00:00:47 this is so hard to control it's no wonder so many non-black people oppose necromancy as being against the natural order 00:01:35 I have to go to bed now, but I should get back to this with a fresher head later to try to understand what is really happening here 00:01:38 night 00:04:50 -!- wob_jonas has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client). 00:13:31 for the logreaders out there: Wipe Away is a standard card in Omnitell sideboards, and a) has Split Second, b) lets us get rid of everyone's lands and our own Omniscience (thus preventing us interfering with the combo) 00:13:42 so that's another problem solved without interfering with the original deck 00:32:05 -!- LKoen has quit (Quit: “It’s only logical. First you learn to talk, then you learn to think. Too bad it’s not the other way round.”). 00:39:29 Now the "mbff" program in the Farbfeld Utilities can also read classes and levels too. 00:40:21 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:41:09 -!- ais523 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 00:42:37 (Although it will not execute any class codes, meaning that it renders as displayed in the editor rather than at runtime, so auto-reversing Rotators won't be marked, Continuous Walls will not be continuous, etc) 00:51:31 -!- sleffy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 00:54:48 -!- tromp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 01:01:25 -!- xkapastel has joined. 01:09:52 Do you like this? 01:24:15 -!- trout has quit (Quit: Found 1 in /dev/zero). 01:27:59 -!- oerjan has joined. 01:35:14 `` grep -r en2sv bin 01:36:08 HackEgo is a bit slow. 01:36:14 `echo hi 01:36:21 hi 01:36:38 might end up timing out :( 01:36:39 bin/wälcåmä:exec welcome "$@" | bin/en2sv 01:36:41 oh 01:36:54 `ls bin/en2sv 01:36:55 ls: cannot access bin/en2sv: No such file or directory 01:37:28 `rm bin/wälcåmä 01:37:36 No output. 01:37:46 makes no sense to delete one but not the other. 01:43:13 HackEgo, the slowest bot in mexico 01:45:28 well that _is_ official. 01:45:32 `? HackEgo 01:45:33 HackEgo, also known as HackBot, is a bot that runs arbitrary commands on Unix. See `help for info on using it. You should totally try to hax0r it! Make sure you imagine it's running as root with no sandboxing. HackEgo is the slowest bot in all Mexico! 01:48:51 -!- Cale_ has joined. 02:06:46 -!- sprocklem has joined. 02:09:39 -!- tromp has joined. 02:14:02 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 02:29:34 . o O ( ITC MtG discussions can be on topic... ) 02:32:53 `cat bin/nur 02:32:53 ​"${1%% *}" "${1#* }" 02:33:00 `cat bin/2 02:33:01 ​\` "$@" |& sport 2 02:34:38 `mkx bin/,2//nur "$@" |& sport 2 02:34:41 bin/,2 02:35:05 `card-by-name Brass Herald 02:35:06 Brass Herald \ 6 \ Artifact Creature -- Golem \ 2/2 \ As Brass Herald enters the battlefield, choose a creature type. \ When Brass Herald enters the battlefield, reveal the top four cards of your library. Put all creature cards of the chosen type revealed this way into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order. \ Creatures o 02:35:15 `,2 card-by-name Brass Herald 02:35:17 2/2:es of the chosen type get +1/+1. \ AP-U, 8ED-R \ 02:36:03 `? `2 02:36:04 ​`2 is equivalent to `1 , except that it starts displaying the _second_ output piece. Useful when you've already run a command forgetting to use `1. 02:42:33 -!- sprocklem has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds). 03:02:49 -!- tromp has joined. 03:07:40 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 03:10:03 -!- variable has joined. 03:52:52 -!- Hoolootwo has changed nick to Hooloovo0. 04:13:31 -!- xkapastel has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 04:15:15 -!- xkapastel has joined. 04:28:01 -!- sprocklem has joined. 04:37:48 -!- sleffy has joined. 04:49:45 -!- tromp has joined. 04:54:27 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 04:59:01 -!- sleffy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 04:59:50 -!- atslash has joined. 05:04:05 -!- atslash has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 05:04:27 -!- atslash has joined. 05:31:06 -!- xkapastel has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 05:55:36 Did you see this? https://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org/msg108914.html 06:13:38 -!- sleffy has joined. 06:16:25 -!- tromp has joined. 06:21:14 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds). 06:34:26 -!- atslash has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep). 06:45:44 -!- atslash has joined. 07:10:35 -!- tromp has joined. 07:13:23 -!- variable has quit (Quit: /dev/null is full). 07:14:35 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 07:24:32 -!- augur has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 07:54:41 -!- tromp has joined. 07:59:28 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds). 08:00:45 -!- variable has joined. 