00:04:58 Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Know Anything About Baseball 00:06:26 this is the one area where nerds -- usually a fairly intellectual lot -- are extremely proud of ignorance 00:06:33 is it so in all countries or just the USA? 00:08:13 well, outside USA and Japan *no-one* knows what baseball is 00:09:27 I suppose nerds might be more proud of that ignorance though 00:09:38 as opposed to simply not caring about it 00:09:52 well sports in general i mean 00:10:18 baseball's just on my mind because San Francisco won at baseball and now all the nerds in San Francisco are loudly proclaiming how much they don't know or care about baseball 00:10:37 they don't actually realise san fransisco won 00:10:46 it's just a coincidene 00:10:48 *c 00:10:52 what's san francisco? 00:11:02 hehe 00:11:04 olsner: some baseball thing i think 00:11:14 maybe it's a player? 00:12:40 i think it's a type of base 00:12:50 olsner: Some other countries play baseball. Japan managed to get other bits of Asia in on it, and it's apparently pretty common in the Carribean. 00:13:40 olsner: this clip will make it clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElAcu-1dlPM 00:13:40 Also, I can't comment about the ignorance: I don't actively *follow* most sports, but I'm not exactly ignorant on them. 00:13:43 (nsfw language) 00:14:06 (hell, I've been known to nerd out on the origins of (American) football and its relation to other games) 00:14:38 * pikhq also enjoys watching football, so. *shrug* 00:14:51 yeah that's the irony (?) 00:14:54 sports fans are sports nerds 00:14:58 kmc, i never understood nsfw language 00:15:14 i mean ffs you shouldn't be listening to videos at work with speakers on 00:15:20 For the most part? Yeah, it's just nerding out about sports instead of something else. 00:15:59 nsfwu 00:16:04 Phantom__Hoover: people do though 00:16:05 beats me 00:16:16 it appears to have been fairly safe for wu though, so that's not funny 00:16:16 Especially given that for most spectator sports, 99% of the audience doesn't actually *do* the sport in question. 00:16:30 (in any capacity, obviously) 00:16:36 kmc: thanks, I think I understand san francisco now 00:16:42 baseball in particular is all about the stats and the obsessive knowledge of past games and teams 00:16:51 anyway 00:16:57 kmc, in that case your workplace is either so relaxed I can't believe someone's going to flip out over some cursing, or you deserve what's coming to you anyway. 00:17:22 And, yeah, baseball in particular is a land of statistical analysis. 00:17:35 brrrr stats 00:18:34 anyway i don't care if people care about baseball or are ignorant of baseball 00:19:22 You're just finding it an interesting cultural phenomenon. 00:19:46 That smarter people go "sports -- eeew" as a *rule*. 00:19:59 no what i mind is people who are conspicuous about their ignorance and proud of it 00:20:11 Aaah. Well. Yes, there is that. 00:20:18 Pride in ignorance is sad. 00:20:31 there's a rule that whenever spots are brought up, you have to be the loudest in proclaiming your utter contempt and ignorance of sports 00:20:33 q 00:20:35 lest you be branded as one of Them 00:20:56 this is one of the aspects of "nerd culture" which I think derives directly from middle school bullying or something 00:21:04 Probably. 00:21:26 elliott: r 00:21:31 s 00:21:37 hmm, I might end up having to watch the rest of deadwood now... all because of wu 00:21:40 ティ 00:21:59 olsner: can you explain san francisco to me? 00:22:02 i didn't watch the video 00:22:48 hey elliott go vote in the distributor election 00:22:58 elliott: I really can't do it as well as wu does 00:23:03 ;o 00:23:05 comex: isn't it all votes for you? 00:23:12 if i do that i'd have to like email taral though and ugh 00:23:14 Hey, go vote for President of the World. 00:23:25 pikhq: i vote comex 00:23:34 actually no 00:23:36 it's one vote for me, one vote for scshunt, one vote endorsing me, two present, endorse Google Groups, and denounce Google Groups :p 00:23:37 i vote olsner 00:23:47 comex: well i dont think anyone actually cares about the vote 00:23:49 deadwood is fucking brilliant 00:23:55 i'm not sure why you're even voting at all 00:24:00 yeah, I just don't want to arbitrarily declare myself the winner 00:24:14 comex: well you can arbitrarily declare yourself the winner by having taral decide you'd be good to give the lists :P 00:24:26 and I started a vote because I felt it was an appropriately Agoran way to do things :p 00:24:28 i guess i could vote for you though 00:24:32 but not right now, too lazy 00:24:50 comex: yw 00:25:01 is there anything a regex can do that a finite list of greedy string substitutions can't? 00:25:03 coppro: ? 00:25:07 comex: voted for you 00:25:12 elliott: But there's only Obama and Romney! 00:25:12 oh shit 00:25:15 i'll vote coppro then 00:25:20 hehe 00:28:10 elliott: but you already voted me 00:29:05 no this is for distributor silly 00:29:34 voting for sillies? 00:31:23 yes 00:32:05 -!- Arc_Koen has quit (Quit: Arc_Koen). 00:33:41 http://esolangs.org/wiki/Epsilo wow what a page 00:33:45 perhaps this should be deleted 00:35:02 pikhq: btw 00:35:12 pikhq: do you know why ctrl+alt+fN might not work to switch to vts 00:35:16 it's been like this a while for me! 00:36:32 -!- DH____ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 00:36:37 -!- DHeadshot has joined. 00:37:38 hey elliott do you think i should follow this link to accounts-google-com-id189134acx-ssl-k-emailrenew77.idns.pl and put in my gmail password 00:37:43 seems legit right 00:37:54 kmc: yes 00:38:02 kmc: google is the most famous polish company 00:38:21 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds). 00:38:25 and it has ssl right there in the name! 00:38:28 secure! 00:39:06 and emailrenew77 ... if the previous 76 renews got lost, they might give up trying to renew your email any moment 00:40:54 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 00:40:59 -!- DH____ has joined. 00:44:07 kmc: do you know :( 00:44:16 do i know what 00:44:24 why ctrl+alt+fN might not work to switch to vts? 00:44:46 well if you've remapped those keys in X then you have to use the remapped ones 00:45:30 i haven't remapped them at all 00:45:32 they just don't do shit 00:47:30 Confirmation process complete.. Click here to Continue to your Gmail 00:48:09 i just put q in all the fields 00:48:13 am i SCAMMING the SCAMMERS???? 00:48:15 I put “test”. 00:48:54 elliott: does that make YOU a SCAMMER? 00:48:59 are you SCAMMING the YOURSELF? 00:49:01 scammer² 00:49:15 contravariant scammer 00:49:16 It’s scammers all the way down. 00:51:42 wait did you actually visit that url 00:51:45 i haven't been there 00:51:48 i had the good sense to stay away 00:51:57 you should see if you can SQL inject it 00:52:38 what url ?? ? 00:53:23 oh 00:54:27 kmc: You can tell it's fake because it doesn't require you to check the "I agree to the Google Terms" checkbox. 00:54:44 kmc: the malware will aim heck your linux system 00:54:46 dont visit the page!!! 00:55:04 elliott: "2 l8" :'( 00:55:22 anyway seriously does anyone know why vt switching is fucked 00:55:31 elliott: You should upgrade to lens 3.1 00:55:36 if it helps i am using kms 00:55:39 intel graphics 00:56:21 So guys, you know how there's no computable set of axioms in first-order logic that uniquely determines the natural numbers? 00:56:44 no tswett 00:56:50 if someone had been repeatedly saying that for the past week or so 00:56:50 tswett: No number greater than about 30 is natural. 