00:03:32 -!- p34k has quit.
00:07:10 -!- Lord_of_Life has quit (Quit: EliteBNC free bnc service - http://elitebnc.org - be a part of the Elite!).
00:10:37 -!- Lord_of_Life has joined.
00:14:21 -!- hppavilion[1] has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
00:26:17 -!- Sprocklem has joined.
00:27:21 -!- XorSwap has quit (Quit: Leaving).
00:45:39 <oerjan> `? detonation
00:45:49 <HackEgo> detonation? ¯\(°​_o)/¯
00:46:27 <oerjan> `learn Detonation is the act of destroying a musical instrument.
00:46:29 <HackEgo> Learned 'detonation': Detonation is the act of destroying a musical instrument.
00:48:13 <shachaf> oerjan: what if there was a variant of learn that would refuse to relearn wth
00:49:34 <b_jonas> ouch
00:49:43 <oerjan> not that much?
00:49:48 <oerjan> b_jonas: hm?
00:52:53 <b_jonas> that pun is painful
00:53:03 <oerjan> you're welcome
01:02:59 -!- Sprocklem has quit (Quit: [).
01:04:08 -!- Sprocklem has joined.
01:26:02 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
01:36:19 -!- lleu has quit (Quit: That's what she said).
01:52:43 <\oren\> It occurs to me that the rules to my gridless go are sufficiently general to apply to any manifold with a metric
01:53:36 <\oren\> so it could be played on a sphere, infinite plane, or the projective plane.
01:54:05 <\oren\> well, only two-dimensional manifolds
01:57:19 <\oren\> manifolds with uneven curvature could be interesting
01:58:00 <\oren\> because a stone is harder to kill if it's on a saddle than on a hill
02:18:16 <oerjan> i don't quite see why it has to be 2d
02:18:39 <oerjan> you'd just use balls instead of disks
02:20:01 <oerjan> hm food
02:34:00 <oerjan> cold kebab doggy bag
02:38:24 <oerjan> \oren\: ^^
03:26:22 -!- earendel has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds).
03:28:42 <shachaf> b_jonas: good thing we didn't bet on olist hth
03:35:33 -!- earendel has joined.
03:39:44 <oerjan> show starting
03:42:09 <shachaf> i need to wake up in 8 hours tdnh
03:48:31 <Sgeo__> Cy&H done by PBF's author: http://explosm.net/comics/4238/
03:48:48 <Sgeo__> Don't know if that qualifies for pbflist
03:49:15 <Sgeo__> (NSFW)
03:49:53 <Sgeo__> `pbflist ^
03:49:58 <HackEgo> pbflist ^: shachaf Sgeo quintopia ion b_jonas
03:50:08 <shachaf> Oh, I thought you meant smlist.
03:50:13 <shachaf> That was much more exciting.
03:50:28 <Sgeo__> sm?
03:50:39 <shachaf> `? smlist
03:50:40 <HackEgo> Non-update notification for the webcomic Super Mega.
04:19:14 -!- MoALTz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
04:20:38 <\oren\> hmm, but how would liberties be defined in 3d go?
04:20:52 <izabera> same way?
04:21:00 <\oren\> er, 3d-ungridded go
04:21:23 <izabera> i don't know how ungridded go works at all
04:21:34 <\oren\> http://www.orenwatson.be/ungriddedgo.htm
04:22:37 <izabera> is that interesting?
04:23:05 <izabera> there's something similar for tetris
04:23:17 <\oren\> it means ko fights should get pretty interesting
04:23:59 <\oren\> because you can recreate a previous position, but with a few stones shifted slightly, possibly allowing nearby stones to intefere
04:25:16 <\oren\> I should try to write a computer version of ungridded go 
04:25:47 <\oren\> also, the branching factor is a lot higher
04:26:15 <izabera> a computer version wouldn't work
04:26:21 <\oren\> why?
04:26:51 <izabera> because rationals vs reals
04:27:04 <\oren\> well I suppose it would be limited to the precision of rationals on the hardware-- yeah.
04:27:32 <izabera> in a computer it's like a gridded go with larger stones
04:29:09 <\oren\> right, but it should still have a much different tactics than regular go.
04:29:16 <\oren\> well, sort of
04:29:42 <izabera> i think 3d go would be interesting
04:29:45 <\oren\> obviously until people start playing it we can't know[C
04:31:14 -!- treaki_ has joined.
04:32:11 <izabera> http://www.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/gv/boards.htm
04:32:19 <izabera> look at continuous boards
04:35:00 -!- treaki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
04:35:15 <izabera> hehe "45 flip degrees"
04:56:33 <\oren\> holy shit. what if you also had an expanding board
04:57:14 <\oren\> that would be terrible, never mind
06:32:03 -!- augur_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
06:38:15 -!- augur has joined.
06:47:48 -!- earendel has changed nick to eArendel.
07:19:57 <\oren\> operations on strings: append, insert, substring, search, split, compare. am I missing any?
07:22:08 <lambda-11235> \oren\: reverse, index, sort
07:24:11 <lambda-11235> find/match
07:25:00 <lambda-11235> I guess that falls under search, my bad, it's late.
07:27:28 -!- lambda-11235 has quit (Quit: Bye).
07:32:12 <izabera> rotate, swap bytes
07:33:12 <izabera> and most importantly, strfry and memfrob
07:55:49 -!- mroman has joined.
07:55:52 <mroman> fnard
08:23:07 -!- J_Arcane has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
08:36:35 -!- AnotherTest has joined.
