACK driver too in wine though, I would guess that it either works better or was what caused the problems :) 00:07:18 AnMaster: well, you disable it to make spotify work better, that's about all I know 00:07:25 olsner, it doesn't seem to be compiled here 00:07:29 that jack driver in wine 00:07:43 olsner, ah but can that be set per app? 00:07:49 CakeProphet: i am pretty sure ghc doesn't curry if it knows all arguments at the outset 00:07:57 would only make sense. 00:08:03 the wine configuration or the spotify configuration? 00:08:10 olsner, wine 00:08:33 dunno, why? 00:08:39 olsner, the applications tab seems to be just about the windows version 00:08:47 olsner, some other app needs full hw accleration iirc 00:08:57 for audio? 00:08:58 forgot which one it was 00:08:59 olsner, yes 00:09:09 olsner, would be annoying to switch all the time 00:09:24 CakeProphet: and it does lots of inlining optimization and stuff, which probably also can remove currying 00:09:47 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 00:10:01 oerjan, does that mean large and fast code rather than small? 00:10:44 oerjan, thus resulting in ghc being unsuitable for systems with little memory/space? 00:10:51 like embedded systems 00:11:00 ha. embedded Haskell 00:11:21 AnMaster: well laziness and lots of garbage collection would do that anyway 00:11:25 AnMaster: ok, the wine setting didn't seem to have any effect on spotify anyway 00:11:30 olsner, ah 00:11:58 hmmm... it seems like you could actually implement laziness via optimization. 00:12:07 summary: spotify works fine in wine on linux 00:12:08 like constructing for loops out of maps and such. 00:12:16 AnMaster: i don't know that much about ghc really, it probably has several parameters for what to optimize for 00:12:23 CakeProphet: implement via optimization? 00:12:46 oerjan, hm 00:13:01 oerjan, then who is our resident expert on ghc internals 00:13:02 basically optimize lazy code into its eager semantics at compile time... if possible. 00:13:02 ? 00:13:10 according coppro there is likely to be one! 00:13:30 or one of us can retrieve one quickly 00:13:34 that was the second part of the theorem 00:13:41 coppro, ah 00:13:52 coppro, I thought you said "one of us becoming one" 00:13:55 although you could also view them as two separate theorems 00:13:56 oh 00:14:03 no, I meant could fetch one and bring em here 00:14:09 coppro, oh 00:14:13 CakeProphet: I think that's what you commonly get, since laziness for iteration is such a common pattern... if you have a top-level loop that prints a list with many lazy values, you may end up with a for-loop that evalutates then prints 00:14:43 where "loop" = mapM print values or something like that 00:14:50 CakeProphet: ghc _does_ construct loops out of maps, and has a "rules" mechanism for optimizing several forms 00:14:55 -!- cheater99 has joined. 00:14:56 coppro, I don't remember much such fetching? 00:14:58 hello 00:15:02 how are you sweeties 00:15:05 as long as it can see far enough down the line of turtles 00:15:06 coppro, or any at all to tell the truth 00:15:30 AnMaster: yeah, it doesn't go on much. It was more academic to also include the fact that many of us also mingle in relatively academic circles 00:15:40 coppro, well yes 00:15:40 for instance, I could retrieve an expert in cellular metabolism quite quickly 00:15:50 coppro, and get him to join here!? 00:15:54 coppro, I'd be surprised 00:16:00 AnMaster: oh well i know _some_ random ghc internals, just not detailed enough for space vs. time optimization 00:16:08 oerjan, ah 00:16:23 AnMaster: he hangs around on EFNet and is a good friend, I'm sure I could get him to at least join and then part ;) 00:16:24 why would you want to ask an expert in cellular metabolism about ghc internals? 00:16:29 coppro, hah 00:16:34 coppro, no need to try 00:16:53 btw did I ever mention that silly warning on the warning page of my electrical piano? 00:17:08 you know the page with stuff like "do not put something with water in on top" and such 00:17:19 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 00:17:36 did I ever tell about the extremely silly warning there? 00:17:46 (much sillier than that about the water) 00:17:54 do not dance on top of piano? 00:17:58 oerjan, almost 00:18:07 oerjan, "do not stand or jump on the piano" 00:18:08 do not eat piano? 00:18:10 AnMaster: btw, if you're worried about code size in haskell you should be much more worried about the RTS and statically linking gmp and a bunch of other stuff into your program 00:18:46 micahjohnston, strangely enough that one was missing. Should contact them and point out that flaw 00:19:09 of course, dynamic linking gets rid of some of that, but if you're talking about embedding a single haskell program you'll still have to install that stuff :) 00:19:16 olsner, indeed. Can you get a program smaller than 40 kB? 00:19:28 wait gmp? 00:19:31 why gmp? 00:19:36 for bignums 00:19:42 haskell has them built in you know 00:19:43 olsner, oh I confused gmp and mpfr 00:19:58 mpfr is bigfloats isn't it? 00:20:14 olsner, the use case I'm thinking about is 16-bit and has no FPU 00:20:14 yeah, or gmp with an exponent per bignum 00:20:24 olsner, and after OS is loaded it has 56 kB free ram 00:20:37 clearly not fit for that 00:20:42 ehm, hmm, you'd have to *port* ghc to that first... *good* *luck* 00:20:46 olsner, :P 00:20:53 LLVM, obv 00:21:03 coppro, I would have to port llvm to it 00:21:03 i think they've added an alternative option to gmp recently, for license reasons i think 00:21:10 maybe ehc could do something though, iirc it compiles to C and has a very small RTS 00:21:25 AnMaster: Adding a new target to LLVM is pretty cool, actually 00:21:44 I wonder if it has an MMIX target 00:21:47 coppro, it involves C++ 00:21:53 or whatever it's called right now 00:21:54 coppro, I'm not amused by C++ 00:22:07 AnMaster: LLVM is good C++, and also TableGen 00:22:09 olsner, ehc? 00:22:19 coppro, tablegen? 00:22:42 AnMaster: a project-specific code generator that takes a lot of the pain out of things 00:23:00 coppro, I see. This platform is highly RISC and I need to output COFF as the binary format 00:23:06 another way to use haskell for embedded development is to use the type system to produce a type-rich DSL that just generates code for the device 00:23:06 originally designed and still primarily used for handling instruction tables for various architectures 00:23:16 olsner: i thought i read jhc is the one with small program size, if that's still developed 00:23:20 coppro, I think that is about 50 00:23:24 coppro, instructions I mean 00:23:34 oerjan: hmm, I might be confusing them 00:23:36 AnMaster: I'll see if I can find some examples 00:23:47 coppro, h8300 btw 00:23:54 coppro, if you feel up to the task ;P 00:24:02 -!- poiuy_qwert has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:24:10 olsner: well i couldn't say ehc isn't also 00:24:10 coppro, last gcc version to support it for coff at least was gcc 3.x 00:24:11 AnMaster: indeed, JHC is the one I'm thinking of 00:24:16 olsner, jhc? 00:24:27 ah 00:24:38 LLVM supports COFF for some targets, but I'm not sure how easily portable that is 00:24:45 coppro, ah... 00:24:57 AnMaster: whole program optimizing compiler for haskell, iirc 00:25:01 coppro, also I need custom linker script. But I guess I will use the same outdated binutils 00:25:07 oerjan, doesn't ghc do that? 00:25:08 http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/ 00:25:12 oerjan, I'm extremely surprised 00:25:24 AnMaster: no ghc is mainly separate compilation 00:25:31 oerjan, wtf 00:25:42 ghc doesn't do whole-program optimizations, just cross-module optimizations 00:26:05 olsner, huh, so make the set of modules you optimise between be the whole program? 00:26:31 ghc mainly does stuff like output bytecode (or something similar) for selected functions so they can be inlined in other modules 00:26:38 ah 00:26:50 other functions will be output as machine code in the .o and can't be inlined 00:31:23 -!- clog has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 00:31:23 -!