00:56:52 maybe I would know that 00:57:17 shachaf: hm. I'm not so sure about that. 00:57:20 Is 30 a natural number? 00:57:31 Yes. 00:57:36 How about 32? 00:57:42 No. 00:57:48 What about 31? 00:57:53 Yes. 00:57:59 32 is quite unnatural indeed. 00:58:02 How about 31 + 1? 00:58:05 No. 00:58:12 Hmm... 00:58:22 Are the natural numbers closed under addition? 00:58:31 tswett: Are you thinking of the axiom "every natural number has a successor"? 00:58:38 That was mistranscribed from the original. 00:58:47 Oh? 00:58:49 The original is "every natural number (except 31) has a successor". 00:58:56 Indeed. 00:58:57 Ah. 00:59:03 So they are, in fact, not closed under addition? 00:59:13 That depends on what addition is. 00:59:21 31 has a successor 00:59:23 The mindblower is that the “31” in the original text is in base-8. 00:59:24 it's just not a natural successor 00:59:25 * tswett nods. 00:59:44 shachaf: I prefer wording it as "Every natural number that is not 31 has a successor" 00:59:51 so it's clear that it doesn't preclude 31 having a successor 01:00:01 coppro: No, that's not right. 01:00:05 31 *doesn't* have a successor. 01:00:10 Let's define n + 0 as n, and n + (the successor of m) as the successor of (n + m). 01:00:36 Then clearly 31 + 1 is undefined, since it would be the successor of 31. 01:00:51 tswett: Well, you have to prove that a natural number N isn't 31 before you can say things like "the successor of N" 01:00:58 Right. 01:01:04 Just like you have to prove it's not 0 before you can say "the predecessor of N". 01:01:21 elliott: fix my ghc bug :'( 01:01:37 no 01:01:58 Let's add another axiom. 01:02:11 elliott: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7364 01:02:42 btw zfc is inconsistent guys 01:02:42 There exists an operation @ such that for all natural numbers a, b, c, and d, if a @ b = c @ d, then a = c and b = d. 01:02:56 tswett.gimli.moed++ 01:03:02 tswett: that axiom looks rejectable 01:03:23 I dunno. Maybe it's consistent with the axioms we have so far. 01:03:30 elliott: dont wrorry!! hes not talking about @ 01:03:33 just "@" 01:03:58 shachaf: that isn't a funny joke though 01:04:11 uh oh 01:05:17 http://pastie.org/5147243 - I think these are the axioms we're dealing with. 01:05:22 kmc: Do you know much about accordions? 01:05:52 according to whom? 01:06:06 1 is zero, 2 is successors for n != 31, 3 is successors for n = 31, 4 is the predecessor of 0, 5 is that succession is a bijection, and 6 is the @ operation. 01:06:18 ≠ 01:07:11 I think this system might be inconsistent. 01:07:31 tswett: You just had to go and add that weird axiom, didn't you? 01:07:49 shachaf: well, yes. How else are we supposed to represent ordered pairs of natural numbers as natural numbers? 01:08:17 What's the type of @? 01:08:33 Nat -> Nat -> Nat, I guess. 01:08:41 Right, I should have specified that. 01:09:04 That doesn't make sense. :-( 01:09:19 i think @ is just fine 01:09:25 Consider the natural numbers 0 @ 0, 0 @ 1, 0 @ 2, ..., up through 0 @ 31, as well as 1 @ 0. Assume that 0 @ 0 = 0, 0 @ 1 = 1, 0 @ 2 = 2, ..., up through 0 @ 31 = 31. Then 1 @ 0 can't be any natural number, so we have a contradiction. 01:09:28 because tswett does not restrict natural numbers to 0 and successors of natural numbers 01:09:35 you know what's annoying 01:09:36 @ can just create natural numbers that are not the successor of anything 01:09:40 no? 01:09:43 elliott: oh, good point. 01:09:56 so for instance 01:09:59 it could give back 32 01:10:06 whereby 32 i mean the number that is not the successor of 31 01:10:13 So, 5? 01:10:19 5 is a number 01:10:24 If we *do* assume that every natural number is either 0 or the successor of a natural number, though, we simply have to go through all 32! permutations there, and we can show that our system is inconsistent. 01:10:28 So you get a different set of natural numbers depending on the left side of @ 01:10:28 And it's not the successor of 31. 01:10:34 tswett: but why would you assume that 01:10:40 are you trying to break mathematics??? 01:10:43 What is (0@1) + (1@0) 01:10:59 elliott: no, I'm trying to bend it as far as it will go without breaking it. 01:11:10 you guys are so boring :/ 01:12:03 Phantom__Hoover: Let's make things more interesting by defining a new esolang! 01:12:05 I'm thinking it'll have about 8 operations. 01:12:10 1@0 could be 0 + aleph 01:12:12 Not quite sure what they'll be yet. 01:12:17 Then 1@1 would be 1 + aleph 01:12:23 By aleph 01:12:28 By aleph I mean aleph zero 01:12:43 How about 2@0? 01:12:59 shachaf: One of them is @ 01:13:09 ion: What does @ do? 01:13:19 everything 01:13:30 2@0 would be 0 + theconstant + theconstant 01:13:38 Or 0 + 2*theconstant 01:13:56 shachaf: no 01:16:07 shachaf, supersedes all lesser operating systems and gives you a sensual massage 01:16:07 -!- DH____ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 01:16:34 http://pastie.org/5147243 - okay, we've added an axiom and clarified an axiom. 01:16:38 This new system is inconsistent. 01:16:39 kmc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_(accordion) are pretty the future, huh? 01:16:41 1@0 is larger than any 0@x 01:16:49 2@0 is larger than any 1@x 01:16:51 So on 01:16:56 define larger 01:17:15 elliott: It's a type of beer, right? 01:17:15 tswett: Why are you only going up to 31? 01:17:28 FreeFull: well, how high would you go? 01:17:42 elliott: Like yo momma 01:17:46 elliott, suggn. @'s name should be bayan 01:17:52 tswett: I wouldn't have an upper limit 01:17:54 Phantom__Hoover: why 01:18:02 FreeFull: you can't just have all the integers. 01:18:08 accordion, that's why 01:18:10 that's greedy as fuck. people like you disgust me!! 01:18:18 Yeah, I mean, you have to stop *somewhere*. 01:18:34 elliott: I wonder if you could declare 31 as its own successor 01:18:43 that's just saturated arithmetic no 01:18:53 So let's see, how can we make our system consistent. 01:19:05 Where is the inconsistency? 01:19:12 The successor of 31 is 31.5. The successor of 31.5 is 31.75. 01:19:13 why use the boring old definition of consistency anyway 01:19:23 Currently, it's possible to prove that every natural number is equal to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, or 31. 01:19:36 And that none of these numbers are equal to each other. 01:20:15 And? 01:20:17 -!- DHeadshot has joined. 01:20:18 FreeFull: in http://pastie.org/5147243? Given a set of 32 different natural numbers, you can prove that there are no natural numbers different from all of them. 01:20:25 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 01:21:01 -!- trout has changed nick to variable. 01:21:09 Do these rules forbid an x where S(x) = 0 01:21:18 yes 01:21:20 Yes. Axiom 4. 01:21:22 4. 0 is not the successor of any natural number. 01:21:31 Ah 01:21:33 Missed that one 01:21:44 Wait, hang on. 01:21:54 Maybe these axioms aren't inconsistent after all. 01:22:27 Maybe you shouldn't be calling them natural numbers 01:22:28 Define 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 as the "standard" natural numbers. 01:22:35 Okay, let's call them... 01:22:45 Chafian numbers. 01:22:54 tswett: You *did* see ion's remark, right? 01:22:58 Define 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 as the "standard" Chafian numbers. 01:23:13 shachaf: what remark was that? 01:23:14 Is there any value defined for 1@1 01:23:16 -!- elliott has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 01:23:25 I think the @ operation needs to be fleshed out further 01:23:28 The natural numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 01:23:35 Although 01:23:36 ion: Right? 