08:08:47 <\oren\_> i wonder how the norms for the coin-bill transition get decided 08:08:52 <\oren\_> and yen has the highest coin at 500 which is 6 canadian dollars 08:08:57 <\oren\_> meanwhile china has the biggest coin as 1 yuan or 20 cents 08:09:39 <\oren\_> and canada is in the middle with biggest coin at 2 dollars 08:09:40 -!- trout has joined. 08:10:44 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: Nite). 08:13:39 -!- variable has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds). 08:32:26 -!- tromp has joined. 08:33:19 -!- moei has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 08:33:51 -!- moei has joined. 08:53:03 [[Countdown]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54267&oldid=53151 * Singingbanana * (+22) 09:04:28 -!- CADD has joined. 09:12:46 -!- CADD has changed nick to AisRauli. 09:23:11 -!- atslash has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep). 09:31:56 -!- ais523 has joined. 09:48:54 [[Wierd Machine]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54268&oldid=54266 * Singingbanana * (+904) 09:49:29 [[Wierd Machine]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54269&oldid=54268 * Singingbanana * (+13) 09:50:57 [[Wierd Machine]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54270&oldid=54269 * Singingbanana * (+0) 09:56:11 [[Truth-machine]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54271&oldid=53221 * Singingbanana * (+49) 09:57:45 [[Truth-machine]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54272&oldid=54271 * Singingbanana * (+3) 10:00:48 -!- wob_jonas has joined. 10:02:31 ais523: on the esowiki, what's the policy for writing about obfuscation (or golfing) techniques and notable obfuscated programs in a non-esoteric language, like perl or C or haskell? 10:02:55 I'm asking because there are now four or five attempts to prove M:tG turing complete, and we have to collect at least the links somewhere. 10:03:22 I don't think we have one yet 10:03:30 it may just be worth making a page about M:tG 10:03:40 it's not intended as a language, but when seen as a language it's definitely esoteric 10:05:28 we can definitely store notable programs on the wiki (assuming appropriate licensing), although the Esoteric Files Archive is meant to be a better place for that 10:06:09 -!- sleffy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 10:07:49 Yes, you can try to write about Turing-completeness and other stuff like that about Magic: the Gathering. 10:08:27 I think the correct approach is something like this 10:08:51 a) move the StackFlow implementation to the talk page or page history, as it's not actually correct within the rules of the game (it requires players to consistently stack triggers in a particular order) 10:09:06 b) create a page that treats M:tG as an esolang, and focuses on its programming aspects 10:09:53 I think the StackFlow implementation could be moved to a subpage, and put the complaints about it also on that subpage and/or the talk page of that subpage. 10:10:06 c) produce a concrete TWM program that can emulate any given Turing Machine by changing one of the inputs (i.e. proof of compilability) 10:10:40 d) produce an article, hosted on an external website, that goes through the entire construction (I could use mine for this, but it might be fun to get it onto a better-known M:tG website) 10:12:59 bonus points for actually doing this in a serious tournament and proving the whole thing to be broken 10:13:24 I doubt WotC cares to put it on their own website, but you can try, I suppose. 10:13:36 I meant a third-party M:tG articles websitee 10:13:39 *website 10:13:43 I'm sure there are some that accept submissions 10:15:15 O, OK. 10:16:18 anyway, I think I figured out the kill; assuming we're using Wild Cantor to get split-second protection for the whole thing, we can also use it to generate infinte mana by looping it, which lets us activate abilities 10:16:33 so we can put a "you lose the game" ability (e.g. Door to Nothingness) on the stack /underneath/ the entire combo 10:17:40 then we have to arrange for the loop to break when the halt state is reached, we do that by making the Rotlung Reanimator that handles the steady decrease insufficiently protected, so it acts like a waterclock rather than ROM 10:19:04 once it hits zero the whole thing unravels, and if the opponent doesn't have a stifle effect they just lose (note that we can ensure they have no mana and no mana-generating permanents, so they'd need to do something like two spirit guides → manamorphose → stifle) 10:19:48 this also lets me make the article better as I can add in a reference to There's the Door, a deck which is based around giving the opponent Door to Nothingness and repeating the same gamestate until they use it on themself 10:20:13 in this case, we only give them the chance to Door themselves once, if they refuse we go into the main combo (and because they've refused to Door themselves they're hopefully less likely to concede?) 10:21:27 -!- lynn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 10:21:44 -!