- clog has quit (ended). 00:31:27 -!- clog has joined. 00:31:27 -!- clog has joined. 00:34:32 -!- relet has quit (Quit: Leaving.). 00:41:06 -!- augur has joined. 00:44:47 -!- FireFly has joined. 00:47:11 ever been an attempt to implement monads in C? 00:47:20 probably 00:48:18 "Introducing Monads in C. Better known as Fun With Function Pointers." 00:51:52 so are arrows kind of like flowchart-monads? 00:52:08 * coppro whoosh 00:52:44 -!- Quadrescence has joined. 00:52:52 if so 00:53:03 I think you could use them with a DSP library. 00:57:42 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 01:09:16 -!- calamari has quit (Quit: Leaving). 01:13:16 -!- augur has joined. 01:17:31 -!- BeholdMyGlory has changed nick to Behold. 01:17:42 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 01:31:42 -!- zzo38 has joined. 01:32:41 -!- augur has joined. 01:44:58 AnMaster: Funny you mention it. 01:45:03 AnMaster: I was just thinking about ZEE yesterday. 01:45:28 AnMaster: I'm still stuck at the same point: I can't make progress until I have a story, I can't write a story myself because I'm not that kind of creative, and I can't find anybody to write a story for me. 01:47:35 Gregor: Did you see my story "Harper's Challenge"? It is hardly done much, and it isn't entirely my own either, it is group of people named by a pseudonym. And it has appendix. 01:48:46 zzo38: The problem with ZEE in the story department is that the nature of the game (and more to the point, the achievability of getting the requisite photos) has an enormous impact on the possible stories. 01:48:56 I keep getting great but unimplementable story ideas. 01:49:04 What does ZEE means? 01:50:28 *** INTRODUCTION *** This introduction intentionally left blank. 01:53:36 Zoom-Enhance-Extrapolate. It's an image-based maze game parodying those silly scenes from spy movies where they take an arbitrary image, zoom in on it, "enhance" it, and "extrapolate" random garbage out of it. 01:53:46 Or at least, it's supposed to be. 01:53:56 Right now it's most of an image-based maze game engine with no story :P 01:59:57 Maybe it doesn't need to have a story 02:08:58 -!- yiyus has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 02:12:53 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 02:13:02 -!- zzo38 has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 02:17:28 -!- yiyus has joined. 02:28:03 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: Operation timed out). 02:28:17 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 02:33:02 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 02:44:58 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 02:49:47 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds). 02:56:18 -!- ski has joined. 03:09:03 -!- FireFly has quit (Quit: swatted to death). 03:09:04 -!- Behold has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 03:13:28 -!- GreaseMonkey has joined. 03:18:25 -!- CakeProphet has joined. 03:19:57 -!- boily has joined. 03:31:07 -!- cal153 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 03:34:18 -!- boily has quit (Quit: leaving). 03:46:40 Gregor: i've been thinking about the game too, recently, but, as you might guess depending on how well you know me, so probably not, i feel like you shouldn't use photos but render images on the fly. that would be more authentic, in any case i also have some story ideas, i would probably work on them more if this had been my idea 03:46:43 it's a great idea. 03:47:22 " I keep getting great but unimplementable story ideas." <<< okay i haven't gotten far enough to think about implementability :P 03:47:30 Rendering is actually /more/ unachievable than using photos. Well, depending on your required fidelity I suppose ... rendering sufficiently photorealistic images (even of scenes excluding humans) is ... complicated. 03:49:49 just iterate over pixels and see what's there, i don't really care how good it looks, you could just zoom if you can't make out what's happening. i don't really care about the parody aspect, so this puritanian version without actual images would probably not have humans in the story. 03:50:18 (i have ideas with humans too tho :D) 03:50:40 Not having humans is a plus. 03:50:47 For various reasons. 03:50:57 Both storywise and achievability-wise. 03:51:05 well implementabilitywise at least, and i guess also the two other reasons 03:51:09 err 03:51:09 one 03:51:10 (The story would have humans obviously, but the images are more about finding clues then catching people in the act) 03:51:26 well it could end with you catching ppl in the act maybe 03:52:30 someone holding a bloody knife with a dick in his hand 03:53:03 -!- cal153 has joined. 03:56:46 ? 03:56:58 well we can leave the blood out i guess 03:57:06 if you don't like violence 03:58:08 maybe some of the clues would involve you seeing some kind of leaf and then an expert tells you the tree only grows in a 10m x 10m area in X-town 03:58:26 -!- augur has joined. 03:59:29 in one of those shows there was a leaf somewhere and they suddenly know exactly where in us some meeting takes place or something 04:00:03 "we're in luck there are only two of this tree in the whole universe" 04:00:38 or maybe a law and order ending where the killer goes free 04:09:54 * Gregor reappears. 04:10:01 That comes down more to "achievability" :P 04:10:21 Getting a picture of somebody with a bloody knive in one hand and a severed penis in the other is tricky. 04:10:42 And rightfully so! 04:17:41 oklopol: plot twist: the expert is actually an alien. 04:17:48 and is fooling you. 04:17:54 for... uh... profit. 04:18:16 ...I'm very tired. 04:21:27 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ). 04:24:10 KERNELOOPS 04:25:18 * pikhq mutters 04:25:20 (Kernel Orangutan-oriented Programming Style) 04:25:37 Dental fillings suck. 04:25:52 evaluates to true. 04:26:03 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 04:26:06 I had 2 today and am getting 2 tomorrow. 04:26:11 :( 04:26:19 CakeProphet: I want FROOTLOOPS 04:26:25 And the two fillings I got today are currently sensitive as hell. 04:26:48 coppro: Wait... what is a Frootl? 04:27:08 CakeProphet: lots of sugar 04:27:39 Gregor: oh umm i was thinking he killed someone else, and then masturbated because killing people is, as we all know, pretty hot 04:27:46 so shouldn't be that hard 04:29:03 Fashionably Redundant Object Optimization Typography, for Learning Orangutan-Oriented PRogramming Style 04:29:30 well... Topology sounds more abstrackt 04:29:33 lawl. 04:30:08 A fashionably redundant object optimization topology, you say? Oh, well now I'm intruged. 04:30:21 But only if there is a paper about it. Must have an abstract. 04:30:40 topology! 04:30:41 otherwise I will lose interest and become distracted. 04:34:06 "Towards an understanding of orangutan-oriented programming through reprogrammable hydro-banana-morphisms" 04:34:20 morphisms! 04:35:13 I meed only add a few "keywords" to any phrase and it becomes academic, regardless of how ridiculous the other words sound. 04:35:56 I accept your challenge. 04:36:03 Your words are: "Getting a picture of somebody with a bloody knive in one hand and a severed penis in the other is tricky." 04:36:08 Add words to that to make it academic. 04:36:26 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 04:36:26 ..hahaha 04:36:55 hmmm... 04:37:07 -pretends to dissect when really he is just tired as shit- 04:40:19 Getting a picture of somebody with a blood knive in one hand and a severed penis in the other is tricky, but can be readily reduced to a problem of optical complexity theory classes. 04:41:11 -!- augur has joined. 04:42:15 or, more generally, orangutan-oriented programming with optical complexity /heuristics/. 04:42:46 ... 04:42:54 Gregor: how's that? 04:43:45 lawl X-D 04:44:56 Though, sometimes a banana-morphism is more elegant 04:51:26 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 04:52:04 -!- coppro has joined. 05:04:28 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 05:21:39 Woo! Finished the Tower of Hanoi code 05:27:49 -!- MizardX has joined. 