01:23:40 -!- Phantom__Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 01:23:42 FreeFull: well, yeah. Axiom 6. There is a natural number a @ b, for all a and b. 01:23:59 tswett: But that doesn't say what the natural number would be 01:24:27 Well, see. Perhaps there exists a natural number, let's call it i, such that iterating the successor function on i never gets you a standard Chafian number, and iterating the successor function on a standard Chafian number never gets you i. 01:25:12 I don't think you can disprove that. 01:25:19 I think you are right 01:25:37 Let's call the non-standard Chafian number 33 01:25:57 Or maybe 32 01:26:17 I dunno. What would we call the predecessor of its predecessor? 01:26:42 I think we should just call it i. Then we can speak of numbers like i + 5, and i - 480, and so on. 01:26:57 shachaf: Sounds right. 01:27:07 Hmm, we can't have 32 without 3 and 7 conflicting 01:27:15 But maybe we could have i 01:27:58 i would have to be on a different ring 01:28:09 So, I think we have a model of these axioms. 01:28:48 But even with i 01:28:50 It's the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 31} union {i + n where n is an integer}, such that 0 and S are defined in the obvious ways, and then @ is defined just however. 01:28:54 Do you see any inconsistency? 01:29:07 No, these axioms are consistent. There's a model of them. 01:29:40 If there was an axiom stating there were only 32 chafian numbers, then it might be inconsistent 01:29:44 But as it stands 01:29:48 Right. 01:30:35 Now, this seems to raise a question: what is i + i? I don't think this model admits a consistent definition of addition. 01:30:59 Then again, neither does the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 31}. 01:31:15 a @ b could be defined as b + a*i 01:31:26 But then you need to define + and *. 01:31:30 Yeah 01:31:57 If you defined + in terms of successors 01:31:59 Hmm 01:32:03 Then it wouldn't work 01:34:42 So, what axioms do we want + to obey? 01:36:01 We want 0 + a = a + 0 = a. We want a + b = b + a, and (a + b) + c = a + (b + c). 01:36:17 And we want a + 1 = S(a) for all a ≠ 31. 01:37:06 Are these new axioms consistent? 01:37:42 We can now posit a Chafian number corresponding to every natural number. 01:37:47 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Quit: Leaving). 01:38:02 But all Chafian numbers corresponding to natural numbers 32 or greater are non-standard. 01:38:18 -!- augur has joined. 01:38:38 Hm, but does this work? 32 is not 0, so it has a predecessor. Call it P(32). 01:39:30 P(32) is clearly not 31. This means that P(32) + 1 = 32. However, 31 + 1 = 32 as well. 01:40:38 -!- elliott has joined. 01:40:46 tswett! 01:40:48 what are you doing! 01:41:16 augur: I'm trying to do as much math as I can with the Chafian numbers. 01:41:26 chafian numbers? 01:41:39 Yeah. "Natural numbers" as defined here: http://pastie.org/5147243 01:41:42 18:23 The natural numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 01:42:07 So, it's impossible for + to satisfy zero-is-identity, commutativity, associativity, compatibility with the successor function, and bijectivity. 01:42:42 i dont follow 01:44:05 Well, the axioms at http://pastie.org/5147243 are consistent. 01:44:16 I'm trying to add more axioms, defining arithmetic and stuff. 01:44:44 tswett: There is no 31 + 1 01:44:53 Because there is no S(31) 01:45:27 im not sure these are truly consistent 01:45:28 tswett: where does the standard Z/32 arithmetic break down? 01:45:50 augur: I gave a model of it. 01:45:53 < tswett> It's the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 31} union {i + n where n is an integer}, such that 0 and S are defined in the obvious ways, and then @ is defined just however. 01:45:54 tswett: oh? 01:45:59 If P(0) was 32 and S(32) was 0 then it would be standard modular arithmetic 01:46:08 Other than the @ stuff 01:46:28 Oh yeah. I said that "32 is not 0, so it has a predecessor", but maybe 32 *is* 0. 01:46:29 tswett: well i suppose you could define trivial models like {*} 01:46:37 no that wouldnt work 01:46:41 {*,31} 01:46:53 tswett: 32 isn't 0 01:47:09 FreeFull: can you prove that? 01:47:29 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 01:47:31 You can't prove either way with these axioms 01:47:55 Whatever the definition of + is, 16+16 wouldn't be a standard Chafian number 01:48:43 We could forget about having + 01:48:45 btw 7 and 4 say the same thing 01:49:06 well, more or less 01:49:11 Aren't you contradicting yourself? You said you can't prove that 16 + 16 ≠ 0, but you also said that 16 + 16 is not a standard Chafian number, didn't you? 01:49:45 so 01:49:52 I am contradicting myself 01:49:58 {0,31} work for S(0) = 31 01:50:03 it satisfies up to 7 01:50:05 Obviously + is ill-defined right now 01:50:05 I am contracting m'self. 01:50:11 So you can't prove anything about it 01:50:15 6 is also definable 01:50:30 but lemme check if any @ can satisfy 8 01:52:06 http://pastie.org/5147243 - okay, here are our axioms now. 01:52:20 I'm pretty sure we can prove that 31 + 1 = 0. 01:52:43 You could define addition in following way: x + 0 = x x + y = S(x) + P(y) 01:53:40 hm 01:53:47 im confident, actually, that 8 is unsatisfiable 01:54:04 howso 01:54:10 Let 32 = 31 + 1. Suppose 32 ≠ 0; then, by axiom 7, the predecessor of 32, P(32), exists. By axiom 3, P(32) ≠ 31. Therefore, by axiom 14, P(32) + 1 = 32. This means that P(32) + 1 = 31 + 1, so, by axiom 15, P(32) = 31. This is a contradiction. 01:54:12 wel 01:54:16 Therefore, 31 + 1 = 0. 01:54:17 oh hm 01:54:18 pigeonhole, no? 01:54:24 tswett added 7 01:54:25 yeah pigeon hole i think will work 01:54:34 there are 32^2 pairs of natural numbers (a,b) 01:54:34 do you have the necessary infrastructure for pigeonhole though 01:54:41 do you have the necessary infrastructure for pigeonhole though 01:54:45 elliott: yes 01:54:47 elliott: yes 01:54:50 tswett: Those axioms don't state what happens when you have something like 3 + 4 01:54:52 that was at Phantom_Hoover 01:54:52 Axioms 1 through 8 are consistent. You can't prove that there are only 32 natural numbers. 01:55:01 Phantom_Hoover: actually there arent 32^2 pairs 01:55:02 ...ah 01:55:16 FreeFull: sure they do. 3 + 4 = 3 + (3 + 1) = (3 + 3) + 1. 01:55:18 theres (k+1)^2 pairs 01:55:23 for some choice of k 01:55:32 actually k+2 sorry 01:55:54 because the model might identify things that you dont identify in the axioms 01:55:54 tswett: so when augur said yes he actuall ymeant no 01:56:01 elliott: no, i meant yes 01:56:02 *actually meant 01:56:03 tswett: You didn't put anywhere that x + y = x + P(y) + 1 01:56:11 -!- Arc_Koen has joined. 01:56:18 augur: well i do not see how you can prove it from those axioms 01:56:25 FreeFull: yes, but I put somewhere that x + S(y) = x + y + 1. Axiom 14 says so. 01:56:43 14. For all a ≠ 31, a + 1 = S(a). 01:57:00 elliott: if there are (k+2)^2 pairs of numbers, and @ is an endomap on the (k+2) elements of Nat 01:57:09 augur: "if there are (k+2)^2 pairs of numbers" 01:57:09 Anyway, I think axioms 1 through 15 are no longer consistent. I think you can prove that i = i + 32, and that i ≠ i + 32. 01:57:10 then @ is not injective 01:57:14 augur: you cannot prove there are only 32 chafian numbers 01:57:15 going by those axoims 01:57:17 *axioms 01:57:18 afaict 01:57:22 elliott: i never said there were only 32 01:57:25 thats why i said k+2 01:57:27 keep up, kid 01:57:31 augur: so, there are infinitely many Chafian numbers. 