08:52:14 <FireFly> Go on a torus is really annoying with the lack of edges and corners
08:52:18 <FireFly> so hard to make territory
09:04:06 <oerjan> machine 4 human 1
09:04:17 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Good night).
09:16:20 -!- MoALTz has joined.
10:34:21 -!- boily has joined.
10:43:09 -!- hppavilion[1] has joined.
10:51:49 <boily> `wisdom
10:52:08 <HackEgo> not found/not found? ¯\(°​_o)/¯
10:54:38 <boily> `culprits wisdom/not\ found
10:54:48 <HackEgo> No output.
10:54:52 <boily> ...?
11:00:27 -!- asie has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
11:09:16 <mroman> `halp
11:09:17 <HackEgo> No halp 4 u
11:10:59 <b_jonas> wait, really?
11:11:14 <b_jonas> that looks like a false alarm
11:11:30 <b_jonas> oh, "Cy&H done by PBF's author"
11:11:32 <b_jonas> seriously
11:15:47 <boily> b_jellonaseriously.
11:21:10 -!- asie has joined.
11:24:46 -!- boily has quit (Quit: RAMPAGING CHICKEN).
11:32:37 -!- hppavilion[1] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
11:48:44 -!- hppavilion[1] has joined.
12:19:33 -!- eArendel has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
12:31:03 -!- hppavilion[1] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
12:37:42 -!- lleu has joined.
12:42:06 -!- jaboja has joined.
13:03:36 -!- jaboja has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
13:34:27 -!- eArendel has joined.
13:38:34 -!- heroux has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
13:40:03 -!- jaboja has joined.
13:58:23 -!- eArendel2 has joined.
14:00:01 -!- eArendel has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
14:03:36 -!- `^_^v has joined.
14:38:12 -!- J_Arcane has joined.
14:53:45 -!- spiette has joined.
15:00:29 -!- lambda-11235 has joined.
15:13:07 <b_jonas> wait what
15:13:10 <b_jonas> this seems strange
15:13:37 <b_jonas> how can they award AlphaGo a dan rank after just two matches with two people? shouldn't they wait to see how he fares in more matches against other opponents?
15:14:38 <b_jonas> what a farce! It's like giving the peace Nobel to Obama
15:14:52 <b_jonas> they're giving a rank in advance, hoping it would motivate Alphago to improve
15:18:16 <FireFly> I think it's a honorary rank in this case
15:18:23 <FireFly> or that's how I gathered it
15:18:31 <FireFly> what I gathered*
15:18:46 <b_jonas> aren't all _high_ dan ranks (like, above 5 dan or something like that) honorary?
15:19:35 <FireFly> Don't know
15:20:04 <FireFly> I'm not sure how much I should trust Hikaru no Go on this matter
15:21:46 <b_jonas> there… might be a difference between China and Korea about the dan rank stuff that I'm not aware of, or some other subtlety. 
15:21:57 <b_jonas> I sit here as a poor Westerner who can't imagine how these things go
15:31:44 -!- ineiros has joined.
15:43:35 -!- J_Arcane has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds).
15:50:11 -!- jaboja has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
16:05:15 -!- mroman has quit (Quit: Lost terminal).
16:06:51 -!- zadock has joined.
16:30:12 -!- eArendel2 has quit (Quit: eArendel2).
16:31:00 -!- earendel has joined.
17:02:15 -!- shikhin has changed nick to dtscode.
17:02:18 -!- dtscode has changed nick to shikhin.
17:16:32 -!- lynn has joined.
17:28:01 <shachaf> fungot: you're underappreciated
17:28:01 <fungot> shachaf: lauri's parents have also lied to my parents now that i understand
17:47:31 -!- lambda-11235 has quit (Quit: Bye).
17:50:07 -!- heroux has joined.
18:14:52 -!- zadock has quit (Quit: Leaving).
18:23:02 -!- p34k has joined.
18:23:12 <int-e> fungot: that's awful, how can they live with themselves?
18:23:12 <fungot> int-e: why would i want to work on a better plan of action is just right.
18:47:16 <Vorpal> ^style
18:47:16 <fungot> Available: agora alice c64 ct darwin discworld enron europarl ff7 fisher fungot homestuck ic irc* iwcs jargon lovecraft nethack oots pa qwantz sms speeches ss wp youtube
18:48:24 <shachaf> `welcome Vorpal
18:48:29 <shachaf> long time Norpal
18:48:36 <HackEgo> Vorpal: Welcome to the international hub for esoteric programming language design and deployment! For more information, check out our wiki: <http://esolangs.org/>. (For the other kind of esoterica, try #esoteric on EFnet or DALnet.)
19:05:21 <Vorpal> shachaf: thanks
19:15:33 -!- Reece` has joined.
19:45:45 -!- hppavilion[1] has joined.
19:57:26 -!- J_Arcane has joined.
19:58:51 -!- FreeFull has quit (Quit: Rebooting).
20:01:29 -!- FreeFull has joined.
20:06:38 <hppavilion[1]> Anybody want to play Nomic over Github?
20:07:02 <hppavilion[1]> I need at least 2 more players
20:10:15 -!- prooftechnique has left ("ERC (IRC client for Emacs 24.5.1)").
20:12:06 -!- prooftechnique has joined.