- lynn has joined. 10:21:48 ais523: I would also like to link to the two or three previous proofs, the ones that assume players making certain simple decisions all the time 10:22:04 those are important for history even if you make a better proof 10:23:21 Yes, add those in a section for links to previous proofs 10:23:49 wob_jonas: they're all in the same place on Alex Churchill's website, so you'd just link that 10:24:06 you'd link it anyway as he came up with many of the techniques used 10:24:39 ais523: (on the kill) what the heck? why'd you need that? can't you just have a Platinum Angel or Abyssal Gatekeeper in play, make sure one of the creature-type specific toughness effects affect it as if it was one of the counters, and reduce everyone's life to zero in advance? 10:25:02 wob_jonas: the Door to Nothingness kill uses only one card above what we have already 10:25:21 I thought of the Platinum Angel kill but it needs two extra cards, the Angel itself and whatever you're using to reduce life totals 10:25:52 unless you're reducing life totals by attacking; you can get infinite extra turns with Emrakul but I don't see how you prevent the opponent simply blocking with the Angel 10:26:07 There is other stuff about Magic: the Gathering on esolang wiki, such as [[Magic The Gathering card deck of programming language]], [[StackFlow]], and [[Talk:Undefined behavior]]. 10:26:25 zzo38: I think we'd move the StackFlow stuff 10:26:36 I'd rather leave the "card deck of programming language" alone because it's technically a different language 10:26:42 maybe put it in a see also 10:27:25 the Talk:UB thing is a reference, not actually immediately related 10:28:17 Yes, leave those things alone because it is different, yes (and maybe put it in a see also). StackFlow stuff can be moved. And yes I know the Talk:UB thing is not actually related. I am only mentioning where Magic: the Gathering is mentioned on the wiki; making the new article about Magic: the Gathering is of course different to these things. 10:29:01 (The stuff on [[Talk:Undefined behavior]] under "Magic: the Gathering" is just a joke anyways, not a real thing.) 10:29:15 right 10:31:10 b_jonas: by the way, did we ever figure out if M:tG was /only/ TC or whether it could be computable? 10:31:21 *uncomputable 10:31:38 the aim would be to use a subgame card to differentiate a draw from a loss without ending the game, thus solving the halting problem 10:31:40 ais523: for the end condition, do you want the program to be able to cause a win or a lose, or are you satisfied with a construction that offers an infinity draw vs a win, or one that offers an infinity draw vs a lose? 10:32:04 wob_jonas: I'm personally OK with draw vs. win because that has an observable effect on tournament results 10:32:15 although win vs. loss would work even better as that means the program always halts 10:32:34 It depend if you want to be Vintage or "pseudo-Vintage" or something more. 10:32:42 unfortunately, Shahrazad was banned in Legacy and I'm not aware of any other cards that are capable of observing infinite-loop draws 10:32:46 ais523: it's definitely uncomputable, but only because of the infinite loops rule, and even then only if someone managed to formalize that rule precisely enough to know what it says for all situations, and I don't think anyone wants to do that. if you don't have the infinite loop rule, then M:tG with just the comprehensive rules and no tournament r 10:32:46 ules or silver border is computable. 10:33:04 wob_jonas: right, the whole point of this is to prove that the infinite loops rule is broken 10:33:38 do it in a tournament and suddenly the judges need to solve the Goldbach Conjecture in order to work out what the result of the tournament is 10:34:03 ah right, IIRC we decided it's obviously noncomputable, given a working definition 10:34:17 the hard part is to determine whether it's /paradoxical/, i.e. if we can set up a game where a player wins if and only if they don't win 10:34:21 but I believe the answer to that was no 10:34:46 Not just Legacy; Shahrazad is banned in Vintage, which is what is important. 10:35:52 If such a thing with Goldbach Conjecture occurs, and then, the player says, I have a proof of Goldbach Conjecture in my pocket I will show you... 10:36:29 I think if you just want draw vs win or draw vs lose, then once you figure out the exact construction, it will become trivial enough to modify it with at most one extra card (say Impetous Sunchaser) that the opponent must kill you in his turn without a choice. This relies on the exit from the main loop being clean and finite though, so I could be w 10:36:29 rong. 10:36:52 -!- AnotherTest has joined. 10:37:22 wob_jonas: well if the main loop exits, one player dies, that's trivial to do 10:37:34 if the main loop /doesn't/ exit, then it's a draw by definition 10:37:39 wait, why is Vintage important, as opposed to legacy? 