01:57:32 augur: you cannot prove there are only N chafian numbers for any constant N 01:57:41 stop being condescending 01:57:58 elliott: and you need to stop not reading what i say 01:58:10 tswett: have fun 01:58:10 tswett: yes, thats true. if there's infinitely many it might work 01:58:14 wow no shit 01:58:19 elliott: thanks. 01:58:19 for finite N it pigeonholes 01:58:20 you think there being infinitely many might have been.... 01:58:21 the point??? 01:58:40 Proving that i = i + 32. That's easy: i = i + 0 and 0 = 32. 01:58:56 Where did you prove 0 = 32 01:59:03 tswett: there is no + in these axioms 01:59:21 FreeFull: 21:54:10 EDT. 01:59:28 augur: these axioms? http://pastie.org/5147243 01:59:36 What sort of bullshit time is EDT 01:59:36 Axioms 10 through 15 are about +. 01:59:43 FreeFull: I have no idea. 01:59:50 oh, you added some axioms, ok 01:59:52 21:54:10 < tswett> Let 32 = 31 + 1. Suppose 32 ≠ 0; then, by axiom 7, the predecessor of 32, P(32), exists. By axiom 3, P(32) ≠ 31. Therefore, by axiom 14, P(32) + 1 = 32. This means that P(32) + 1 = 31 + 1, so, by axiom 15, P(32) = 31. This is a contradiction. 01:59:52 i didnt see that 02:00:25 tswett: 32 doesn't = 31 + 1 though 02:00:43 Wait 02:00:47 Let me read the whole thing 02:01:22 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Quit: Leaving). 02:01:57 Okay, so, proving that i ≠ i + 32. We know that i + 32 = i + 1 + 1 + ... + 1, where there are 32 1s. Since all of those numbers are undefined, this means that i + 32 is the 32nd successor of i. 02:02:03 This means that i is the 32nd successor of itself. 02:02:08 tswett: You've proven that 32 ≠ 31 + 1 02:02:14 But not that 32 = 0 02:02:40 FreeFull: I said at the beginning, "Let 32 = 31 + 1". I think said "suppose 32 ≠ 0". I then derived a contradiction. 02:03:09 I believe this proves that 32 = 0. 02:03:49 So, i being the 32nd successor of itself. Is that actually impossible? 02:04:05 perfectly possible if 32 = 0, surely 02:04:30 tswett: anyway can't i just be S(i) 02:04:36 tswett: Ok, what you've proven is that either 32 = 0 or that 32 ≠ 31 + 1 02:04:37 i don't see that forbidden in the axioms 02:04:49 FreeFull: you do not seem to understand what a definition is 02:04:55 FreeFull: and 32 = 31 + 1 by definition; therefore, 32 ≠ 0. 02:04:55 the sequence of digits "32" has no meaning in itself. 02:05:00 tswett defined 32 as meaning 31 + 1. 02:05:06 Maybe i can be S(i). 02:05:06 tswett: The axioms don't state that 32 = 31 + 1 02:05:16 ok so you actually do not understand what a definition is 02:05:30 FreeFull: okay, replace 32 with 31 + 1 in this entire conversation, forever. 02:05:43 What I've proven is that either 31 + 1 = 0, or that 31 + 1 ≠ 31 + 1. 02:05:54 The axioms don't state anything about what 31 + 1 would be 02:06:08 he just proved what it is tho 02:06:10 using: the axioms 02:06:12 Okay, let me repeat my theorem a third time. 02:06:55 Suppose 31 + 1 ≠ 0; then, by axiom 7, the predecessor of 31 + 1, P(31 + 1), exists. By axiom 3, P(31 + 1) ≠ 31. Therefore, by axiom 14, P(31 + 1) + 1 = 31 + 1. This means that P(31 + 1) + 1 = 31 + 1, so, by axiom 15, P(31 + 1) = 31. This is a contradiction. 02:07:05 If 31 + 1 ≠ 31 + 1 then it could be not a Chafian number 02:07:33 Nor could it be anything whatsoever. 02:08:14 It's late at night 02:08:33 So it is. 02:08:47 tswett: your theorem has a flaw 02:08:47 tswett: how long until you have to specify the logic you're using 02:08:51 Let me take two 300-microgram tablets of melatonin. 02:08:54 elliott: first-order logic. 02:08:58 About six seconds. 02:09:23 coppro: it does? 02:10:25 tswett: Ok, ok, I see it 02:10:49 It's a contradiction because of axiom 3 02:11:25 But 02:12:07 no wait, you're right 02:12:52 tswett: Does this mean that all chafian numbers smaller than 0 or larger than 31 are equal to 0? 02:14:15 Does one of the axioms imply uniqueness or something like that? This might be used to prove that there are only 32 unique chafian numbers 02:14:56 define larger 02:15:18 Yeah, depends on how you define "larger". 02:15:26 x + 1 is larger than x 02:15:57 Actualyl 02:16:08 It wouldn't prove all chafian numbers are equal to zero 02:16:40 31 + 1 + 1 would be the same as 1, not the same as 0 02:17:41 All assuming 32 = 31 + 1 02:18:09 Actually, I can still see nonstandard chafian numbers 02:18:37 Let's see 02:19:24 "x + 1 is larger than x" isn't satisfied by any total orders, since 31 + 1 = 0. 02:20:34 eh, just well-order the thing 02:21:15 Suppose i ≠ 0; By axiom 7, P(i) exists. By axiom 2, S(i) exists 02:21:30 Not all models of the Chafian numbers have 32 elements, if that's what you're asking 02:21:35 This can be repeated for the value P(i) and the value S(i), extending infinitely in both directions 02:21:36 but there exists a model that does 02:21:42 FSVO infinitely 02:21:45 And indeed, we're just defining i as "a non-standard number". 02:21:48 At no point you will encounter a standard chafian number 02:21:52 oh, I see 02:21:54 FreeFull: right. 02:22:07 coppro: doesn't axiom 8 imply that there are no finite models of the Chafian numbers? 02:22:34 Along with axiom 6. 02:22:35 tswett: 0 could be larger than 31 02:23:06 -!- Arc_Koen has quit (Quit: Arc_Koen). 02:23:10 FreeFull: yeah, but you can't consistently have... let me have lambdabot tell you. 02:23:16 tswett: what is axoim 7 02:23:18 *axiom 02:23:20 oh 02:23:23 it comes after axiom 3 02:23:25 and before axiom 4 02:23:26 Funny, chafian numbers are almost but not quite mod32 02:23:30 chafian ordering?? 02:23:44 > "You can't consistently have " ++ concat [show n ++ " < " | n <- [0..31]] "0." 02:23:45 Couldn't match expected type `[GHC.Types.Char] -> [GHC.Types.Char]' 02:23:45 ... 02:23:53 > "You can't consistently have " ++ concat [show n ++ " < " | n <- [0..31]] ++ "0." 02:23:53 tswett: Ok, how about this 02:23:55 "You can't consistently have 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 < 7 < 8 < 9 < 10 < 1... 02:24:02 tswett: S(x) is larger than x 02:24:07 * tswett nods. 02:24:17 Since there is no S(31), there is no number larger than 31 02:24:17 Yeah, that seems consistent. 02:24:27 i could be larger than 31. 02:24:41 tswett: totally forgot about those >< 02:24:52 ok, so yeah, you definitely have nonstandard ones 02:25:07 actually 02:25:13 your axioms are stupid 02:25:22 finally someone speaks sense 02:25:26 S(0) = 31 is allowable as a model of the Chafian numbers 02:25:52 FreeFull: wait, no, that's not consistent. Every nonstandard number is the 32nd successor of itself. 02:25:53 Y'all're still talking about this? 02:26:01 tswett: not necessarily 02:26:01 coppro: Not with the axioms disallowing it 02:26:02 coppro: 31 is defined as the 31st successor of 0. 02:26:07 tswett: no it's not 02:26:28 Fine, I'm adding another axiom saying it is. 02:26:56 http://pastie.org/5147243 02:27:00 16. 1 = S(0), 2 = S(1), 3 = S(2), ..., and 31 = S(30). 02:27:07 shachaf: yes. 02:27:36 Why are the axioms numbered weirdly? 02:28:01 Because I want them to be presented in a logical order, but I don't want to renumber any of them. 02:28:21 Agora Nomic gets along well that way. 02:28:51 Can you show that i would be the 32nd successor of itself? 02:30:05 -!- QuaeroVeritatis has joined. 02:30:24 hello all 02:30:35 `welcome QuaeroVeritatis 02:30:40 -!