05:28:11 Well, almost finished 05:28:15 It's still a bit crashy 05:28:39 Well, not crashy, but once anyone's won, clicking the third column is enough for anyone to win 05:33:00 * Sgeo watches someone fail to solve Tower of Hanoi 05:33:10 He'd be on the right track if the goal was the second column and not the third :/ 05:33:16 -!- augur has joined. 05:36:03 I hate that 06:20:49 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 06:45:30 -!- augur has joined. 06:51:03 man, I wish the flashblock guy wasn't such a jerk 06:51:31 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 06:52:22 -!- augur has joined. 07:02:41 -!- tombom has joined. 07:50:26 -!- tombom has quit (Quit: Leaving). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:01:58 -!- pikhq has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 08:07:35 damn you tvtropes 08:08:05 also damn you inexplicable compulsion to find the trope that best describes my dating situation 08:14:27 ah, there we go 08:20:13 -!- GreaseMonkey has quit (Quit: I'm using NO SCRIPT WHATSOEVER - Download it at file:///dev/null). 09:03:46 -!- josh_ has joined. 09:08:55 -!- josh_ has quit (Quit: Leaving). 09:44:16 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 10:30:48 -!- FireFly has joined. 11:03:34 -!- ais523 has joined. 11:30:13 ugh the course literature for the autumn includes one by Bjarne Stroustrup. Yeargh. 11:30:35 ais523, ^ 11:30:52 is he that bad at writing books? 11:31:09 ais523, no idea. But surely you know what the topic will be of it 11:31:25 not necessarily 11:31:29 ais523, well, C++ 11:31:36 he is after all the inventor of C++... 11:31:48 yes, that doesn't mean everything he does in his entire life is C++-related 11:32:05 ais523, well there is a high probability of it being C++ 11:32:18 you mean you don't actually know what the book is about? 11:32:50 ais523, of course I do. But I meant in general, it should not have been a unlikely guess that it was about C++ for you 11:32:59 the title is "The C++ Programming Language, Special Edition" 11:33:02 *shudder* 11:33:21 I have no clue what the special edition bit is about 11:33:21 -!- oerjan has joined. 11:33:26 hi oklopol 11:33:26 err 11:33:28 oerjan, ^ 11:33:40 g'day 11:33:53 ais523: All his books -- http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/books.html [at his homepage] -- have the word "C++" in them. 11:34:00 oerjan, since when did you become holly-wood-Australian? 11:34:13 fizzie: hmm, an unfortunately narrow choice of topic 11:34:29 I suppose if you're famous for something, it's an easy topic to convince people to publish your books on 11:34:39 ais523, the same is true with the word s/ly narrow// applied 11:34:53 AnMaster: since i started making my greetings silly 11:35:01 oerjan, and when did you start with that? 11:35:13 AnMaster: why are you hanging around in #esoteric if you can't even handle C++? 11:35:14 AnMaster: a few years ago? 11:35:28 oh and an 864 page book about computer networking... 11:35:38 I can't think how anyone could write that much on computer networking 11:36:00 on the other hand I long ago concluded that in English, the writers of course literature are paid per word 11:36:00 ais523: He has a wide(r) selection of topics in the full list of publications (interviews, conference papers, journal articles). It's just books that are rather focused. 11:36:18 which is probably not the case for Swedish course literature 11:36:26 it tends to be much more concise 11:36:28 and to the point 11:36:34 than English course literature 11:36:38 I would think computer networking is an easy topic to write a lot about. There's a lot of it going on, and none of it is especially simple. 11:36:53 fizzie, hm 11:37:32 I'm not sure how to fit it in my backpack though 11:37:45 as in, I can't imagine it would fit with the other large books 11:38:27 The special edition of the C++ book is supposedly 1029 pages. 11:38:43 That's a lot of tree. 11:38:51 another title: "Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C++". That is like taking some of the most interesting topics of compsci (data structures and algorithm analysis) and dipping it in the tar of C++ 11:38:55 :( 11:39:57 fizzie, yet that one was about half the price of the thick networking book 11:39:59 Your C++ antipathy is borderline pathological. It's not like you'd (probably) encounter the most warped corners of the language in a data structures book. 11:40:11 fizzie, hm 11:40:43 You'd prefer MIX assembly more, right?-) 11:40:58 and huh "The essence of artificial Intelligence". I guess they want to get us interested in their master program (AI stuff). I'm going to move to another university for the master program personally 11:41:09 fizzie, yeah :) 11:41:35 fizzie, or SCIP 11:41:50 it talks about data structures unless I misremember completely 11:42:10 Not *that* much, though. 11:42:19 fizzie, "Effective C++" doesn't sound like a fun title either 11:42:36 Scary Concepts in Programming 11:43:12 CLRS ("Introduction to Algorithms") is one data structures/algorithms book that's also reasonably reasonable; the only language it contains is their own pseudo. And the book's website has the LaTeX package to typeset it, which is nice for homework exercises. 11:43:32 fizzie, heh 11:44:09 It doesn't go very deep into algorithm analysis or more esoteric data structures, but, well, it does say "introduction" right there in the title. 11:45:07 fizzie, I much more look forward to the Swedish "Datatyper och algoritmer" which is bound to be a lot more concise. (see above wrt getting paid per word) 11:46:29 I'm not sure if paid-per-word is the reason, or just difference in cultures. Certainly the same distinction is there with English vs. Finnish textbooks. Especially the mathematics one. 11:47:02 s/one/ones/ 11:47:26 fizzie, I much prefer the conciser variant, it means I save hours. 11:47:27 And I'm not sure if that's so "especial", it's just that there's very little material in Finnish on our courses. 11:47:46 fizzie, there have been about 50% so far, less during the year to come 11:49:02 You have a bit larger audience there, I guess it helps. I don't think I really have any computer-science related Finnish course literature on the bookshelf. There's some discrete maths and probabilistics, and then some electronics. 11:50:36 Oh, and a single, very narrow "C-ohjelmointikieli" (lit. "the C programming language"), though that's actually my wife's. (I haven't bothered to buy copies of all books.) 11:50:42 fizzie, I have discrete maths, C, digital logic, electronics and database in Swedish. Yeah, that is what compsci turned into here :( 11:50:49 and from what I heard, in many other places 11:51:07 fizzie, your wife does CS too? I didn't remember that 11:51:38 Yes, though with a rather different focus (usability and communications and things like that) than I. 11:51:49 fizzie, sounds like it might involve GUI 11:51:59 It often does. 11:52:05 _her_ creations are actually usable 11:52:12 It also often involves people, which is my main reason to avoid it. :p 11:52:15 * oerjan ducks 11:52:18 oerjan, hey fungot is fully usable 11:52:19 AnMaster: i just wrote? 11:52:25 perfect! 11:52:56 oerjan: It's not as funny because it's so true. 11:53:11 But yes, who can ask for more than fungot; there's even a help command. 11:53:11 fizzie: cmeme is a log bot afaik 11:53:20 huh? 11:53:24 what is cmeme? 11:53:29 A log bot, AFAIK. 11:53:32 ah 11:53:36 so likely a direct quote 11:53:42 or nearly anyway 11:53:54 fizzie, which channel is it in? 11:54:03 [2005-10-11 13:57:19] < Gs30ng> cmeme is a log bot afaik 11:54:24 It used to be here. 11:54:26 ah 11:54:58 AnMaster: cmeme has been gone for years 11:55:10 -!- atrapado has joined. 11:55:34 which is a bit of a shame because its logs were much better formatted 11:55:47 oerjan: cmeme last quit from #esoteric in 2008-11-06, that's not so many years. 11:55:50 although that also meant they loaded slow 11:56:07 fizzie: well it's about half they years i've been here 11:56:10 *the 11:56:56 There's still references in the tunes.org log-directory HEADER.html: 11:56:59 For a so-called "pretty" view of these logs, go to http://tunes.org/~coreyr/. 