10:37:47 vintage is the most permissive format 10:37:55 so if a card's banned in vintage it's banned everywhere 10:38:08 I was planning to aim the combo at Legacy, though, because that's the format that Omnitell is designed to do well in 10:38:44 -!- Hooloovo0 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 10:38:56 -!- Hoolootwo has joined. 10:39:23 exactly. for Vintage, you need to buy two dozen very expensive card to even stand a chance against serious opponents, and we don't want that in an elegant construction like what this should be unless it's absolutely necessary 10:41:34 I don't think Vintage will matter, unless you find that there's some card valid in Vintage but banned in Legacy and Two-headed Giant that really really helps make the setup work 10:45:41 here's an example of an Omnitell deck that already has several cards we need maindeck, and the ability to get the entire combo out of the sideboard without changing any maindeck cards: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=113604 10:47:51 (I picked a recent-ish version in the hope that the deck is still competitively viable) 10:51:09 ais523: what's the goal here? 10:51:43 alercah: the original goal is to create a Magic: the Gathering gamestate for which an arbitrary computation is required to determine the result of the game 10:51:59 ah, nice 10:52:05 i.e. as soon as the gamestate is set up, it's clear that the game is over either as an infinite loop or via the game-over state-based effect 10:52:26 but not which? 10:52:32 the slightly enhanced version of this is to do it in a deck that's competitive enough to win a game in a tournament, opposite a noncooperative opponent (assuming they don't just succeed) 10:52:32 as for obfuscations in other notable programs, so far I've mostly just made writeups for some of them that interpret or compile some esoteric language 10:52:33 alercah: right 10:52:38 *don't juts concede 10:52:46 obviously it doesn't have to be reliable at this, just able to do it once 10:52:47 oh man, toby would have a field day 10:52:50 and there's of course a lot of such programs 10:53:25 the current plan is to fit the whole thing into the sideboard of Omni-Tell (a Legacy deck that isn't doing so great at the moment but definitely used to be competitively viable, it's probably Tier 2/3 atm which is enough to win a game or two in a tournament) 10:53:36 I suspect in practice the game would be declared a draw 10:54:35 we also want to write an entertaining article about it so that people will read it 10:55:09 unfortunately, AFAICT the tournament rules require you to memorise the program you're implementing, so we'll need that to be something that a human can reasonably memorise, too 10:55:14 alercah: no, in practice you'd be disqualified and banned from magic forever and forcibly ejected from the building for even attempting to pull it off, all of which is supported by the tournament rules. 10:55:29 wob_jonas: which rule's being broken? slow play? 10:55:58 I don't think it is, the slow play rule says you can't continue a loop without being able to state the expecting resulted gamestate 10:56:04 I dunno, I'm not up to my knowledge 10:56:06 in this case, we /do/ know the expected gamestate just before the loop ensd 10:56:08 with the tournament rules 10:56:08 *ends 10:56:14 I'll have to look it up 10:56:20 Disqualified makes sense I suppose, but that does not mean to be banned forever, and even if so, you should not be forcibly ejected from the building. 10:56:35 yes, you'd probably only be ejected from the tournament site, not the whole building 10:56:39 then there's no rule against performing a small finite number of actions (activating Door to Nothingness, casting Wipe Away targeting Door to Nothingness, sacrificing Wild Cantor) 10:57:05 and at this point neither player has any control over where the game goes from there because there's a split second spell on the stack and a self-sustaining cycle of mandatory triggered abilities 10:57:14 so you call a judge and explain the situation 10:57:23 if the outcome were resonably determinable and you could give an ELI5 explanation of why it works, then you'd probably get the win 10:57:27 otherwise I'd rule it a draw 10:57:47 incidentally, once you've demonstrated the loop once you can just shortcut to the eventual resulting gamestate, which is very helpful 10:57:56 you'd especially get a draw if your computation was something to which you didn't know the actual answer 10:58:02 ais523: slow play is applicable, because donating a thousand lynxes isn't a "small number of finite actions", especially since you could have won already, but I think there might be other tournament rules violations 10:58:19 wob_jonas: that can legally be shortcut 10:58:26 it's against the rules to donate them one at a time, but once you've demonstrated one iteration of a loop 10:58:30 if you know the exact end state, yes 10:58:35 it's perfectly legal to say "I do that 999 more times" 10:58:39 and yes, we know the exact endstate here 10:58:52 it's a fairly /complex/ exact endstate but it's precise and doesn't involve any randomness or decisions 10:59:00 ok wait, let me actually look up the rules 10:59:02 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 10:59:12 https://wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/rules-documents 10:59:28 err, decisions by the opponetn 11:00:20 and you prevent the combo triggering while you're trying to set it up by creating all the tokens first with their original creature types, and then looping Artificial Evolution (thus creating the connections between them) as the last thing you do 11:00:41 I think the time needed to make the proof should also counts against slow play if necessary; if you have proven you won in time, you do, otherwise you are disqualified. But you should not be ejected from the tournament site if spectators are allowed, since this isn't the kind of disturbing thing that you can affect if you aren't part of the game. 11:01:02 well, if you can't prove you've won, it's just a draw 11:01:09 the issue is that we're creating a loop and nobody knows whether it's infinite or not 11:01:19 infinite loop = draw, finite = win 11:01:41 a relevant rule is in 5.2 saying "The result of a match or game may not be randomly or arbitrarily determined through any means other than the normal progress of the game in play. Examples include (but are not limited to) rolling a die, flipping a coin, arm wrestling, or playing any other game." 11:02:11 wob_jonas: huh, so if the judges decide to just call the game a draw as they can't figure out what happens 11:02:16 does that mean that the /judges/ are violating rule 5.2? 11:02:27 (note that we aren't, everything that happens is entirely based on "normal" gameplay) 11:02:38 Some card effects might cause the game result to be determined by a coin toss. 11:02:54 yes, it's perfectly legal to arrange a gamestate in which a coin toss determines the result of the game as a consequence of the game's normal play 11:02:58 `card-by-name mana clash 11:02:59 Mana Clash \ R \ Sorcery \ You and target opponent each flip a coin. Mana Clash deals 1 damage to each player whose coin comes up tails. Repeat this process until both players' coins come up heads on the same flip. \ DK-R, 4E-R, 5E-R, 7E-R, 8ED-R, 9ED-R 11:03:08 otherwise that card wouldn't be legal at all 11:03:26 just not to say "let's toss a coin, loser of the flip concedes" or the like 11:03:26 So too can combinations of card effects cause the game result to depend on the Goldbach Conjecture, or whatever. 11:03:34 right 11:05:56 ais523: the judges aren't going to decide that in this case. you're intentionally throwing away the match you could win and deliberately making yourself win or draw depending on some condition irrelevant to M:tG. it doesn't matter that other players in the tournament didn't pay you shiny dollars for it. 11:06:59 just because it's a legal game state isn't enough. throwing away your win by just not playing your spells and letting the opponent finish you off with a weak deck if also illegal. 11:08:40 ais523: if you're creating a loop and you don't know the outcome, you can't shortcut it though 11:09:08 e.g. if you were to use a search for a counterexample to, say, P = NP 11:10:45 Slow play will almost certainly also apply, because unless you use an accomplice as an opponent or judge, which is against tournament rules for other reasons, you'll have to do an hour long CS course to explain why your construction does exactly what you want, and not just the Magic interactions parts, but also how you emulate say a multiple-stack 11:10:45 machine with a Minsky machine with an Amneisac machine with a Waterfall machine with M:tG. 11:11:43 And by the way, you'd have to do the whole thing alone and without notes you've taken prior to the match. 11:12:13 By alone, I mean there'd be at most you, the opponent, and two judges to help you. 11:13:08 Or maybe a teammate each too if you manage to find a constructed two-headed giant tournament with a wide enough format to pull of the combo. 11:14:44 Yes, or other team formats (I don't know if there are official tournaments with other team formats though) 11:15:57 But, yes, that is why I say, you will be disqualified for slow play unless you have proven it soon enough by yourself during the tournament. 11:16:29 zzo38: I'm not sure, but I think legacy two-headed giant is technically DCI-supported, but only in the sense that Mirage block constructed is also DCI-supported, which means someone could hold a tournament in it and the results could be registered to DCI, but it's unlikely that anyone will every actually do it 11:17:12 zzo38: we might have to ask some M:tG judges for this, but I think even without the slow play, this would go against that bribery rule 11:17:13 wob_jonas: as soon as the combo is set up, the game is legally over 11:17:16 you can't slow play at that point 11:17:20 (also, alercah /is/ an M:tG judge) 11:17:42 alercah is an M:tG judge? I didn't know that. is he active or recently been active? 