- QuaeroVeritatis has left. 02:30:46 QuaeroVeritatis: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on irc.dal.net.) 02:30:48 well fuck you 02:31:31 `welcome shachaf 02:31:34 shachaf: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on irc.dal.net.) 02:31:40 HackEgo: thx :') 02:31:45 No one's ever welcomed me before. 02:40:23 `WELCOME shachaf 02:40:27 SHACHAF: WELCOME TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUB FOR ESOTERIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE DESIGN AND DEPLOYMENT! FOR MORE INFORMATION, CHECK OUT OUR WIKI: HTTP://ESOLANGS.ORG/WIKI/MAIN_PAGE. (FOR THE OTHER KIND OF ESOTERICA, TRY #ESOTERIC ON IRC.DAL.NET.) 02:41:14 `wELCOME tswett 02:41:16 ​/home/hackbot/hackbot.hg/multibot_cmds/lib/limits: line 5: exec: wELCOME: not found 02:41:22 i FEEL SO UNWELCOME. 02:42:19 hi 02:42:45 tswett: Can you show i = S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(i)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 02:42:58 FreeFull: I don't believe so. 02:43:27 Ok 02:44:04 So i is the 32nd successor of itself only if by 32 you mean the chaffian number 31 + 1 02:44:20 You used 16 Ss there, not 32 of them. 02:44:44 but hey, what's the difference 02:44:45 By "32nd successor", I mean the successor iterated 32 times, where "32" is the ordinary natural number 32. 02:45:04 didn't we just establish 32 wasn't a natural number hours ago 02:45:27 We did, but then we changed our definition of "natural number" to be not stupid. 02:45:35 Actually, I'm not sure we really have a definition of "natural number". 02:45:42 tswett: Woops 02:45:57 After all, there's no definition of "natural number" in first-order logic that does not also admit things that aren't the natural numbers. 02:46:10 S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(i)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 02:46:32 I guess they're perfectly definable in second-order logic, aren't they? But I don't know what the semantics of second-order logic are. 02:46:41 Is there a number that isn't a surreal number? 02:46:52 define number 02:47:00 Imaginary numbers are not surreal numbers. 02:47:22 Cardinal numbers are only sometimes identified with ordinal numbers. 02:47:54 cardinal numbers are ordinal numbers 02:48:11 but not all ordinal numbers are cardinal numbers 02:49:43 You're right about imaginary numbers not being surreal numbers I think 02:49:43 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 02:49:52 -!- DH____ has joined. 02:49:53 Hmm 02:50:34 -!- ssue has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 02:50:41 -!- ssue has joined. 03:03:48 -!- Sgeo|web has joined. 03:04:25 hibye im alive 03:04:54 Sgeo|web: are you drunk 03:05:22 was in a rush 03:05:44 that's worse 03:05:45 this is the second time we have been told Sgeo|web is alive recently 03:05:58 try not to die 03:06:32 not in any danger. except for crossing streets. 03:06:56 don't cross sts Sgeo|web 03:07:50 -!- Bike has joined. 03:08:49 Hi, Bike. 03:09:23 Hike. 03:09:24 hi, tsett. 03:10:53 -!- Sgeo|web has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 03:13:02 is it bad if i can't stop laughing at sgeo right now 03:13:25 Yes. 03:13:34 what kind of bad 03:13:46 Hm... 03:13:46 Sgeo crossed a saint. 03:13:51 You don't want to do that. 03:13:52 A couple dozen millihitlers. 03:14:06 Between 40 and 50. 03:14:16 But yes, as I was saying. 03:14:18 Hm... 03:14:54 You know how there's no computable set of axioms that uniquely defines the natural numbers? And, in particular, the Peano axioms, in first-order logic, admit multiple models? 03:14:57 Only one of those models is computable. 03:15:12 You can kind of define the natural numbers as "the computable model of the Peano axioms". 03:15:56 but i hear there's no computable set of axioms that uniquely defines the natural numbers 03:16:05 True. 03:16:17 And, in particular, the Peano axioms, in first-order logic, admit multiple models. 03:16:21 dumb question time: a model is computable if it's a recursive set? 03:16:22 But only one of those models is computable. 03:16:35 Bike: that's the meaning I had in mind, yeah. 03:19:59 cool 03:19:59 tswett: a computable set of axioms that uniquely defines the booleans 03:19:59 -!- Jafet1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 03:19:59 -!- glogbot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 03:20:05 -!- esowiki has joined. 03:20:09 -!- esowiki has joined. 03:20:10 -!- esowiki has joined. 03:20:11 -!- glogbot has joined. 03:20:28 -!- glogbackup has joined. 03:21:26 elliott: yeah, those exist. 03:22:08 There exist Booleans x and y such that x ≠ y. There do not exist Booleans x, y and z such that x ≠ y, y ≠ z, and x ≠ z. 03:22:25 tswett: well then! 03:22:28 tswett: just do the same thing for naturals 03:22:44 there exist naturals x and y such that x =/= y. there exist naturals x and y and z such that x =/= y =/= z. there exist ... 03:24:24 There do not exist naturals a_0, a_1, ..., a_n such that a_0 ≠ a_1, a_0 ≠ a_2, ..., a_0 ≠ a_n, a_1 ≠ a_2, a_1 ≠ a_3, ..., a_1 ≠ a_n, ... ... ..., a_(n-1) ≠ a_n? 03:24:30 For some uncountable natural number n? 03:24:35 tswett: yes. 03:24:58 I still don't understand "uniquely", is this something with ordinals 03:26:05 Bike: if a computable set of axioms has the natural numbers as a model, then it also has other things as models. 03:26:27 Other things like what? 03:27:56 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic 03:27:57 Those. 03:28:15 oh, those things that I don't understand... thanks. 03:28:17 tswett: did you know: 03:28:22 there's no computable set of axioms in first-order logic that uniquely determines the natural numbers 03:28:25 ? 03:28:32 probably I should just read more boolos or somefin 03:28:34 "tru fax" 03:28:48 shachaf: hm. I think I remember somebody saying that before. 03:28:55 Shadow fax 03:31:19 I wonder what the Peano axioms + the negation of Goodstein's theorem is like. 03:31:44 What about the Peano axioms + the negation of Godwin's law? 03:31:50 Nah, that's unthinkable. 03:36:12 It's like the Peano axioms + the negation of Goodstein's theorem 03:39:46 Let i be the smallest number such that the Goodstein sequence G(i) is infinite. 03:41:17 i must be very large, of course. 03:41:29 O kay 03:41:36 So large, in fact, that ZFC tells you there's no such thing. 03:41:46 But let's ignore the fact that i doesn't exist. Is it even or odd? 03:42:19 Obviously neither is provable in peano arithmetic 03:42:34 Unless adding the axiom made it inconsistent, in which case both are provable 03:42:50 That doesn't seem obvious to me. 03:42:57 `addquote But let's ignore the fact that i doesn't exist. Is it even or odd? 03:43:00 874) But let's ignore the fact that i doesn't exist. Is it even or odd? 03:43:05 Maybe Goodstein's theorem is trivial for odd numbers or something. 03:43:36 You can prove that for any n, G(n) is a natural number 03:43:55 So you can't prove anything about i, because it doesn't exist 03:44:13 Yeah, but what can you prove about it within the Peano axioms? 03:44:30 Nothing, it doesn't exist 03:44:47 On the contrary, you can prove that it's greater than 3. 03:44:56 Okay, yes. 03:45:01 Rather: that if it exists, it's greater than 3. 03:45:25 Since its existence is somehow an axiom, you don't need that bit 03:45:33 * tswett nods. 03:45:38 I guess it might be possible to prove it even or odd 03:45:47 Proving it to be both would be interesting 03:46:21 That would mean that your system is inconsistent. And it isn't. 03:46:48 Well, it could be inconsistent 03:46:49 -!- quintopia has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 03:46:58 I don't think anyone knows 03:47:08 couldn't it only be inconsistent if peano was inconsistent? 