11:57:00 For even "prettier" (css'd, searchable, customizable, etc) logs, go to http://meme.b9.com. 11:57:15 But meme.b9.com -> ircbrowse.com, which does not exist. 11:58:00 the logs are perfectly readable 11:58:23 But not pretty. 11:58:34 The CSS thing was indeed prettier. 11:58:35 fizzie, wget | sed ? 11:58:51 You could twiddle with what it looks like and all. 11:59:04 fizzie, you could make it align nicely easily enough 11:59:06 it is pure text 11:59:14 align as in how xchat does it 11:59:56 Yes, and you could do any sort of formatting you want locally, but it was already prettified with several different styles out-of-the-box there. 12:00:09 meh, who needs out of the box? 12:00:23 People who have other stuff to fiddle with, I guess. 12:00:36 I wonder if there's a LaTeX package for proper typesetting of irclogs yet. 12:00:43 yeah people who cannot whip up a quick prettifier in brainfuck don't _deserve_ to read the logs 12:01:06 oerjan: Yeah, those people can stay in the box. 12:02:33 My #esoteric log for 2003-2008 is 46 megabytes of text; that'd make a pretty nice set of books if bound into hardcover with attractive cover art, good typography and all that fluff. 12:02:47 Then I could quit my day job, and be a door-to-door ency^H^H^H^H#esoteric salesman. 12:03:42 oerjan, shell, not bf ;P 12:03:52 slogan: it's better than fake persian rugs 12:04:01 AnMaster: YOU ARE NOT WORTHY 12:04:14 oerjan, ;P 12:12:02 -!- BeholdMyGlory has joined. 12:26:32 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 12:50:11 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 12:53:32 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Later). 13:53:23 -!- bluebooblue has joined. 13:53:37 good morning 8) 13:56:04 -!- bluebooblue has quit (Client Quit). 14:08:06 AnMaster: i've read that and i liked it even though i hate c++. but then again i like most books so i guess this is not very helpful... :D 14:11:18 books about algorithms that use an object oriented language are insane, they only have time to cover a few trivial ones because every tiny snippet takes pages and pages of code 14:11:56 (i'm not saying oo is inherently too verbose, i'm just grouping java and c++) 14:32:29 oklopol, I fully agree with you when it comes to C++ and java 14:46:50 -!- coppro has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 14:48:07 -!- augur has joined. 15:00:36 i once read this 300 or 500 or something page book about algorithms in one afternoon, because it was always 5 pages of explanation of something completely trivial, followed by the same amount of code, the algorithms could've been explained much more concisely, because it was only the level of dijkstra and quicksort, but i guess they wanted to keep the text-to-code ratio sensible and added fluff (i guess i skipped many of the proofs t 15:01:13 (...and all the code) 15:01:50 "of the proofs t" 15:01:59 damn 15:02:09 *oo) 15:02:10 :P 15:02:59 You really should configure your client properly / install a plugin so that you don't have to worry about splitting long lines manually 15:03:35 i should get nnscript or start using another client, mirc is horrible alone 15:04:02 but that's SOOOOOO much work 15:04:03 no 15:04:06 that's the OLD oklopol 15:04:10 * oklopol gets nnscript 15:05:40 hmm okay i would have to get an older mirc 15:05:55 so maybe another client, but, well, i'm not THAT NEW an oklopol. 15:06:01 so maybe tomorrow 15:06:15 windows should never steal focus 15:06:15 ever. 15:06:29 i agree 15:06:30 They should blink at me from the bottom of the screen 15:06:39 i find that really annoying too 15:06:59 well if it was once, but i mean if they just start blinking away like crazy 15:07:13 I wonder if I can change that in Gnome/Xorg/whatever 15:08:06 It depends on your WM (so not Xorg) 15:08:33 well... no blink, but simply notify. The way Ubuntu does it is very subtle. Nowhere near as obnoxious as the blinking orange in XP. 15:08:51 Dunno about other distros. Haven't used them. 15:08:52 that's the OLD oklopol 15:08:54 what? 15:08:55 you changed? 15:09:12 maybe! 15:09:15 maybe not. 15:09:31 well if it was once, but i mean if they just start blinking away like crazy <-- on my system they tend to blink twice and then stay in the highlighted variant 15:09:39 oklopol, I find that works very well 15:09:51 I don't think I manually configured it 15:10:14 i wouldn't like highlight either, probably, actually i probably couldn't stand it just to know something's happened in a window... i should be kept ignorant until i choose to look, unless it's really important 15:10:48 oklopol, well it is just a shade of light blue at 20% opacity on top or such 15:10:53 well, most reasons for focus-stealing are important. new IMs, update manager finishes, new window opens, etc 15:10:54 quite subtle 15:11:04 IM clients steal focus? 15:11:06 how nasty 15:11:09 CakeProphet, I would hate that 15:11:27 and pacman or apt-get never steals focus ;P 15:11:39 (pacman is the package manager on arch linux) 15:11:55 AnMaster: yes. That is why I don't like focus-stealing and would prefer to switch all of it to highlighted notifications because they were nowhere near as intrusive to what I'm doing. 15:12:10 -!- Geekthras has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 15:12:10 the reason I came to this conclisuion was actually update manager though 15:12:14 because it stole focus when it finished. 15:12:50 -!- Geekthras has joined. 15:14:27 huh 15:15:03 CakeProphet, actually there is one thing that should steal focus. screen lockers 15:15:04 :P 15:18:05 psh 15:18:07 okay 15:18:39 bbl, going to do upgrades that need X not running 15:18:40 well then I'm going to reprogram GNOME to have "steal-focus" and "no-really-actually-steal-focus" 15:18:52 and then reprogram my screen locker to use the second onew. 15:18:53 :P 15:27:11 AnMaster: Do screen lockers actually use the same mechanism to steal focus? They seem... distinctly different. 15:37:11 CakeProphet, no idea 16:02:52 Hei, mitä kuuluu? 16:03:21 -!- relet has joined. 16:05:07 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 16:05:45 * Phantom_Hoover wonders if the R^2 -> R bijection is computable. 16:06:32 R is larger than the set of computable numbers. Therefore I suspect that it is not. 16:07:13 OK, then is it possible to biject two computable reals onto one? 16:07:39 (Also, can't you apply the diagonal argument to computable reals?) 16:11:12 Hence implying that they are also uncountably infinite? 16:43:42 -!- MigoMipo has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 16:44:06 -!- MigoMipo has joined. 16:48:12 The computable reals are definitely countably infinite. 16:48:17 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 16:49:21 The R^2 -> R bijection is computable if a real number x is represented by the predicate P(r) = r < x over rational numbers r. I think. 16:49:43 -!- augur has joined. 16:54:38 uorygl, how are they countable? 16:55:26 There are countably many Turing machines. Therefore, there are countably many computable real numbers. 16:55:55 The diagonal argument doesn't work because it's impossible to determine whether a Turing machine actually outputs a real number or not. 16:58:40 uorygl: reals are non-countable 16:58:53 rationals are countable but not reals 16:59:09 But countable reals are a subset of reals 16:59:14 erm, computable 17:00:14 augur: I never said they were. 17:00:50 oh sorry. computable reals. ok 17:03:54 hm uncomputable reals. Chaitin's Constant and such right? Are they all like that? I mean, that we can't even have any clue about the value? 17:04:37 I'm thinking of an uncomputable real. I will gladly give you its entire decimal expansion. 17:04:45 uorygl, :P 17:05:05 uorygl, is pi computable? I presume so 17:05:08 Yes. 17:09:29 AnMaster, imagine some radioactive material. 17:10:33 The Tth bit of a real is 1 if there is a decay and 0 otherwise. 