20:12:28 <prooftechnique> hppavilion[1]: I'd be into it
20:13:29 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: Cool! Follow the repo at https://github.com/hppavilion1/github-lambdanomic and I'll add you to the list
20:13:57 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: I just need one more person (and the last person starred it instead of following, so I'm not sure if they'll get an alert when something goes up)
20:13:57 <prooftechnique> It is done
20:14:09 <hppavilion[1]> (I've been looking for them on IRC every day)
20:15:49 <prooftechnique> I'm already planning a rule that all rules must be provided in a machine readable format, so that bots can be entities :D
20:16:23 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: I was thinking that the format should probably be mathematical- some sort of predicate logic
20:16:24 <hppavilion[1]> :P
20:16:44 <prooftechnique> Sounds machine readable to me
20:16:54 <hppavilion[1]> Yep, probably, other than (a -> b) -> c
20:17:02 <hppavilion[1]> Still readable, but harder-to-read-able
20:17:18 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: And note in the rules that it says any rule-following entity can serve as 0 or 1 players
20:17:32 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: Though also note that the rules only allow you to add rules currently >:)
20:18:08 <hppavilion[1]> So the first rule change I'm planning will be an overriding rule that requires that broadens rulechange scope
20:18:37 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: Of course, you'll have to provide the machine-readable format
20:18:53 <prooftechnique> Even better, design by committee :D
20:19:02 <hppavilion[1]> >:D
20:19:27 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: Will that rule say that the machine readable format is the canonical rule and the english is simply an interpretation?
20:20:02 <hppavilion[1]> NOT the canonical rule?
20:20:08 <prooftechnique> That's probably the most convenient way, though then we get into the issue of rules that can be expressed in English but not the canonical form
20:20:18 <hppavilion[1]> Yep
20:20:40 <prooftechnique> So really we need a supplemental rule to establish that rules must be reducible to some canonical form to be proposed in the first place
20:21:04 <prooftechnique> It's a real chicken and egg situation
20:21:06 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: I recommend we have a file called "predfuncs.txt" that provides a list of builtin predicates and functions that a rule-following machine must support
20:21:19 <hppavilion[1]> In english, as they have to be added by the botmaster
20:21:29 <prooftechnique> Oh, that would work.
20:21:40 <hppavilion[1]> prooftechnique: My favorite part of the GitHub model of nomic: Branches
20:24:15 -!- Reece` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
20:30:06 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined.
20:42:29 -!- ais523 has joined.
20:52:07 -!- hppavilion[2] has joined.
20:54:45 -!- spiette has quit (Quit: :qa!).
20:55:37 -!- hppavilion[1] has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds).
20:57:44 -!- lambda-11235 has joined.
21:01:06 <hppavilion[2]> lambda-11235: I might've asked you already, but do you have any desire to play Nomic?
21:01:31 <lambda-11235> hppavilion[2]: What is Nomic?
21:01:44 <hppavilion[2]> lambda-11235: It's a game where you change the game's rules as you go
21:02:06 <ais523> lambda-11235: the short way to explain nomic is "a game in which changing the rules is a move in the game"
21:02:20 <hppavilion[2]> lambda-11235: Here's the initial ruleset I'm using for my game: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hppavilion1/github-lambdanomic/master/rules.md
21:02:28 <ais523> although in practice, it normally turns into "a game, together with a codified method of changing its rules to improve it as you play"
21:02:47 <lambda-11235> Sounds like a Calvin and Hobbes kinda game.
21:03:13 <hppavilion[2]> lambda-11235: Yes, but it's regulated
21:03:16 <prooftechnique> The rules of Calvinball are sacred
21:03:29 <hppavilion[2]> lambda-11235: prooftechnique is playing, btw
21:03:39 <ais523> calvinball has a lot in common with nomic
21:03:46 <hppavilion[2]> It does
21:03:50 <ais523> (actually I've seen someone claim it's not a nomic because the rule "you can't use the same rule twice" can't be changed)
21:03:52 <hppavilion[2]> But nomic is more structured
21:04:20 <ais523> not always
21:04:21 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: And calvinball has no voting
21:04:25 <prooftechnique> And the unspoken mask rule
21:04:32 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Nomic could be calvinball if you tried hard enough
21:04:40 <ais523> the Fantasy Rules Committee is pretty unstructured, and theoretically has voting but it hardly ever comes up
21:04:45 <ais523> hppavilion[2]: nomic can be anything if you want it to be
21:04:50 <ais523> including a non-nomic
21:04:56 <hppavilion[2]> Yeah
21:04:58 <hppavilion[2]> True
21:05:36 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Fun nomic rule: This rule is only valid if the halting problem for whether it can be played returns FALSE
21:05:42 <hppavilion[2]> It's paradoxical AND uncomputable
21:05:47 <hppavilion[2]> It's an uncomputable paradox
21:05:58 <hppavilion[2]> (Dear lord, please let my logic be correct. Amen.)
21:06:00 <ais523> hppavilion[2]: many nomics have a rule that if you construct a paradox, you win
21:06:05 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: True
21:06:21 <ais523> although Agora got rid of that eventually because people managed to scam the paradox rule much more often than they produced an actual paradox
21:06:33 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Did you have to study hexadecimology to get your doctorate?
21:06:54 <ais523> no, hexadecimal is pretty unrelated to what I did in my PhD
21:07:00 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: xD
21:07:05 <ais523> really, numbers don't come up all that often
21:07:08 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: I thought of a new title
21:07:13 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: cdr (codoctor)
21:07:33 <hppavilion[2]> You are a codoctor if and only if your spouse is a doctor
21:07:47 <hppavilion[2]> Which seems at best useless, at worst a way to get a fancy title without putting effort into it
21:07:48 <hppavilion[2]> BUT
21:08:20 <hppavilion[2]> Codoctor has equal precedence as a title to doctor (prec(dr) > prec(mr), prec(mrs), prec(ms); prec(dr) = prec(reverend)
21:08:21 <hppavilion[2]> )
21:08:27 -!- sewilton_ has quit.