03:47:19 The Kirby–Paris theorem states that it is, in fact, consistent. 03:47:38 or that... 03:47:44 -!- quintopia has joined. 03:47:52 In the sense that it is neither provable nor unprovable in peano arithmetic 03:47:56 well PA could be inconsistent 03:48:09 Not in the sense that adding it or its negation won't cause the new axioms to be inconsistent 03:48:32 Gentzen showed that PA is consistent, sort of 03:48:39 yes the "sort of" is the rub 03:48:59 Edward Nelson had an attempted proof of PA inconsistency recently 03:49:06 but it turned out to be flawed 03:50:39 elliott: do you know if you've exceeded my little brother in age yet? 03:50:55 i don't know, how old is he 03:51:29 "Theorem: Nelson's proof can't be right. 03:51:29 Proof: The formal system within which Nelson carries out his proofs requires a theory of syntax. This theory is surely at least as strong as PRA. So: 03:51:29 (1) If Nelson's proof is right, then it follows that Nelson's proof is wrong." 03:51:29 heh 03:52:11 But you have consistent proofs in an inconsistent logic 03:52:22 You just have to be really careful, probably 03:52:43 i wonder what would happen if PRA got proved inconsistent overnight 03:53:25 The total and irrevocable collapse of civilisation 03:53:28 elliott: uh, I think he's like 17 or something. 03:53:36 edward nelson is one of my favourite wacky mathematicians 03:53:41 IIRC he doesn't believe exponentiation is total 03:53:54 I forget his argument, although ISTR it's at least vaguely compelling 03:54:17 Hey, Nelson is the guy that developed internal set theory. 03:54:38 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=103 03:54:52 Jafet: yes! I love that anecdote 03:55:19 Everyone loves that anecdote. 03:59:35 i love that anecdote 04:00:09 ∀p. ♥(p, A) 04:02:17 > 2^100 04:02:22 mueval-core: Time limit exceeded 04:02:32 > 2^100 04:02:37 mueval-core: Time limit exceeded 04:02:40 k 04:02:41 guess that proves that. 04:02:47 QED. 04:02:51 > 2^100 04:02:56 mueval-core: Time limit exceeded 04:02:58 > 2^100 04:03:01 Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect': 04:03:01 Use -v to see a list of the... 04:03:06 I have to ask what the time limit is... 04:03:07 > 2^100 04:03:11 Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect': 04:03:11 Use -v to see a list of the... 04:03:15 Something weird is going on with lambdabot recently. 04:03:16 > 1 04:03:19 Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect': 04:03:19 Use -v to see a list of the... 04:05:23 > 1 04:05:27 Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect': 04:05:27 Use -v to see a list of the... 04:05:47 > ∀p. ♥(p, A) 04:05:52 mueval-core: Time limit exceeded 04:08:28 > 1 04:08:32 mueval-core: Time limit exceeded 04:08:35 > 2^100 04:08:38 Could not find module `Debug.SimpleReflect': 04:08:38 Use -v to see a list of the... 04:09:19 1267650600228229401496703205376 04:13:42 thanks tswett 04:20:03 `run echo '2^100' | bc 04:20:06 bash: bc: command not found 04:20:46 `run echo '2 100^p' | dc 04:20:49 1267650600228229401496703205376 04:47:29 -!- Nisstyre has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 04:51:54 -!- Nisstyre has joined. 04:52:32 -!- evincar has joined. 05:06:12 this machine has sda1 through sdo1 05:06:16 more than half way through the alphabet 05:08:25 sdz9 05:08:31 -!- monqy has joined. 05:08:32 what comes after sdz 05:08:36 monqy: hey 05:08:52 st:ds9 05:08:59 hi 05:09:05 is next i think 05:12:25 9 STDs 05:12:58 i'm not sure i can even name 9 STDs 05:13:15 You'd need to be as debauched as five Babylons 05:13:21 -_- 05:13:32 i mean if you have sex with someone who has a cold, you might get a cold 05:13:34 does that count 05:14:02 what about sexually transmitted crazy 05:14:45 I think it's only used for things that are transmitted only through sex 05:14:57 well HIV is not transmitted only through sex 05:14:59 Like national secrets 05:15:13 i think all STDs are possible to catch some other way 05:15:15 if you get creative 05:15:30 Depends on how phallic you think needles are 05:15:57 fair point (no pun intended (pun very much intended)) 06:09:34 kmc: My flag shirt arrived today. 06:09:51 "Time Sensitive Material" 06:10:14 Seems a higher-quality shirt than the last one. 07:11:57 -!- evincar has quit (Quit: leaving). 07:31:05 -!- Bike has quit (Quit: leaving). 07:36:12 -!- epicmonkey has joined. 08:26:49 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 08:43:39 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 09:02:55 -!- opgrop has joined. 09:03:13 -!- opgrop has left. 09:21:29 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 09:22:16 -!- elliott has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 09:26:30 -!- carado has joined. 09:31:07 -!- DH____ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 09:32:56 -!- epicmonkey has joined. 09:42:41 -!- elliott has joined. 09:43:20 -!- elliott has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 09:43:46 -!- elliott has joined. 09:52:13 -!- nooga has joined. 09:52:19 gur 09:55:23 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 10:02:02 gur 10:07:30 -!- carado has joined. 10:08:47 -!- nooga has quit (Quit: leaving). 10:14:53 rug 10:15:43 elliott: Please /nick to enlightening 10:15:46 And then back to elliott. 10:15:54 So my /query window gets renamed. 10:15:56 "thx" 10:16:13 no 10:16:32 elliott: :'( 10:16:44 elliott: Alternatively, tell me how to rename an irssi /query window. 10:18:06 idk 10:18:14 try not using irssi 10:18:52 elliott: how about you try 10:18:56 BEING SAD 10:19:52 no 10:23:42 -!- Arc_Koen has joined. 10:26:38 -!- DHeadshot has joined. 10:31:35 so here's an idea for a language 10:31:54 its only way of branching would be to use lazy evaluation of boolean expressions 10:32:31 (for instance, assuming x always return true, "if (b) {x} else {y}" can be written "(b AND x) OR y") 10:33:01 but this language would do its best to do minimalist; in particular, its only logic gate would be the universal logic gate XOR 10:34:15 -!- AnotherTest has joined. 10:34:21 Hello 10:36:37 hello 10:42:32 -!- carado has quit (Quit: Leaving). 10:45:12 -!- mean has joined. 11:08:05 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 11:36:25 mean: are you mean 11:37:23 /mode +median mean 11:37:23 Sounds likely; the average person is mean. 11:40:14 -!- fungot has joined. 11:41:10 =)) 11:41:29 i noticed they don't have this mode 11:41:32 on freenode 11:41:35 like undernet 11:41:35 why 11:41:36 ? 11:42:15 to hide my ip 11:45:42 sounds like you want a cloak 11:45:53 you can get one for asking for one in #freenode 11:45:55 meanwhile, 11:45:56 `welcome mean 11:46:06 mean: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on irc.dal.net.) 11:46:21 (asking in #freenode after reading http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#cloaks, ofc) 11:46:32 yep 11:46:33 cloak 11:46:55 great 11:46:57 thanks 11:47:42 -!- sivoais has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 11:54:28 -!- this has joined. 11:54:28 -!- this has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 11:55:16 -!- mean has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 11:59:14 -!- impomatic has joined. 12:04:17 pikhq: hey you know things about wayland right 12:05:17 -!- sivoais has joined. 12:21:40 -!- ais523 has joined. 12:32:35 -!- atriq has joined. 