17:11:44 Anyway, I can imagine there being an uncomputable real number that we can approximate really well, except that we never actually know how close the approximation is. 17:13:19 Perhaps you're computing it, and the computation has lingered at 4.177187787026364558800429098840 for years, and then it suddenly increases to 6. 17:13:39 You can go, "Aw, we thought we were so close." 17:14:55 Heck, that's what Chaitin's constant is like, I think. You can run a computation that outputs an increasing sequence of numbers that approaches it. You'll never actually get there, and you'll never know how far it still has to increase. 17:17:42 -!- tombom has joined. 17:26:00 It's so much more convenient that way. 17:28:39 uorygl: I think you can determine digits of it, in exponential time 17:29:21 No, you can't. 17:29:30 That would be computing it. 17:29:39 Are you assuming that a Turing machine always halts in exponential time? 17:31:32 Well, Chaitin's "constant" is per TM. So some Chaitin's constants can be computed. 17:31:47 Indeed/ 17:31:51 s///./ 17:32:09 Maybe "coefficient" would be a less misleading term. 17:32:29 Or maybe not. 17:32:57 Anyway, CLR is a fine book. 17:33:15 -!- wareya has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 17:33:29 I held two jobs developing C++, and I don't think I wrote a significant amount of C++ code at either of them. "Effective C++" helped me cope. 17:33:49 Oh. Actually 3. But one had some Perl and Python in it too. 17:40:43 C++ is ok, but only if you consciously forget that it is C++. 17:52:55 cpressey, developing does not seem like an enjoyable profession. 17:53:00 Talk me out of that as well. 17:53:27 Phantom_Hoover: Ha ha ha ha ha. It depends *a lot* on the place. 17:53:59 Never, EVER work at a company that makes their developers wear pagers. EVER. 17:54:25 Unless you enjoy it. 17:55:02 Unless you enjoy stress-related illness, sure. Go for it. Have an ulcer for me! 17:56:10 I don't think I'd ever be able to be a developer. 17:56:17 I hate GUI programming with a vengeance. 17:56:34 I hate UI programming in general, come to think of it. 17:56:47 It was hard to write, it should be hard to use! 17:58:14 ROFL at bug in Tower of Hanoi code 17:58:18 Dip switches and panel LEDs all the way. 17:58:40 It caused the puzzle to start with the disks the wrong way around 17:58:49 (This principle should not apply to anyone writing software that I want to use) 17:59:01 But there are masochists out there. 18:00:03 * Phantom_Hoover loves orbital paths when G is proportional to the inverse of distance. 18:01:07 DIP switches and panel LEDs, yet still have a window manager that steal focus. Perhaps by flashing something distractingly nearby. 18:02:41 http://i.imgur.com/P623C.jpg 18:04:13 What virtual world is this? 18:04:19 Active Worlds 18:04:26 -!- wareya has joined. 18:05:36 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 18:07:20 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 18:07:20 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 18:08:31 for some reason my volume control disappeared upon upgrade to luci. 18:08:31 d 18:08:57 CakeProphet, you're lucky weirder stuff didn't happen. 18:09:09 Try ensuring Pulseaudio is running. 18:12:45 ps ax | grep pulse 18:15:47 Doctor, I can't find this patient's pulse! 18:17:12 Have you tried grep (™) 18:17:37 ? 18:18:11 SELECT MEASUREMENT FROM VITALS WHERE MEDICAL_TERM='PULSE'; 18:20:01 -!- wareya has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 18:20:50 Programmable dip switches, so that you can toggle them with software. And they should make a loud click whenever they toggle status. 18:30:11 Dip switch? 18:31:02 -!- atrapado has quit (Quit: Abandonando). 18:40:58 It's a switch specially made for people who are dips. 18:42:55 -!- wareya has joined. 18:43:34 -!- Mathnerd314 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.2.3/20100401080539]). 18:43:45 Phantom_Hoover: no you can't apply the diagonal argument, who says the diagonal is wait are you talking about this i'll read 18:44:05 Huh? 18:45:41 we can approximate many uncomputable real numbers well, take any uncomputable number and add a million random digits in the beginning 18:46:59 why must all of my software be buggy. 18:47:29 Phantom_Hoover: i read logs and just answer directly no matter how far up i am 18:47:37 without context 18:47:38 deal with it 18:47:50 but umm computable reals being uncountable 18:47:55 that was the cxt 18:48:26 Um... every computable real is generated by some TM. And the TMs are countable. 18:48:30 you can't apply the diagonal argument, you take the surjection from naturals, and you find no contradiction 18:48:33 oklopol, take a list of the computable reals. 18:48:39 Then apply the diagonal argument to it 18:48:53 This is also computable, for obvious reasons. 18:48:55 QED. 18:49:06 cpressey: yes, but that doesn't mean you can't ask WHY the converse can't be proven in some way 18:49:13 it's computable for obvious reasons? 18:49:21 i find them very much non-obvious 18:49:37 oklopol: Indeed. 18:49:39 Each digit is computable. 18:49:44 So the result is computable. 18:50:02 Phantom_Hoover: so there cannot be a COMPUTABLE surjection. 18:50:19 I'm finding something here very non-obvious. 18:50:20 if the surjection is not computable, there should be no contradiction 18:50:42 i mean i haven't thought about this, but i believe that's the answer 18:51:08 well obviously if you had a computable surjection, you could just iterate through nats and compute the finite amount of digits you need at that point 18:51:39 it would always take finite time because we're enumerating computable reals, which can be computed to any precision in finite time 18:52:50 maybe there's a concept of computable countability out there. 18:53:06 the computable reals are computably uncountable 18:53:34 I totally think there's something wrong here, but I can't put my finger on it. 18:54:05 i don't think there is, if you have a more specific feeling where the wrong is, i can try to elaborate 18:54:59 the point is there is no contradiction, you can't compute the real on the diagonal, because we did not at any point assume that we have an algorithm that lists computable reals, we just assumed a mathematical surjection from nats to creals 18:55:11 Say you have a TM-enumerating TM, call it K. Interpret the tape ("in the limit") of each of the enumerated TMs as a real. Then K generates all computable reals. Therefore the set of computable reals must be countable. 18:55:17 but you mean maybe we could just enumerate tm's? 18:55:24 yeah let's see what the problem is there 18:55:35 yeah trivial 18:55:58 you can't know whether a tm outputs a computable real or whether it's non-halting, and only gives finite output 18:56:08 but i'll read what you said maybe 18:56:42 Well, a TM can still generate a computable real, and never halt. At least, that's how I interpreted Turing's paper. 18:56:43 what 18:56:54 why would you need a tm enumerating the tm's if you're proving they are countable? 18:57:22 You don't need it, except to graphically illustrate that it can all be done with one TM. 18:57:59 well okay, sure, but anyway it's trivial they are countable, the question was why diagonalization doesn't work 18:58:33 So in summary, I was right. :P 18:59:14 i guess that's as good a summary as any 18:59:15 oklopol: Granted. Actually that was why I introduced K. Enumerating another TM is kind of like reading off the diagonal and adding another row. 18:59:44 I say "kind of" because that's the part where I can't put my finger on it. 19:00:20 Maybe "computably diagnolizable"? 19:01:10 Hang on. I can't Fennicize my name as "Tänneri Svetti", because "svetti" isn't a type of place! 19:01:31 I'll have to make it one, I guess. 19:01:52 Why am I still thinking about this? :| 19:01:53 Are there plans for a Gnome 3? 19:01:54 I dunno. I do like the idea of calling the "computably enumerable reals", though, and abbreviating it to "cereals" 19:01:58 cpressey: i don't think it's in any sense like reading off the diagonal and adding another row tbh :P 19:02:15 uorygl: fennicize your name? 19:02:22 Yes. 19:02:47 cpressey: Now develop a concept a "dry" to "soggy" gradient for cereals. 