21:08:33 <hppavilion[2]> Which means that you can be doctor-codoctor John Smith
21:08:48 <ais523> this still seems useless
21:08:48 -!- sewilton_ has joined.
21:09:01 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: OK, it is
21:09:04 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: But it's fun
21:09:31 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: It's fun to be able to say "Not only did I get a doctorate, so did the man/woman/other I married"
21:09:36 <prooftechnique> Why codoctor? I'd think that'd make you at best a doctor by proxy.
21:09:48 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Your spouse is your "other half"
21:09:51 <hppavilion[2]> Your complement
21:09:52 <hppavilion[2]> Your dual
21:09:56 <hppavilion[2]> dual=co
21:10:16 <hppavilion[2]> It's a math joke
21:10:18 <prooftechnique> Wouldn't you also be a (for the sake of argument) comister?
21:10:25 -!- sewilton_ has quit (Client Quit).
21:10:38 -!- sewilton has joined.
21:10:46 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Yes, but "mister" is the default title, so nobody would care
21:11:20 <hppavilion[2]> Just because you're reverend-doctor smith, doesn't mean you /have/ to always include both reverend AND doctor, or even either at all (you could just call yourself mister if you felt like it)
21:11:28 <shachaf> this is not a good meaning of duality
21:11:36 <shachaf> what if you have more than one spouse?
21:11:48 <ais523> I feel that copumpkin would take issue with hppavilion[2]'s definition of duality too
21:11:49 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Your dual is the set of your spice
21:11:52 <prooftechnique> Is marriage an involution?
21:11:58 <hppavilion[2]> But if you're male and didn't get any fancy degree, you're mr. no matter what
21:12:02 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Sure
21:12:11 <shachaf> in general spouse is an arbitrary and not good thing to choose here
21:12:25 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Wait, no, the function that takes a person and returns the set of their spouses is the involution
21:12:33 <shachaf> ais523: whoa whoa whoa, is that what the story of cinderella is about?
21:12:35 <hppavilion[2]> Marriage is a thing that binds to people into a dual relationship
21:12:52 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Well who would be better suited as the co- of a person?
21:12:53 <prooftechnique> What about polygamists?
21:13:05 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: "set of your spouses"
21:13:07 <shachaf> The set of every other person in the world?
21:13:23 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: No, the universe is your family at your generational level
21:13:25 <prooftechnique> codoctor seems like it should just mean "not a doctor", and that could be anyone
21:13:26 <ais523> shachaf: ?
21:13:37 <ais523> a codoctor /should/ be a time-reversed doctor
21:13:43 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: How so?
21:13:44 <prooftechnique> Oh, that's better
21:13:45 <ais523> perhaps they turn theorems into coffee?
21:13:51 <shachaf> ais523: The prince turned into a copumpkin at midnight.
21:14:08 <prooftechnique> shachaf: Surely at noon
21:14:09 <ais523> shachaf: ah I see
21:14:17 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: It's not a math joke that is 100% rigorous. Can we just leave it at that?
21:14:29 <hppavilion[2]> Your spouse (or spouses) is (are) your dual
21:14:45 <hppavilion[2]> By definition
21:14:46 <prooftechnique> Is it really a math joke without rigor? Sounds like a conjecture joke to me hth
21:14:48 <hppavilion[2]> You know why?
21:14:49 <shachaf> but marriage is a scam
21:14:54 <shachaf> so i don't accept your definition
21:15:05 <hppavilion[2]> Because the spouse of your spouse is yourself
21:15:12 <hppavilion[2]> sps^2(x)=x
21:15:21 <shachaf> What if my spouse is the empty set?
21:15:24 <prooftechnique> Like, "what's purple and commutes?" is a math joke
21:15:25 <shachaf> What's the spouse of that?
21:15:47 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: The empty set is the spouse of all bachelors/bachelorettes
21:15:59 <ais523> it's not really an empty set, more like an empty monad
21:16:07 <shachaf> The spouse of my enemy is my friend.
21:16:23 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Even better, the domain of sps is exclusively people in a marital relationship.
21:16:28 <hppavilion[2]> And sets of said people
21:16:30 <hppavilion[2]> There.
21:16:36 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: You are not in sps's domain
21:16:43 <shachaf> How do you know that?
21:16:51 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Because it's the definition of sps
21:17:02 <hppavilion[2]> sps : MarriedPeople -> MarriedPeople
21:17:06 <prooftechnique> I have two spouses, A and B. How do I define sps?
21:17:12 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: It returns the set
21:17:25 <shachaf> And it takes a set as input, of course.
21:17:25 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: So that above definition isn't 100% correct
21:17:35 <shachaf> So P(M) -> P(M)
21:17:39 <shachaf> But how do you know I'm not in M?
21:17:53 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Are you married?
21:17:59 <shachaf> none of your business hth
21:18:13 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Then I don't know if you're in the MarriedPeople type
21:18:33 <hppavilion[2]> s/in/an element of/
21:18:34 <prooftechnique> sps looks a lot like id, with that definition
21:18:41 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: It isn't ID
21:18:57 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: It's just has a domain and codomain that are the same type
21:19:02 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: That's allowed
21:19:04 <prooftechnique> sps {me, A, B} = ?