12:35:14 When I try to start thunar, I get (thunar:27545): GVFS-RemoteVolumeMonitor-WARNING **: invoking List() failed for type GProxyVolumeMonitorUDisks2: Method `List' returned type `(a(sssbbbbbbbbuasa{ss}sa{sv})a(sssssbbssa{ss}sa{sv})a(sssssbsassa{sv}))', but expected `(a(ssssbbbbbbbbuasa{ss}sa{sv})a(ssssssbbssa{ss}sa{sv})a(ssssssbsassa{sv}))' (g-io-error-quark, 13) 12:35:21 Isn't that the weirdest error 12:40:05 FreeFull: i think that's a dbus type thing 12:41:22 You seem to be expecting three s too many. 12:52:15 -!- atriq has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 13:02:05 Logging out and back in fixed it 13:05:52 -!- atriq has joined. 13:12:17 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 13:12:23 -!- ais523_ has joined. 13:14:15 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais523. 13:14:26 elliott, you were right 13:15:00 Elliott was right?! Uh, I mean, of course. 13:15:15 atriq: but of course! 13:15:42 Brogue is very fun 13:17:53 -!- impomatic has quit (Quit: http://RetroProgramming.com). 13:31:49 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 13:32:04 -!- ais523 has joined. 13:38:11 -!- nooga_ has joined. 13:38:27 -!- ais523_ has joined. 13:38:27 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 13:39:18 i've finally found the best reason to use OS X 13:39:42 Go on...? 13:39:48 ehttp://cl.ly/image/3N1V131H2Z1B 13:39:56 http://cl.ly/image/3N1V131H2Z1B 13:42:11 -!- Frooxius has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 13:42:45 http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=50107 13:45:20 -!- Frooxius has joined. 13:51:35 -!- ogrom has joined. 13:56:24 -!- ogrom has quit (Client Quit). 14:13:09 -!- nooga_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 14:37:05 -!- pikhq_ has joined. 14:37:36 -!- pikhq has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 14:39:56 -!- nooga has joined. 14:40:13 uh, how do I get rid of this horrible scroll bar if my
 
is too large? 14:41:10 overflow: 14:41:17 (that is, how do I tell mediawiki that it should let my browser display a newline if the line is too large for the screen) 14:41:17 using CSS, that is 14:41:56 oh, mediawiki 14:42:02 nevermind in that case 14:42:11 thanks anyway :) 14:42:34 of course I could insert newlines my self but that sounds like a bad way to deal with the problem 14:42:57 especially if not everyone has the exact same screen I have 14:43:48 The obvious solution is of course to mandate same screens for everyone. 14:44:23 yes I was thinking about sending a mail to the president of computers 14:45:17 Lessee, which US federal executive department would that be? 14:45:52 -!- ais523_ has changed nick to ais523. 14:46:12 The Department of... Energy? 14:46:42 don't the chamber of commerce run the internet? 14:46:58 Does US have a Department of Conservation of Energy? 14:47:18 you don't normally need government departments to enforce the laws of physics 14:47:32 Just in case. 14:47:39 That's have to be an agency of the Department of Things We Have No Control Over. 14:48:11 -!- Phantom__Hoover has joined. 14:48:15 fizzie, nah, the Democrats are in power and they're liberal 14:48:25 They've got a Department for the Liberation of Energy 14:48:33 are you saying there the president of physics is not needed? 14:48:42 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 14:48:45 I don't think he would like hearing that 14:48:51 * pikhq_ votes for a Department of Entropy 14:51:04 can we compromise on a department of enthalpy? 14:51:20 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 14:53:53 I demand that it be a Department of Enormity. 14:53:58 -!- pikhq has joined. 14:53:59 -!- pikhq_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 14:54:03 I will not settle for anything less. 14:54:31 I wonder if I could apply for US citizenship on the basis that my gran was born in California 14:54:44 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 14:55:04 I wonder what would happen if I applied for US citizenship. 14:56:13 -!- ais523 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 14:56:31 -!- ais523 has joined. 15:02:58 so, hum, anyone knows how to get rid of the scroll bar? 15:04:08 -!- nooga has joined. 15:05:39 scroll bar? 15:06:39 -!- DHeadshot has joined. 15:07:25 elliott: if I have a long line in a
 block, it all stays in one line, with a horizontal scroll bar to see what's out of the screen
15:07:43  instead of displaying automatic newlines as is done with normal text
15:08:28  oh. ask oerjan :P
15:08:35  oh i see
15:08:38  right that is intentional
15:08:47  you can change the pre-wrap style thing but i forget how right now
15:10:34 -!- MoALTz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
15:11:14 -!- MoALTz has joined.
15:22:07  baa
15:44:20 -!- nooga_ has joined.
15:45:02  Is "Sherlock" a real name?
15:45:17  Oh, it appears to be a surname that exists
15:45:25  So it could presumably be used as a first name
15:45:39  (cf. Robson Green et al)
15:45:55  (who incidentally was from Hexham)
15:46:42  hex ham
15:46:49  `? hexham
15:46:52  Hexham is a European town. There are nine people in Hexham, and at least two of them are in this channel. Taneb looks after the ham.
15:47:11  i know what's Hexham, atriq 
15:47:27  Robson Green doesn't
15:47:30 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
15:47:37 -!- nooga_ has changed nick to nooga.
15:48:02  what about at riq
15:48:05  Octham
15:53:04 -!- atriq has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
16:09:41  after playing with this PDP8/e
16:10:06  I don't get how they could use it for something useful back then
16:18:18  Spoiled by Gordon Moore.
16:21:03  he didn't really predict anything
16:22:21  IMHO management divisions just learned about his predictions and ordered enginieers to fulfill them
16:25:05  He should have predicted faster chips then!
16:25:31  yeah
16:26:18  but there is another law
16:26:56  that limits the speed of electrons :F
16:29:20 -!- ais523 has quit.
16:29:50  Also the size of components.
16:30:00  I thought the size restrictions were the harsher ones.
16:30:10  And the thermal ones too, I guess.
16:31:02  Smaller components get hotter because they have to move more electrons, which makes it harder to move electrons around, which makes it necessary to make the components smaller
16:31:10  It's a wonder that these chips ever get made
16:32:04  Don't modern chips generate more power per unit volume than a nuclear reactor?
16:32:10  s/power/heat/
16:32:42  Well, nuclear reactors can probably generate more if they turned all the safeties off
16:39:51 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
16:40:28 -!- augur has joined.
16:41:51 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
16:43:29  Jafet: in which case they would be called nuclear bombs
16:43:53  Arc_Koen, no they wouldn't
16:44:22  do you mean there would be nobody left to call them anything?
16:44:25  nuclear reactors aren't even close to being able to properly explode.
16:44:30  oh
16:44:48  I thought if you removed the control bars the reaction would chain exponentially
16:44:58 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds).
16:45:08  Not enough to actually blow up.
16:45:20  I'VE BEEN LIED TO
16:45:32  They tend to melt through the containment vessel or cause heat-related explosions.
16:46:19  the only reason you get so much power out of a nuclear bomb is that you shove all the stuff together at high speed in a very precise way
16:46:19 -!- lambdabot has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
16:46:37  Not just that, the stuff has to be a lot purer than fuel.