19:02:53 *of 19:03:09 uorygl: what's your actual name i forget 19:03:13 Tanner Swett. 19:03:14 oh 19:03:25 tanner is a finnish word 19:03:52 one of the few that ends with r 19:04:02 *end 19:08:37 Hey, you made my Internet drop out. 19:09:02 Wow, and it means "field" or "ground", so it works as a surname! 19:09:32 it wouldn't surprise me if it was used as a surname, although i haven't seen it 19:09:45 Where's that Finnish name database? 19:09:57 i would have to google 19:10:04 väestörekisterikeskus 19:10:11 perhaps 19:10:33 or väestörekisteri or something or maybe something completely elseous. 19:10:59 Found it. http://verkkopalvelut.vrk.fi/Nimipalvelu/default.asp?L=3 19:11:11 764 19:11:13 in use atm 19:11:29 Don't new surnames have to be unique? 19:11:32 so probably i have seen it 19:11:47 i do not know 19:12:00 If that's the case, I can't change my surname to Tanner. 19:12:20 Svetti is open, as is Svettila. 19:12:46 http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukunimilaki has the rules 19:12:48 But nothing can beat the sheer awesomeness of the word "Vorigali Turrila". 19:12:51 i can translate i suppose 19:13:23 That would be helpful. 19:14:33 it can't be "cockville", it can't be "asdfgljhaoig", it can't be "everyman" (very common, i don't know what english surnames are most common), it can't be "john", it can't be "microsoft" 19:14:36 also 19:15:08 it says it can't be the surname of an existing family, maybe that means if they have like a protected surname, you can do that 19:15:25 because otherwise it's just a stronger everyman 19:15:55 so i do not know whether tanner qualifies 19:16:18 * uorygl shrugs. 19:16:24 also sweat is hiki in finnish, you could use that a first name 19:17:03 I'll change that to Hikki. :P 19:17:36 could be a nickname 19:17:45 my father's name is heikki 19:17:57 (as is fizzie's) 19:21:40 -!- calamari has joined. 19:21:50 hi 19:22:05 Hei! 19:22:07 What ho, calamari! 19:22:09 Mitä kuuluu? 19:23:09 at jury duty, waiting.. reading a book about writing linux device drivers.. so yeah bored lol 19:23:49 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 19:24:17 We shall all learn or teach Finnish while we wait. 19:25:48 tässä sinulle helppo lause 19:27:22 suomenopiskelumateriaaliksi sinulle 19:27:26 Hm, they give you internet access in jury duty? Well, I guess if it's not sequestered and all... 19:27:53 Here onto you easy a sentence? 19:28:20 for you 19:28:25 well im ircing from my phone, but in the courtroom you have to turn phones off 19:28:40 Oh, got it. 19:28:45 Here, for you, an easy sentence. 19:28:49 yes 19:29:33 * cpressey was almost picked for jury duty once, but they rejected me 19:30:57 suomenopiskelumateriaaliksi is "as Finnish study material"? 19:31:06 yeah I've been in the courtroom once but was ultimately rejected 19:31:49 Erinomainen. 19:32:14 I get called down every year, so I suppose eventually I may be selected 19:32:53 Every year? 19:32:59 * cpressey wonders about the crime rate in Arizona 19:33:26 -!- calamari has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 19:33:38 Pending / New: 17. Active - Due: 42. 19:33:40 uorygl: erinomainen? 19:33:48 Hm, maybe he got picked :) 19:33:50 Erinomainen! 19:34:01 oh, you mean "erinomaista!"? 19:34:08 Probably. 19:34:17 saying "erinomainen" is like saying "a great!" 19:34:29 So you use the partitive when yelling adjectives? 19:34:36 hmm 19:34:37 yes 19:35:34 Mielenkiintoista! 19:36:09 indeed! 19:36:27 or "oikein!" 19:36:29 Liian pitkää! :P 19:36:35 -!- calamari has joined. 19:36:39 (not "oikeaa") 19:36:46 (correct that is) 19:36:52 re's 19:38:23 also "liian pitkää" can't really be used, yet you could definitely say "liian rumaa" 19:38:43 Why not pitkää? 19:38:45 "liian pitkä" or preferably a whole sentence 19:39:04 hmm 19:39:07 * uorygl shrugs. 19:39:29 Hankalaa! 19:40:01 i don't know why, but short=lyhyt and pitkä=long both sound weird used like that 19:40:28 Maybe it's like the English "fastly". It's never used, but there is no reason for this. 19:40:34 or well actually i think i do know, but err 19:40:47 Actually, I guess "fast" can be used as an adverb. 19:40:52 "He ran fast." Yep. 19:42:23 the "reason" is things can't be long in general, there has to be some object that's long 19:42:31 (but it can be an abstract object) 19:42:34 "fast" and "big" are extremely strange words in English, given how common they are. 19:42:45 what's weird about big? 19:42:48 Hm, "bigly" doesn't work, either. 19:42:49 oh 19:42:57 Though I can't imagine why you would use that word. :P 19:42:59 "The show was a large hit!" No one says this. 19:42:59 indeed, i never even realized 19:43:20 yes that saying is largely unused 19:43:44 uorygl: good point 19:44:17 in finnish you can say you're "bigly happy" 19:44:40 You'd probably be better off saying "immensely happy" in English. 19:44:41 (not that it's all that idiomatic in that specific context) 19:44:50 How would you say "The dog is named Swarming"? 19:45:00 (That word was chosen to be as un-Finnish as possible. :P) 19:45:06 -!- coppro has joined. 19:45:08 koiran nimi on ...swarming 19:45:37 (was the point that i wouldn't translate? :P) 19:45:43 Nimeä! 19:45:45 Yeah, it was. 19:47:15 Parveilu 19:47:21 Laskea irti. 19:48:22 bbl 19:48:25 -!- calamari has quit (Quit: AndroidIRC 1.0). 19:49:10 Ooh, Android. And here I am with a 5-year-old Motorola Tracfone. 19:49:58 ah parveilla, i assumed there isn't a translation :-D 19:50:18 -!- oerjan has joined. 19:50:24 maybe Deewiant should teach you 19:50:35 oerjan and i have to talk about computable uncountability now 19:50:44 Everyone who knows any Finnish knows more Finnish than me! 19:50:44 O KAY 19:50:49 wait computable? 19:50:56 Except for the mathematical impossibility of that. 19:51:02 yes, the computable reals are computably uncountable 19:51:13 uorygl: i sincerely doubt that 19:51:31 oklopol: well that's just diagonalization 19:51:36 oerjan: You may wish to read the logs and enlighten us. We're confused. 19:51:39 same as for the usual one 19:51:41 cpressey: oh 19:51:52 err we're not confused 19:52:09 or well i guess cpressey is then :P 19:53:00 oerjan: yes diagonalization proves it, you consider this trivial, so i assume you took the same definition as i? 19:53:33 well i assume it doesn't depend _that_ much on definition 19:53:45 yeah but 19:54:07 i'm wondering how this works for arbitrary sets 19:54:13 but if you have a computable function Natural -> CompReal it shouldn't be that hard to construct a computable real it doesn't hit with diagonalization 19:54:43 I'm basing "we're confused" on the observation that Phantom_Hoover and I seem to disagree. 19:54:45 well yeah the proof is simple, i just found it an interesting concept 19:54:56 At least one of us is confused. 19:55:15 cpressey: about what? phantom_hoover asked why diagonalization doesn't work, i explained, you were correct of course 19:55:39 we were just solving a paradox 19:55:49 in a sense 19:55:53 windows should never steal focus 19:55:56 aye here 19:55:59 The cardinality of the of computable reals certainly looks countably infinite to me. But I don't see exactly what the flaw is in Phantom_Hoover's diagonalization argument. 19:56:21 i told you, the surjection isn't countable so you cannot compute the real on the diagonal 19:56:37 The diagonalization argument requires you to construct a computable real out of the diagonal of the list of all computable reals. 19:56:44 The thing is, no list of all computable reals is computable. 19:57:17 Could you not create a Godel code to encode the algorithms to generate them? 19:57:34 Yeah, I thought I called that thing K... 19:57:34 You'd need to verify that everything in the list is actually a computable real. 19:57:42 Which cannot be done. 19:57:57 coppro: no you need to solve something like the halting problem to check whether an algorithm generates a computable real 19:58:36 How to you "verify" anything about an enumeration machine? 19:58:46 ohh 19:58:48 The machine runs forever, generating more and more digits. 