21:19:07 <hppavilion[2]> succ : Nat -> Nat
21:19:13 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Empty set
21:19:24 <shachaf> look
21:19:28 <hppavilion[2]> sps : {MarriedPeople} -> {MarriedPeople}
21:19:28 <shachaf> the whole premise is flawed
21:19:39 <shachaf> marriage is an arbitrary thing
21:19:40 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Well we DID take the axiom of choice
21:19:49 <shachaf> it's not fundamental like duality
21:19:51 <ais523> hppavilion[2]: there are only finitely many people
21:19:56 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Yes, and?
21:20:01 <ais523> so the axiom of choice seems irrelvant here
21:20:05 <hppavilion[2]> Oh right
21:20:07 <hppavilion[2]> Forgot about that
21:20:19 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: It is
21:20:24 <prooftechnique> Why is it the empty set?
21:20:29 <prooftechnique> I have two spouses, A and B
21:20:49 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: And you're taking the spouse of an entire marital set
21:21:09 <hppavilion[2]> Which is equivalent to the intersection of the spouse of all items of the marital set
21:21:15 <prooftechnique> You said I had to do that :/
21:21:38 <shachaf> What's the spouse of {A,B} if A and B aren't married?
21:21:47 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: That is not a defined operation
21:21:57 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: A and B have to be married
21:22:07 <prooftechnique> Then why would I need sps? :P
21:22:15 <hppavilion[2]> sps({Me, A, B}) = sps(Me) I sps(A) I sps(B) = {}
21:23:12 <hppavilion[2]> (I like doing abstract math on concrete things)
21:23:24 <hppavilion[2]> I is intersection, btw
21:24:05 <prooftechnique> All right, so sps me = ?
21:24:17 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: {A, B}
21:24:29 <prooftechnique> Okay, but now what's sps^2 me?
21:24:41 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: sps^2(x) = sps(sps(x))
21:24:46 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: That's pretty standard notation
21:24:54 <hppavilion[2]> Sort of like sps^-1
21:25:00 <prooftechnique> I know what the notation means, I mean what's the value of it?
21:25:13 <prooftechnique> Oh, wait, I follow, now
21:25:17 <prooftechnique> You do intersection for sets
21:25:18 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Oh, sps^2(Me) = Me
21:25:25 <hppavilion[2]> sps returns a set, remember
21:25:37 <shachaf> No, it still doesn't work.
21:25:44 <hppavilion[2]> And it accepts a set, though shorthand permits the input to be written just as a set
21:25:50 <shachaf> The spoue of the empty set isn't defined.
21:25:52 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: What's the issue now?
21:26:08 <shachaf> But the spouse of {A,B} can be the empty set.
21:26:14 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: sps({}) = People-MarriedPeople?
21:26:20 <shachaf> You only made it uglier by ruling out one-person marriages, you didn't fix it.
21:26:22 <hppavilion[2]> sps : {MarriedPeople} -> {People}
21:26:29 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: There
21:26:40 <shachaf> If {A,B} are married, then you want sps(sps({A,B})) to be {A,B}
21:26:46 <shachaf> And sps({A,B}) to be {}
21:26:49 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: ONE PERSON MARRIAGES ARE AN ABOMINATION (ax. 3)
21:26:58 <hppavilion[2]> That's a good point...
21:27:00 <hppavilion[2]> Hm...
21:27:36 <shachaf> What you should do is define the complement of a set of people to be the set of everyone else in the universe.
21:27:52 <hppavilion[2]> I think we might be able to remediate this by replacing the set of MarriedPeople in the input with a labeled digraph
21:28:11 <prooftechnique> LABELED DIGRAPHS WON'T FIX OUR MARRIAGE, GERALD!
21:28:22 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: xD
21:28:30 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: I think we overdid this
21:28:50 <prooftechnique> Underdid, we haven't solved marriage, yet
21:28:59 <hppavilion[2]> I just wanted to be "doctor codoctor hppavilion[1]" someday
21:29:01 <shachaf> If you really wanted it to work, you'd probably want a family of spouse functions, indexed by marriage set.
21:29:09 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: That's a good idea
21:29:17 <shachaf> Maybe it's even a natural transformation.
21:29:23 <prooftechnique> shachaf: Try telling that to my wife~
21:29:37 <prooftechnique> *wives
21:29:44 <lynn> "I now declare you... a non-empty marriage set."
21:29:52 <hppavilion[2]> sps[ms] : ms -> ms
21:30:05 <prooftechnique> "You may unify your constraints"
21:30:10 <hppavilion[2]> sps[{}](x) -> undefined
21:30:19 <hppavilion[2]> Mostly because x is impossible
21:30:29 <shachaf> Just say x
21:30:43 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: OK
21:30:51 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: But the empty set has no elements
21:30:57 <hppavilion[2]> p < 0.5
21:31:16 <hppavilion[2]> (not s/0.5/0.05)
21:31:25 <lynn> hppavilion[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_function
21:31:55 <hppavilion[2]> lynn: Huh
21:32:23 <shachaf> OK, so don't define it at all.
21:32:31 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Fair enough
21:32:32 <shachaf> Anyway you should make it a natural transformation.
21:32:41 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: How do I do that?
21:32:47 <hppavilion[2]> I'm still working on my category theory
21:32:59 <hppavilion[2]> sps[{x}](x) = {}
21:33:08 <shachaf> I don't know.
21:33:25 <hppavilion[2]> So sps[x](y) is basically just x\y
21:33:31 <shachaf> Yes.
21:33:34 <hppavilion[2]> OK
21:33:46 <hppavilion[2]> Now here's the definition
21:34:15 <shachaf> By the way, marriages might not be cliques.
21:34:24 <shachaf> I guess I should say transitive.