16:46:45  which keeps it from flying apart just long enough to go crazy
16:46:47  yeah that's true
16:49:38  Although a criticality excursion might count as a tiny nuclear explosion? Anyway, not enough to fit into what everyone thinks of as a nuclear explosion.
16:49:49  yeah, the manhattan project had originally planned to use a gun-type bomb with plutonium
16:50:06  but they couldn't make plutonium pure enough at scale to prevent it from spontaneously fizzling during the detonation process
16:50:31  so they had to use the much more complex implosion design for Pu
16:54:14  what if you mix naquida in the fuel?
16:54:47  depends, is it fissile
16:54:54 -!- elliott has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
16:57:07  I honestly have no idea. They usually just link it to some random ship they found, using copper and a lot of tape, and it generates enough power to travel across the galaxy (and sometimes outside)
17:00:02 -!- atriq has joined.
17:13:44 -!- atriq has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
17:15:38 -!- augur has joined.
17:27:00 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
17:31:11 -!- Vorpal has joined.
17:42:21 -!- ais523 has joined.
17:47:27 -!- gippi has joined.
17:48:24 -!- gippi has quit (Client Quit).
18:01:39  I have an email notifying me of a "female movable feast".
18:02:49  o.o
18:03:22  It's run by RBS so doubtless the name will be the most interesting thing about it.
18:03:39 -!- nooga has joined.
18:04:42  what?
18:05:12   I have an email notifying me of a "female movable feast".
18:05:14  that's what
18:06:39  what's "female movable feast"?
18:07:44  no idea
18:07:53  It involves investment banking though.
18:31:11 -!- epicmonkey has joined.
18:47:16 -!- AnotherTest has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
19:06:18 -!- monqy has quit (Quit: hello).
19:10:59 -!- zzo38 has joined.
19:12:20 -!- lambdabot has joined.
19:17:20 -!- Bike has joined.
19:23:35  Do you know what speed the ARMv2a-compatible Amber core can run at? Do you know how to make some of kind of modifications such as hardwiring the cacheable areas and supervisor areas and so on?
19:27:52  I might need to make the computer at first using FPGA, later on it may be replaced with open-source FPGA and/or ASIC components.
19:34:04 -!- nooga_ has joined.
19:37:15 -!- nooga has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
19:42:28 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
19:43:03 -!- augur has joined.
19:43:42  Do you like this chess/shogi variants?   http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSkirachesskiras
19:47:34 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
19:51:49 -!- FreeFull has quit (Quit: Time to lose consciousness).
19:52:50  If your opponent's Kira is a knight's move away or one space orthogonally away
19:53:03  zzo38: what do you mean by "one space orthogonally away"?
19:54:48  also I don't understand the thing about double wins
19:57:38  Arc_Koen: I mean what is sometimes called the "Wazir"; from c3, it can capture on c2, c4, b3, and d3, for example.
19:58:09  ok
19:58:21  Double wins is just for scoring, you count as 2 wins instead of 1
19:58:31  yes but when does it occur?
19:58:50  from what I understand, you win when both special pieces of your opponents are out
19:58:59  yES.
19:59:38  so when do you double-win?
20:00:14  But if you win due to your opponent's L dies from your Kira when they have no Kira, then you win, this is a special win count as double. Same if your L capture opponent's Kira when they have no L, it is win so it count as a double win.
20:00:18 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
20:00:45  Is this understandable to you, or not?
20:03:23  well yes but it that case it's only possible to double-win, is it not?
20:03:48  I mean, a win occurs when both L and Kira are dead... but for that, you have to kill one of the two, then the second
20:04:03  and you're saying that when the second dies, if the first was already dead, it's a double-win
20:04:10  Yes, in those cases it is only possible to double win; if the second is captured normally though, then it is a single win.
20:04:10  so it looks to me like it's always a double-win
20:04:19  oh
20:04:21  'Did U know that 1-877-SAF-RAIL dials directly to our Transit Police dispatch center? Put it in ur contacts. #potontrain #crimesinprogress'
20:04:24  HASHTAG POT ON TRAIN
20:04:35  I might be confusing "killing" and "capturing"
20:05:49  so what exactly is the propoer vocabulary? "killing" for the death note, "capturing" for regular chess captures, and "eliminating" when not making the distinction?
20:06:12  I suppose so.
20:06:30 -!- Bike has joined.
20:07:13  I can add that to the notes section.
20:10:00  ohhhh I get it
20:10:30  if you eliminate your opponent's second special piece using your special power, then it's a double-win
20:10:37  did I get it right?
20:13:32  Yes.
20:16:44 -!- DHeadshot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
20:28:30  '...physics doesn't really need sophisticated stats (unlike biology and medicine) because your data isn't crap.  Nobody approves a billion-dollar supercollider because somebody was just slightly able to exclude the null hypothesis at two sigma with a chi-square. People do approve billion-dollar pills that way.'
20:29:36  Isn't the frontier of physics actually based in sophisticated stats? :)
20:30:15  don't anger the nerds
20:30:28  "rational drug design" being a distinct thing is pretty funny, though.
20:30:48  who's angering what nerds
20:31:12  i think in physics you are just expected to get more data until your conclusions are relatively clear
20:33:13  kmc: Well, yes, physics does expect a ton of data. The higgs boson result recently was "5 sigma confirmation of the existence of *a* boson that happens to be consistent with the Higgs boson hypothesis.", no?
20:47:43 -!- epicmonkey has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds).
20:50:25  yeah i think so
20:50:30  i 
20:51:01  it sounds like you are emphasizing a distinction between "the higgs boson" and "a boson that happens to be consistent with the higgs boson" and I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction
20:51:45 -!- sivoais has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
20:52:14  I don't think they would be different anyways; if it has the properties of the Higgs boson then it must be the Higgs boson isn't it?
20:52:15 -!- sivoais has joined.
20:52:30  kmc, sure it is.
20:53:26  If you detected an unknown particle and you only knew it had a charge of -1 it would be consistent with an electron, but it could well be something else.
20:53:52  Yes the electron has more properties than just its electric charge.
20:54:13  fair enough
20:54:41  kmc: I'm saying that the physicists themselves are making that distinction. In the name of being careful.
21:07:29  'What does a $1.6 million explosion sound like? We'll have to ask Fisker Automotive. Sixteen of the luxury carmaker's $100,000 Karma hybrid sports sedans caught fire, blew up and then burned to a crisp after being submerged during Hurricane Sandy. '
21:17:14  ‘Not a lot of people know this, but the “B” in Benoît B. Mandelbrot’s name stands for “Benoît B. Mandelbrot”.’
21:18:44  ♥ Mandelbrot
21:27:02 -!- copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.).
21:37:15 -!- Lumpio- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
21:40:30 -!- augur has joined.
21:42:57  if only Unicode had a Mandelbrot Set character :/
21:43:40  pikhq: actually for one of the two experiments it was actually 4.9 sigma :)
21:50:32  (which is not really relevant at all, except very enjoyable for those who were part of the other experiment that got 5.1)
22:02:57 -!- Vorpal has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
22:14:27 -!- Lumpio- has joined.
22:22:18 -!- FreeFull has joined.
22:46:57 -!- boily has quit (Quit: Poulet!).
22:48:13 -!- copumpkin has joined.
23:00:05 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
23:11:31 -!- nortti has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).
23:11:40 -!- nortti has joined.
23:23:02 -!- copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.).
23:25:52 -!- MoALTz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
23:26:31 -!- MoALTz has joined.
23:55:44 -!- ais523 has changed nick to ais523\unfog.
23:55:45 -!- ais523\unfog has changed nick to ais523\unfoog.
23:57:57  I have had idea before, of a + | ^ operator (these being the C operators), which is allowed only if all are the same result, and its opposite being the - &~ ^ operator.
23:58:15  It could be usable for optimization in some cases, I guess.
23:59:27 -!- pikhq_ has joined.
23:59:28 -!- pikhq has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).