11:17:56 she, and I don't know 11:18:11 former L3 11:18:19 haven't been active for a year and a half 11:18:30 that's still recent as far as we're concerned I think 11:18:49 that the lynx is new is irrelevant 11:19:05 It does not seem to me that bribery rule will have to do with it, or maybe it can if opponent concedes due to your proof instead of the judge saying you have already won and they don't have to concede, but I don't know. 11:19:07 ais523: I think the precedent would line up with what wob_jonas is saying: there is a point of mathematical complexity beyond which the play isn't permitted 11:19:29 the precedent being infinite scry 2 11:19:29 alercah: even though it entirely takes place with legal game actions? 11:19:45 up until the point you sacrifice Wild Cantor, there is nothing hard to understand about the gamestate 11:20:15 ais523: yes; there is a ruling disallowing using infinite scry 2 to arbitrarily reorder your library IIRC 11:20:17 you're just creating a large number of tokens with specific characteristics, but that doesn't /do/ anything, you can just count the number of each type of token 11:20:26 alercah: that involves hidden information though 11:20:30 ais523: you mean apart from the donated lynxes artificially evolved to probably at least dozens of different texts? 11:20:41 I'm not sure how much you can golf this really 11:20:45 wob_jonas: yes, you're donating a lot of token lynxes and editing the creature types in them 11:21:00 I don't see any problem with that, it's not conceptually different from creating 109280319840235 tokens 11:21:15 ais523: it still allows you to set up a loop, define a number of iterations, and set a specific output state 11:21:18 i.e. the precise number may have to be recorded, and that's a pain in case it's relevant, but it's not fundamentally different from picking any other definite number 11:21:21 I think you'll need either hundreds of *different* lynxes (ones with differently edited text) or an exponentially large power 11:21:24 (namely, my library is in a specific order) 11:21:41 the ruling was based more on "magic is not a game of mathematics" than the presence of hidden information 11:21:43 alercah: the challenge there is the defined number of iterations 11:21:44 it's not the number of lynxes that's the problem, but that there's so many different ones, each of which have to be tracked separately 11:22:09 wob_jonas: well you have two loops 11:22:24 the first donates the opponent an arbitrarily large number of identical lynx tokens 11:22:39 -!- trout has quit (Quit: /dev/null is full). 11:22:49 I don't think anyone would have a problem with that; it's a bit of a bizarre thing to do but it's not fundamentally different from any other combo 11:23:15 the second loop casts Artificial Evolution twice at each of the tokens, which is clearly a defined operation; the only tricky part is that you don't always choose the same creature types 11:23:52 IMO if you choose the same creature types every time that's clearly legal 11:23:56 ah wait, the example I was thinking of was four horsemen, which has an indeterminate loop 11:24:04 Why should there be a ruling disallowing using infinite scry 2 to arbitrarily reorder your library? The only thing then to consider is slow play if it is take too long to reorder your library, which, if there are enough cards, it might do, otherwise it won't. 11:24:13 alercah: yes, four horsemen is illegal as it has no bounded number of iterations 11:24:33 I believe the infinite scry 2 is legal so long as you have memorised the order of your library and thus can give an exact iteration count for bubble-sorting it 11:24:43 (this is why nobody does it in practice) 11:24:55 infinite scry 2 = bubble sort, four horsemen = bogosort 11:25:13 zzo38: and slow play is already relevant: even without reordering the library, it's forbidden to take a note of all cards in the opponent's deck as you Cranial Extraction them for slow play, and reordering your library is on the sam eorder of magnitude 11:25:13 one of these has a finite worst-case performance, the other an infinite worst-case performance 11:25:36 ais523: I think if you pushed me on it 11:26:09 wob_jonas: Yes; unless the number of cards is low, it should count only slow play, is what I am saying. Rather than, just making the rules arbitrarily 11:26:10 my ruling would be that "without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state" requires that you be able to provide those things in a reasonable time frame 11:26:19 alercah: yes, I think that's valid 11:26:32 so you the program needs to be golfed to the extent that we can explain what it is quickly 11:26:36 yeah 11:27:02 if you're trying to explain how you have encoded a brainfuck interpreter in a minsky machine to the 10-year old across from you, it isn't going to go well 11:27:05 ais523: without prior notes, yes 11:27:09 exact iterations is easy; we can do too many without breaking the