21:34:30 <shachaf> Maybe A is married to B and B is married to C but not A to C.
21:34:37 <shachaf> Maybe marriage is a directed graph.
21:34:39 <ais523> why would you expect marriages to be transitive
21:34:51 <hppavilion[2]> doctor(x) -> forall y[y in sps[marset(x)](y)] : codoctor(y) 
21:34:52 <shachaf> ais523: Well, hppavilion[2] is using equivalence classes.
21:34:57 <ais523> in the case of heterosexual marriage with two genders, they're antitransitive
21:35:11 <shachaf> Why?
21:35:14 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: So you want digraph marriages?
21:35:17 <shachaf> Presumably a person is always married to themselves.
21:35:33 <ais523> shachaf: if A is married to B and B is married to C, then (with these assumptions) A and C have the same gender and B has a different gender
21:35:47 <ais523> and no, it is quite unusual, with standard definitions, for someone to be married to themselves
21:35:50 <hppavilion[2]> Where sps(x) = {y, z} does not imply sps(y) = {x, z} or sps(z) = {x, y} (index excluded)
21:36:01 <lynn> shachaf: I feel like that doesn't really match everyday usage of the term
21:36:05 <ais523> although given the relaxation on definitions of marriage recently, it might be possible to pull it off
21:36:07 <shachaf> ais523: Only if there are two genders.
21:36:14 <ais523> shachaf: that was one of my assumptions
21:36:22 <hppavilion[2]> Wait, now that we have a marset(x) function, we don't need the index, do we?
21:36:22 <ais523> now, ofc these assumptions aren't true in practice
21:36:24 <shachaf> Oh, yes.
21:36:31 <hppavilion[2]> Wait, no, marriage sets aren't exclusive
21:36:40 <ais523> they are both true more than half the time, but not 100% accurate
21:37:00 <hppavilion[2]> x in marset(y) -/> ~(x in marset(z)) where marset(z) /= marset(y)
21:37:11 <ais523> hmm, surely there's got to be some jurisdiction somewhere that was relying on gender as the only prevention of someone marrying themselves
21:37:12 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: There, there's your nontransitive marriage
21:37:12 <prooftechnique> Maybe it's better to formalize "Marital status" rather than marriage itself
21:37:23 <shachaf> ais523: I think a "heterosexual marriage" with more than two people is a somewhat strange idea.
21:37:24 <prooftechnique> Since then the singleton case is defined
21:37:28 <ais523> it seems like marrying yourself could be good for, say, tax purpsoes
21:37:34 <lynn> Is marriage ever irreflexive?
21:37:38 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: But that defeats the point
21:37:46 <hppavilion[2]> ~married(x, x)
21:37:47 <lynn> I mean. Not reflexive
21:37:59 <shachaf> ais523: Isn't that the main purpose of marriage anyway?
21:38:14 <ais523> shachaf: for some people yes, for other people no
21:38:18 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: OK, what's the current question? In small words?
21:38:46 <hppavilion[2]> Is coppro the dual of ppro?
21:38:56 <shachaf> coppavillion
21:38:57 <ais523> hppavilion[2]: what I'm thinking about is "is there any jurisdiction in which it is legally possible to marry yourself, and would there be any benefit in doing so?"
21:39:12 <lynn> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-marriage
21:39:21 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: There certainly are jurristictions where it's allowed, according to cdr. Ripley
21:39:32 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Are there any other titles we need to invent?
21:39:38 <shachaf> ais523: It seems to me that it should either be impossible to marry yourself or everyone should automatically be married to themselves.
21:39:41 <hppavilion[2]> adr. Smith (antidoctor)
21:40:01 <hppavilion[2]> You become an antidoctor when you receive your antidoctorate, also known as a Darwin Award
21:40:20 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: In our system or in real life?
21:40:48 <shachaf> "our"?
21:40:52 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: My?
21:40:53 <shachaf> Since when are we married?
21:40:55 -!- Opodeldoc has joined.
21:41:04 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: No, I mean our system of defining marriage
21:41:06 <prooftechnique> Surely sologamy isn't right. Autogamy would more Greek
21:41:15 <ais523> lynn: hmm, that article covers a different side of the subject than what I'd hoped :-(
21:41:24 <hppavilion[2]> prooftechnique: Antimonogamy: Being married to -1 people
21:41:40 <hppavilion[2]> I'm in a nullogamous relationship
21:42:10 <prooftechnique> I think antimonogamy is a marriage that kills the priest
21:42:20 <shachaf> ais523: http://www.selfmarriageceremonies.com/faq/ says there are no tax benefits.
21:42:26 <ais523> according to the linked sources, the sologamous marriage mentioned near the top wasn't legally recognised
21:42:30 <lynn> shachaf: Well, if you're married to yourself, and hppavilion[2] also is...
21:42:34 <shachaf> But that seems like hardly a marriage at all.
21:42:45 <shachaf> lynn: Oh, is the rule that everyone is married to myself?
21:42:53 <ais523> shachaf: gah at the pronouns there
21:42:58 <lynn> Yes. HTH
21:43:04 <ais523> I understand they want to be gender-inclusive, but changing pronouns at random is not a good way to do that :-(
21:43:18 <prooftechnique> Yeesh, who wrote this terrible article? Wiki editors should be all over this
21:43:33 <ais523> it has a couple of cleanup tags
21:43:41 <lynn> Do I have to marry myself to love myself?
21:43:43 <ais523> it could do with another one but I'm not entirely sure what it should be
21:43:44 <shachaf> ais523: There should be a <blink> tag for pronouns.