19:58:52 i think what the problem is 19:58:58 But the real it's generating is, therefore, computable. 19:59:01 cpressey: do you think diagonalization is used to prove a set is COUNTABLE? 19:59:22 you said something about adding a new element to the list 19:59:33 oklopol: No, it's used to prove a set has a higher cardinality than the sets making up the rows and columns, I thought. 20:00:03 okay then i still don't see why you want K, if you're proving the set of creals is countable, you don't need it 20:00:06 cpressey: given any Turing machine that purportedly represents a real number, there are three possibilities: one, it halts; two, it outputs infinitely many digits; three, it outputs finitely many digits and stalls. 20:00:30 Given a Turing machine, it is impossible to tell which class it falls into; this is equivalent to solving the halting problem. 20:00:34 uorygl: You could reduce that to 2 possibilities, if it's useful. 20:01:00 oerjan: is the existence of a computable bijection an equivalence relation on the class of all sets, is what i'm asking? well at least up to some classical cardinality 20:01:00 uorygl: Actually, no. We're talking about *enumeration* machines here, which never halt. 20:01:06 at least in some sense 20:01:08 :-D 20:01:19 Okay, so one is not a possibility. Two and three still are. 20:01:24 And two and three still cannot be distinguished. 20:01:49 -!- oerjan has quit (Read error: Operation timed out). 20:02:12 oklopol: it satisfies R, S and T; that makes it an equivalence relation, right? 20:02:26 it does? how do you define it? 20:03:22 uorygl: I'm not quite convinced that they need to be distinguished. But I'll have to give thought to it later, unfortunately. 20:04:57 oklopol: I don't really know. 20:05:07 uorygl: but he isn't trying to prove anything about diagonalization, so K is not actually used for anything but another name for surjection 20:05:21 cpressey: of course they do. A list of computable real numbers can't contain something that isn't a computable real number. 20:05:23 he's trying to prove creals countable, so he doesn't use the enumeration part at all 20:05:29 Thus, you need to weed out the things that aren't computable real numbers. 20:07:21 cpressey: but assuming you wanted to know why diagonalization doesn't work (which you say you don't), then the reason they have to be distinguished is that while you can list all tm's, some of them never halt 20:07:22 but only output a finite amount of numbers, while you can, mathematically, interpret these as creals, a program that tries to get the nth digit (depending on how far in the diagonal we are), has to know whether the program actually ever outputs n digits, otherwise it has to use 0 or something 20:07:27 -!- oerjan has joined. 20:08:05 with R you can say a bijection has to map reals to something as a limit process, 2^R is so big you can't really even do that 20:08:47 because there's no way to get enough information in to distinguish all of those (well this is not very precise, maybe there's some fucked up way) 20:10:59 maybe we need to have not just sets but also some sort of representations for them 20:11:05 err 20:11:10 or maybe that doesn't really work 20:11:34 -!- oerjan has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 20:11:48 -!- oerjan has joined. 20:13:31 oerjan: is the existence of a computable bijection an equivalence relation on the class of all sets, is what i'm asking? well at least up to some classical cardinality 20:13:51 um i'm not sure the inverse of a computable bijection is necessarily computable 20:13:59 or wait 20:14:04 well 20:14:08 i guess it is 20:14:17 oh wait no 20:14:20 well umm 20:14:30 if the sets can be uncountable then... 20:14:33 for integers it is but for things where you cannot decide equality 20:14:38 that too 20:14:44 *but not for 20:15:01 but you can't even enumerate normal reals, and yet you can make functions from them; should we restrict to countable sets? 20:15:19 however if you include the computability of the inverse then clearly it's an equivalence relation 20:15:50 i guess it would be, clearly, if i knew the definition 20:16:01 well 20:16:09 i guess it's clear it's with any definition 20:16:11 in that case 20:16:55 i suppose you need a concept of computable set as well, otherwise it may not have meaning to have computable functions on them 20:17:28 so maybe we could assume our turing machines compute functions N -> N, what do the equivalence classes look like 20:17:45 i don't know 20:18:03 well i doubt anyone does 20:18:28 but then inversibility is obvious 20:20:04 that is, a computable bijection has a computable inverse; but so what about injectivity and surjectivity, if we have an injection and a surjection, do we have a bijection? 20:20:17 (injection f, surjection g) 20:20:44 wait a minute 20:20:53 aren't we forgetting banana-morphisms? 20:23:50 err 20:23:57 hmm 20:25:32 He means Banach analytical morphisms, of course. 20:27:07 okay i don't see the disproof but anyway at least cardinality would not be totally ordered then 20:27:19 or wait could it still be 20:27:24 now i think i am a bit confused. 20:27:38 i figured N would make things easier 20:28:46 oklopol: i suspect the classification would be extremely complicated 20:29:30 but do you see whether injectivity and surjectivity imply bijectivity? i doubt it 20:29:43 i mean it looks like it should be obviously false 20:30:08 since the sets don't need to be recursive - if they are then they are probably in such a bijection with the whole of N itself or {1,...,n} for some n 20:31:09 hm even if there is such a bijection with N, does it have to be recursive? 20:31:15 anyone know what exactly the "Triaged" status means for ubuntu bugs? 20:31:17 s/it/the set/ 20:31:31 AnMaster: AFAICT, it means they've assigned a priority 20:31:43 a function that is both an injection and a surjection must by definition be a bijection 20:31:57 coppro, higher than normal or lower than normal? 20:32:04 any priority 20:32:08 "Changed in linux (Ubuntu): 20:32:08 status: Confirmed → Triaged " 20:32:08 there's a separate listing for that 20:32:09 that is all 20:32:11 :/ 20:32:13 coppro, ah 20:32:17 probably assigned normal priority then 20:32:19 coppro, any idea where? 20:32:26 it should be in the listing 20:32:27 we assume non-recursive, if you have inj and surj from an RE set to a RE set, then h is a bijection, i think, where given x, h computes surj(x), then for all y < x, it computes h(y) and if h(y)=h(x), it increments x and recurses onto itself 20:32:31 link? 20:32:44 coppro, well I don't know where the listing is indeed 20:32:55 oh, you got an email? 20:32:58 there should be a link in the email 20:33:01 oerjan: does that make sense? 20:33:14 oklopol: i think my brain refuses to think about this any more :D 20:33:15 we can prove by induction that h always terminates, because there's a finite amount of smaller y 20:33:19 oh and 20:33:29 x+1 means "such y that after x is enumerated, y is" 20:33:36 y that might not be obvious 20:34:25 (i mean especially as they are numbers...) 20:34:41 coppro, no... 20:34:43 -!- Mathnerd314 has joined. 20:34:48 coppro, I saw it in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/524281 20:34:52 coppro, right near the end 20:34:59 coppro, there is that change to triaged 20:35:37 coppro, but I have no idea about what priority it has 20:35:49 AnMaster: right at the top "Importance" 20:35:58 the fact that it's both Undecided and Triaged seems wrong 20:36:02 coppro, sigh 20:36:23 oklopol: OK, it makes sense now. The number down the diagonal is not a computable real, that's all. Doesn't actually tell you anything about the computable reals, except that there is some number that isn't one of them. 20:36:24 oh wait, he added some tags there 20:36:27 I guess that counts? 