construction, so "3 trillion" is a simple valid number 11:27:13 expected resulting gamestate is much harder 11:27:19 alercah: wait, isn't 11 years old the minimum age? 11:27:26 as that gamestate encodes the program and so we need to golf the program to make it as simple as possible 11:27:28 for players that is 11:27:33 on official tournaments 11:27:36 wob_jonas: there is no minimum AFAIK 11:27:37 wob_jonas: there's a 7 year old who made the news for doing fairly well in an official tournament 11:27:44 ais523: wow 11:27:48 ok, thanks 11:27:52 under 13 you need parental permission for privacy law reasons IIRC but otherwise no rules 11:27:57 maybe it's under 18 11:28:05 I mean, I've seen very young people play casual magic, but this is for tournaments 11:28:14 right, that's why it was newsworthy 11:29:00 https://compete.kotaku.com/7-year-old-magic-prodigy-cant-shuffle-cards-yet-but-can-1820619884 11:29:10 [[StackFlow]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54273&oldid=52350 * FireFly * (+2) /* Syntax */ line -> length (typo) 11:30:01 I thought it is mandatory to shuffle the cards by yourself? 11:30:14 you can have someone to help you if you're disabled 11:30:26 being too young to be able to hold the deck is probably a comparable case 11:30:45 OK 11:30:51 at a local Magic club, I used to help a blind person sometimes, telling them about what the content of their own hand was (as they couldn't see it) 11:31:37 (I also played against them sometimes, announcing everything I was doing in detail because again, they couldn't see it) 11:32:23 I think most young tournament magic players can usually shuffle decks though 11:32:26 yeah, the "shuffle yourself" rule is to prevent 1500-card decks that can't reasonably be shuffled by one person, not to stop people who are physically unable 11:32:37 and to preclude the use of e.g. card shuffling machines 11:32:38 alercah: yes, that 11:32:47 right, it's a maximum deck size limit 11:32:49 but a soft one 11:32:51 yep 11:33:00 mainly thanks to Battle of Wits 11:33:01 there's some debate about whether Battle of Wits decks are tournament-legal, because of this 11:33:18 it rarely comes up in practice, because most decks don't want to be larger than a Battle of Wits deck, and even Battle of Wits is usually only 240 cards or something 11:33:23 yeah 11:33:38 incidentally, Battle of Wits is the most expensive Modern deck, because it turns out the optimal build is to fill the deck full of Modern staples with only a few tutors 11:33:39 you can shuffle 240 cards if you practice, and you can clearly practice in advance 11:33:51 ais523: haha 11:34:46 I just imagined a player after game 1 of a limited tournament realizing that they are basically hopeless against their opponent's deck 11:34:57 so they side in 200 land and desperately hope they can draw their BoW 11:35:20 I've heared of one serious deck that's even bigger, using a large number of either Relentless Rats or Shadowborn Apostole (I forgot which) 11:35:45 alercah: that's done with other cards in limited sometimes 11:35:50 normally Lost in the Woods or Pack Rat 11:36:23 yeah 11:36:24 (the Pack Rat deck is better, because as long as it finds the Rat, it can typically beat anything but a board sweeper, and those are rare in limited) 11:36:34 yeah, I've seen that in action 11:37:00 but pack rat is also very strong on its own 11:37:08 yes 11:37:14 it barely needs the 39-swamp deck to be obscenely strong 11:37:30 You might not practice in advance if you are playing Limited, but in such a case most of the cards will probably be conventional basic lands anyways, if you try to make large decks. 11:37:33 it's so strong that casting it effectively wins the game, so you run 39 swamps alongside it to make sure you aren't mana screwed 11:37:35 the only advantage it gains from the all-land deck is consistently hitting its drops 11:37:39 yeah 11:41:34 ah 11:41:46 it's particularly important to run a lot of lands because you're usually mulliganning until it's in your starting hand 11:41:52 so you won't have as many lands drawn naturally as normal 11:42:23 Yawgatog still hasn't added a list of the differences of the rules between the previous and current version (even though they have done for older versions) 11:48:42 The strange thing is that an esolang like countercall might be relevant for a reduction to M:tG, because it naturally has a call stack, and you could have trigger an ability triggered as many times as some counter represented as the number of certain objects 11:49:25 probably not countercall exactly, but some language with a similar gimmick 11:49:26 well countercall is sub-TC 11:49:45 but yes, counter + call stack doesn't seem impossible 11:50:32 ais523: let me know if you actually figure it out btw, I have some friends who would enjoy hearing about it 11:51:03 alercah: well we already have a working construction for the The Waterfall Model → M:tG side of things 11:51:11 it's just that TWM, while TC, is really hard to golf 11:51:15 oh, neat 11:51:18 ok, awesome 11:51:23 alercah: I think ais523 more or less has the construction in his head now. but I'm really behind and will slowly try to understand it. first the part where M:tG is irrelevant, like how a reduction to Waterfall even works and how much it would blow up 11:51:35 yes, I need to write it down 11:51:57 the Waterfall side of things seems to be the fragile side 11:52:00 ais523: do you want to reduce something like the Amnesiac to Waterfall? 