21:43:47 <lynn> ^ This question is very cute
21:43:53 <shachaf> So they're consistent at any point in time but change every second.
21:44:00 <ais523> shachaf: that's beautiful :-)
21:44:12 <ais523> does it also work on gender-specific words?
21:44:19 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Well duh
21:44:25 <ais523> that aren't pronouns?
21:44:29 <hppavilion[2]> Yes
21:44:39 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Of course, it would also include "xe" in the cycle just to bug people
21:44:58 <ais523> hppavilion[2]: at Agora we use e, em, eir, eirs, eirself
21:45:04 <ais523> but this is not just gender-neutral but sentience-neutral
21:45:05 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Yes, I heard
21:45:10 <hppavilion[2]> ais523: Interesting
21:45:11 <ais523> "e" includes not just "he" and "she" but also "it"
21:45:37 <ais523> this is important because occasionally we have situations where inanimate objects or even concepts are capable of participating in the game
21:46:08 <hppavilion[2]> Whoa...
21:46:25 <lynn> "e" sounds so much like "he"
21:46:39 <shachaf> Does e?
21:46:41 <lynn> Cockney English pronouns
21:46:51 <ais523> yes, the Cockney connection is unfortunate
21:48:15 <hppavilion[2]> sher
21:49:57 <shachaf> I pronounce "e" as in "even", not as in "meter".
21:50:16 <hppavilion[2]> shachaf: Those are very bad example word choi- ooooooh
21:50:19 <hppavilion[2]> That's the joke
21:50:24 <ais523> shachaf: assuming you're referring to the first e in those two words, I pronounce those the same way
21:52:03 <shachaf> ais523: I was actually just trying to be ambiguous.
21:52:23 <shachaf> I actually pronounce it like "end".
21:54:01 <lynn> I pronounce "e" as the letter, but all the other ones as the "them/their" series without the first consonant
21:55:32 <shachaf> i,i 'a' as in "tomato"
21:56:24 <shachaf> `? gaspacho
21:56:25 <HackEgo> You like Gazpacho and I like Gaspacho. Let's call the whole thing off!
21:56:27 <shachaf> `? gazpacho
21:56:28 <HackEgo> You like Gazpacho and I like Gaspacho. Let's call the whole thing off!
21:56:34 <shachaf> `` ls -l wisdom/ga{s,z}pacho
21:56:35 <HackEgo> ​-rw-r--r-- 1 5000 0 71 Dec  9 04:13 wisdom/gaspacho \ -rw-r--r-- 1 5000 0 71 Dec  9 04:13 wisdom/gazpacho
21:56:39 <shachaf> what!
21:56:52 -!- hppavilion[2] has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
21:58:36 -!- AnotherTest has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in).
21:58:37 -!- boily has joined.
21:58:44 <shachaf> `` sed -i 's/Gaspacho/Gazpacho/' wisdom/gaspacho; sed -i 's/Gazpacho/Gaspacho/' wisdom/gaspacho
21:58:45 <boily> `? wether
21:58:51 <HackEgo> wether? ¯\(°​_o)/¯
21:58:53 <HackEgo> No output.
21:58:53 <boily> hellochaf!
21:58:58 <shachaf> `` \? gaspacho; \? gazpacho
21:59:00 <HackEgo> You like Gaspacho and I like Gazpacho. Let's call the whole thing off! \ You like Gazpacho and I like Gaspacho. Let's call the whole thing off!
21:59:25 <shachaf> @yowly
21:59:25 <lambdabot> ... I want a COLOR T.V. and a VIBRATING BED!!!
22:00:03 <boily> I don't want a vibrating bed.
22:00:17 <shachaf> @yowly
22:00:18 <lambdabot> I'm also against BODY-SURFING!!
22:00:34 <boily> I'm not against body surfing.
22:00:48 <boily> int-e: int-ello. please calibrate zippy hth
22:01:16 <shachaf> Do you pronounce "ello" as in "elo" or as in "hello"?
22:01:53 <boily> there's a difference?
22:02:20 <shachaf> Let's call the whole thing off.
22:02:36 <shachaf> `? gaszpacho
22:02:37 <HackEgo> gaszpacho is a polish soup, traditionally szerved cold for hot szummer days
22:03:02 <shachaf> `? gaspasjo
22:03:03 <HackEgo> gaspasjo is a norwegian soup, which died out due to a lack of hot summer days
22:03:07 <shachaf> `? gaspatsjo
22:03:08 <HackEgo> gaspatsjo is a norwegian soup, which died out due to a lack of hot summer days
22:03:22 -!- Phantom__Hoover has joined.
22:03:27 -!- `^_^v has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds).
22:03:29 <shachaf> `? tanebventions
22:03:31 <HackEgo> Tanebventions include D-modules, Chu spaces, automatic squirrel feeders, the torus, Stephen Wolfram, Go, submarine jousting, the universe, weetoflakes, persistence, the reals, Lambek's lemma, robots, progress, and this sentence. He never invents anything involving sex.
22:03:37 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
22:04:14 <shachaf> `` sed -i 's/S/gazpacho, S/' wisdom/tanebvention
22:04:16 <HackEgo> No output.
22:04:58 <shachaf> According to Wikipedia, Gazpacho is refreshing and cool.
22:06:10 <boily> the Best Szoup in the World!
22:06:22 <boily> (after pho, of course.)
22:09:23 <shachaf> `le/rn pho/Phở is a Vietnamese soup invented by nooodl to stress-test implementation of Unicode combining characters.
22:09:29 <HackEgo> Learned «pho»
22:09:45 <shachaf> `sedlast s/tion/tions/
22:09:51 <HackEgo> No output.