20:36:38 I've never quite understood the Ubuntu bug process 20:36:41 except that it sucks 20:37:00 coppro, indeed it sucks 20:37:11 oerjan: maybe i should leave recursion out, assume f and g are the inj & surj, from X to Y, then h(x) first computes the whole list L = {h(y) | y coppro, and now I'm considering downgrading to 2.6.31 kernel because of this 20:37:35 coppro, however that means I have to use backported wlan driver 20:37:42 gah 20:37:58 oh and I would need to patch the kernel for a few other things too 20:38:03 we don't actually need the injection, so according to this infinite RE sets are in computable bijection iff there's a computable surjection 20:38:09 but umm 20:38:09 LOL 20:38:20 AnMasteR: looks like it's an upstream bug 20:38:21 there's always a computable bijection anyway :D 20:38:24 xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDddd 20:38:26 xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 20:38:28 xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDdd 20:38:31 * oklopol is retarded 20:38:44 coppro, yes but they should get something done about it. And it isn't clear where it is fixed 20:38:48 Jun 22 18:29:09 tux gnome-session[19821]: WARNING: Unable to determine session: Unable to lookup session information for process '19821' 20:38:49 huh 20:38:53 it's not fixed 20:39:04 coppro, so downgrade to 2.6.31 then? 20:39:12 sigh 20:39:22 AnMaster: yes; it's a kernel bug and so you're stuck until the next kernel 20:39:27 this is a pita because I need initramfs (/ on dm-crypt) 20:39:42 coppro, there is no link to the kernel bugzilla though? 20:39:58 I don't know how the kernel keeps track of their bugs 20:40:07 coppro, they have a bugzilla 20:40:16 I used it before 20:40:22 a lot nicer than launchpad for bug tracking 20:40:56 yeah 20:41:13 oerjan: obviously a bijection is given by just checking how manieth element of the X x is, and then enumerate that manieth y in Y 20:41:13 getting close to the point where I'm considering jumping ship to a stock Debian 20:41:20 *-the 20:41:21 or even a more radical change 20:41:40 coppro, well, I want things to work out of box on my laptop 20:41:47 also converting would be a pain 20:41:51 they never will 20:42:09 coppro, and if I jumped the ship it would be arch. But yeah that doesn't work very well. 20:42:26 coppro, ubuntu works mostly out of the box on it. Just that you have to deubuntufy the desktop 20:42:28 takes a while 20:42:41 like fixing gdm 20:42:53 (no face browser and clearlooks theme) 20:43:12 Ubuntu's just so horrible because there's no good support avenue. There's no where to complain with "My wireless is broken" because everyone will attempt to pass the buck on to the next guy 'oh, it's obviously a driver bug' 'oh, it's obviously a network-manager bug' 'oh, it's obviously a kernel bug' 'oh, it's obviously a hardware issue' 20:43:38 and at each stage they pass it off, they expect you to file a new bug against the new product, rather than just reassining it 20:43:41 *reassigning 20:44:25 sigh 20:44:31 oklopol: um no. you _cannot_ necessarily check that if the set is not recursive. 20:45:02 and oh man, Java 20:45:08 oerjan: yes but given two RE sets there's a bijection between them 20:45:12 this is what i was proving 20:45:21 because you cannot necessarily decide which numbers less than x are in X 20:45:30 oklopol: computable bijection? 20:45:32 and i used the surjection from X to Y even though i can just make one from scratch. 20:45:37 We are partnered with Sun. Also, we hate Java users. 20:45:38 ohhhhh 20:45:43 But what I want to know is if there is a way to automatically translate primitive recursive functions to general-recursive but more efficient counterparts. I'm sure not all could be done, but I'd be happy with only 50%. 20:45:58 err 20:46:18 oerjan: y oklopol: oh hm yes you're right, i thought you meant x's order in X among the natural numbers 20:46:29 i don't mean number inequality, as i mentioned above 20:46:35 ok 20:46:46 coppro, huh? I hate java, no big deal 20:46:48 and as i then added, it's a bit confusing given they are numbers :) 20:47:11 should've taken {0,1}^* or something maybe 20:47:44 or maybe not, not really very useful 20:47:53 Gee AnMaster, you hate both C++ *and* Java? :) 20:48:40 -!- EXPERIEN has joined. 20:48:48 -!- EXPERIEN has quit (Client Quit). 20:49:01 of course 20:49:40 * oerjan guesses he can throw in C# too :D 20:49:56 AnMaster: Java's still the best solution for online applets 20:50:04 coppro, no, html + js is 20:50:06 while I don't write it, I do use it 20:50:17 HTML + JS is slow and not as fully-featured 20:50:25 coppro, see jsmips 20:50:31 it's great for lots of things 20:50:33 but not everything 20:50:53 coppro, I offer jsmips as a counter example 20:51:07 AnMaster: that doesn't solve performance issues 20:51:14 it is fast here 20:51:17 it's a nice go at portability 20:51:35 No, no, Macromedia Flash! 20:51:40 * cpressey slaps himself with a fish 20:51:42 and once again, it lacks some features Java has 20:52:15 I have neither flash nor java installed 20:52:22 well I have java but not as browser plugin 20:52:39 The problem with JS is portability. I'm debugging a JS problem with IE right now. 20:52:40 and to tell the truth, I seldom need either 20:52:57 Of course, proper use of jQuery would probably have avoided it, but still. 20:52:58 cpressey, IE? "This page is best viewed with Chrome or Firefox" 20:53:21 And in 1680x1260 20:53:31 cpressey, on a clear moonless night 20:54:08 I've heard Java has portability problems too, but I've never seen them. Esp. for applets. 20:54:30 cpressey, I would follow the spec to the letter 20:54:38 if it is then broken in some browser it isn't my fault 20:55:20 and if cpressey then gets fired it isn't his fault 20:55:38 * oerjan whispers innocently 20:55:42 wait 20:55:44 Well then, we need to all start calling it ECMAScript, you know. 20:55:47 *whistles 20:55:49 oerjan, psh, do academical work. It is a lot nicer. 20:56:05 cpressey, jsscript != javascript 20:56:10 I would go for javascript instead 20:56:27 cpressey's correct; ECMAScript is the proper standard 20:56:32 AnMaster: My point was there is no spec for "Javascript". 20:56:39 cpressey, wtf? 20:57:05 also, ECMAScript is a dumb language, which is another great reason not to use it 20:57:05 As for "jsscript", I'm not sure I've even heard anyone ever use that term... 20:57:34 he means JSCript 20:57:37 s/C/c/ 20:57:49 ah okay got an extra s there by mistake 20:58:12 JavaScript and JScript were differing proprietary implementations of what became standard ECMAScript 20:58:30 why is the file extension .js then? 20:58:37 shouldn't it be .emca or something 20:58:41 The language itself is called SpiderMonkey. 20:58:43 20:58:46 XD 21:00:02 AnMaster: in modern usage, people don't know better and think javascript is equivalent 21:00:05 .es is the proper extension 21:00:17 * cpressey applauds uorygl 21:00:17 hah 21:00:24 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 21:00:38 i was rather wtf'd about "whispers innocently" 21:00:54 I guess I should figure out how to write Haskell bindings so that I can write a Haskell binding to (the most useful parts of) SpiderMonkey. 21:00:56 ? 21:01:02 formally, JavaScript now refers to the Mozilla implementation and dialect of ECMAScript 21:01:19 heh 21:01:25 It will be called HaSM, despite the atrocity of this name. 21:01:34 btw what did sun think about it being called javascript 21:01:40 I can't imagine them being happy at all back then 21:01:46 it's an awesome mental typo 21:01:47 In windows, one of the context menu options for .js files is "Open with Command prompt" 21:01:55 AnMaster: It was actually a marketing ploy 21:01:56 Hm. If I move to Finland, I'll probably be able to register hasm.fi. 21:02:02 coppro, hm? 21:02:05 AnMaster: I think Sun explicitly allowed it. 21:02:11 I have no idea why. :P 21:02:11 uorygl, how strange 21:02:18 yeah; it was to increase visibility of the name Java 21:02:31 coppro, if javascript = mozilla's implementation then cpressey doesn't have to make it work in IE 21:02:38 It would be strange if JavaScript were actually Java script. 21:02:46 after all, his employer should have said EMCAscript if that was what he meant 21:02:49 it would be a better language 21:03:11 If I made a language called Foobar, then FoobarScript would in fact be a scripting version of the same language. 21:03:14 wait a second, it is