22:10:07 <boily> `` ls wisdom/ph*
22:10:09 <HackEgo> wisdom/phantom_hoover \ wisdom/phantom__hoover \ wisdom/phantom___hoover \ wisdom/phantom_______hoover \ wisdom/phantom__________hoover \ wisdom/phantom____________________hoover \ wisdom/pho \ wisdom/phở \ wisdom/photograph \ wisdom/php
22:10:22 <boily> `? phở
22:10:24 <HackEgo> Phở là một món ăn truyền thống của Việt Nam, cũng có thể xem là một trong những món ăn đặc trưng nhất cho ẩm thực Việt Nam.
22:10:40 <boily> I think we could should be merging both together.
22:12:53 <shachaf> `? pho
22:12:54 <HackEgo> Phở is a Vietnamese soup invented by noooooooodl to stress-test implementations of Unicode combining characters.
22:13:34 <shachaf> whoa whoa whoa, maur is nowhere to be seen
22:13:54 <shachaf> `? nooodlventions
22:13:54 <HackEgo> nooodlventions? ¯\(°​_o)/¯
22:14:31 * boily stealth mapole shachaf
22:15:06 <boily> @tell mauris you bring yourself here, you vile absent person!
22:15:07 <lambdabot> Consider it noted.
22:15:17 <boily> @tell mauris here being #esoteric.
22:15:17 <lambdabot> Consider it noted.
22:15:30 <shachaf> 15:15 -NickServ(NickServ@services.)- Last seen  : Feb 06 03:27:23 2016 (5w 3d 18h ago)
22:15:55 <boily> aurgh.
22:17:44 <shachaf> ais523: http://qntm.org/gay talks about marrying yourself among other things that came up.
22:22:44 <lynn> shachaf: boily: maur is Lynn now, actually (and goes by "she/her"!) Hellooo~.
22:23:09 <lynn> It doesn't help that I started hitting this "shift key" thing more often, very incognito name change
22:23:37 <coppro> @tell hppavilion[2] yes
22:23:37 <lambdabot> Consider it noted.
22:24:34 <Phantom__Hoover> lynn, wait are you nooodl
22:25:13 <lynn> yeah! My handles: slowly moving backwards in the alphabet
22:27:59 <boily> hellynn!
22:29:04 <lynn> boinjourly~
22:31:40 <Phantom__Hoover> boily is well ahead of you tbf
22:33:39 <shachaf> whoa whoa whoa
22:34:13 <shachaf> `` sed -i 's/is/is not/' wisdom/mauri
22:34:16 <HackEgo> No output.
22:34:23 <lynn> Phantom__Hoover: yes, I'm amazed imo
22:34:41 <ais523> Phantom__Hoover: I'm ahead of boily on that basis
22:34:52 <Phantom__Hoover> aloril_ remains distant and enigmatic, above us all
22:35:38 <ais523> hmm, and I'm first out of the people who start with an alphabetical character?
22:36:01 <Phantom__Hoover> yes you completely ruined an excellent joke
22:36:42 <Phantom__Hoover> did you know that aloril has been here constantly for well over a decade and has never, as far as i can tell, uttered a single word
22:37:03 <lynn> :D
22:37:10 <ais523> might be a bot in that case
22:37:14 <ais523> but in that case, why the underscore?
22:37:31 <Phantom__Hoover> they're using xchat
22:37:35 <Phantom__Hoover> so definitely not a bot
22:37:43 <ais523> time to go home, anyway
22:37:52 -!- ais523 has quit.
22:41:20 <Phantom__Hoover> holy shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess#3.C3.973_and_3.C3.974_boards
22:42:20 <shachaf> @ask zzo38 Do you like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess#3.C3.973_and_3.C3.974_boards
22:42:20 <lambdabot> Consider it noted.
22:43:38 <myname> solved problems are boring
22:51:00 <boily> Alcest is also quite mysterious. and I never saw APic speak.
22:51:41 <boily> /^[aA].*/ nicks are very intriguing people.
22:52:41 <boily> Phantom__Hoover: there's an Aloril in that page.
22:52:48 <Phantom__Hoover> exactly
22:52:51 <boily> the mystery thickens.
22:54:03 <b_jonas> it does
22:54:23 <shachaf> How about b_jon as the correct spelling?
22:54:27 <APic> boily: Then You just do not idle in here long enough ;=P
22:54:42 <APic> And what is the Problem with Bots anyhow?
22:55:29 <boily> An A-nick Spoke!
22:55:37 <boily> fungot: are you problematic?
22:55:37 <fungot> boily: i last saw mukunda on mar 01 at fnord am utc, saying: i don't run into anyone i know.
22:57:21 -!- XorSwap has joined.
23:07:18 -!- Opodeldoc has quit (Quit: Leaving).
23:08:13 <myname> wait, on 3x3 each pawn starts on the second line?
23:08:47 <myname> like, one line before the last?
23:09:44 <Phantom__Hoover> well, those were the positions aloril_ solved it for
23:09:48 <Phantom__Hoover> someone else solved the rest
23:10:04 <lynn> I once had to implement the 4x5 "Microchess" on that page as a Python exercise
23:10:52 <lynn> It was almost interesting!!
23:13:03 <boily> programming class?
23:13:15 <lynn> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess#4.C3.974.2C_4.C3.975_and_4.C3.978_chess The middle one.  1. Nb3+ Kb4  is a funny opening move.
23:48:57 -!- lynn has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds).
23:54:44 -!- p34k has quit.