11:52:13 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 11:52:26 -!- ais523 has joined. 11:52:31 ‎[11:51] ‎<‎ais523‎>‎ yes, I need to write it down 11:52:32 ‎[11:51] ‎<‎ais523‎>‎ the Waterfall side of things seems to be the fragile side 11:52:34 ‎[11:52] ‎<‎ais523‎>‎ all the constructions I'm aware of scale from Minsky machines in a states + counters way 11:52:43 I don't know what the minimum number of states + counters is for a universal Minsky machine program 11:52:44 ok 11:52:50 right, that's the problem 11:52:58 we don't know small universal Minsky machines 11:53:17 the Fractran self-interpreter is fairly small 11:53:51 wait, no it isn't 11:53:56 "1779 fractions" 11:54:00 I wonder what I was thinking of 11:54:54 at least you can use state transitions that add or subtract any integer 11:55:00 you don't have to use 100 states to add 100 11:55:08 ah right, there's a smaller one: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1749905/code-golf-fractran/1802570#1802570 11:55:14 84 fractions 11:55:38 nice 11:56:39 M:tG has 237 creature types right now 11:57:00 (outside of silver-bordered land) 11:57:57 we can't quite use all of them 11:58:08 sure 11:58:17 Cat, Rat, Eldrazi, Cleric, Zombie would have side effects halfway through the setup 11:58:25 err, maybe not Rat actually 11:58:34 but that still gives a lot of space 11:59:49 Nightmare and Horror might also have some effects 12:00:04 no, we removed Faceless Devourer from the construction 12:00:08 oh good 12:00:11 because we could get the same effect using cards that we already had 12:00:22 err, almost, we need a static -2/-2 from somewhere 12:00:36 `card-by-name Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite 12:00:41 Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite \ 5WW \ Legendary Creature -- Praetor \ 4/7 \ Vigilance \ Other creatures you control get +2/+2. \ Creatures your opponents control get -2/-2. \ NPH-M, MM2-M 12:00:45 that would do 12:00:49 a static -2/-2 on what? 12:00:56 ah 12:00:58 creatures we control 12:01:54 come to think of it, Elesh herself could be the halt state, given that the oppoenet would control it 12:01:57 that makes things even simpler 12:02:12 because once she dies the "base" triggered ability (the one that triggers itself) will stop working 12:02:23 and Praetor is a unique creature type we aren't using anywhere else 12:03:36 hmm, at present this implements a TWM variant in which all waterclocks set themselves to 4 when exhausted (rather than an arbitrary number) 12:03:43 I don't think that changes the TCness of the language though 12:04:09 there's also Night of Souls' Betrayal 12:04:18 Elesh solves three problems at once though 12:04:27 because we /also/ needed a static +/+ effect on the opponent's creatures 12:04:32 and we also needed a way to halt 12:04:44 (in addition to the static -/- that keeps the loop going) 12:04:53 for some reason Harmless Offering can donate enchantments. I really don't understand why Wizards chose to allow that in such a cheap sorcery, sounds like it will be broken. 12:05:04 wob_jonas: it was intended as a build-around 12:05:06 ok 12:05:09 -!- xkapastel has joined. 12:05:17 and they wanted to make it wide so that as many decks as possible that needed an effect like that would have one 12:05:21 there's also, um, what's that iconic black hero called 12:05:32 reprinted in tenth ed 12:05:38 or M2010 actually 12:06:03 nope, tenth edition 12:06:10 `card-by-name Ascendant Evincar 12:06:11 Ascendant Evincar \ 4BB \ Legendary Creature -- Vampire \ 3/3 \ Flying (This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with flying or reach.) \ Other black creatures get +1/+1. \ Nonblack creatures get -1/-1. \ NE-R, 10E-R, HOP-R 12:06:38 probably no good 12:06:55 Elesh Norn sounds better 12:07:12 right, -1/-1 on a legendary needs two of them to get -2/-2 12:07:13 (for this deck, not in general.) 12:07:32 so the idea is that we use a zombie token for almost every piece of RAM 12:07:39 but Elesh Norn for the remaining counter 12:07:52 if she ever ends up dying, the whole combo breaks and the stack unwinds to the point at which we cast Wipe Away 12:08:01 and we have a Door to Nothingness activation on the stack just below that 12:08:27 or, I guess if we wanted to save a card, an attacking Emrakul (we could stifle the annihilator trigger) 12:09:11 yes, but just one zombie token for each counter, right? unlike the Alex Churchill construction, which uses a ramp of creatures of increasing toughness, as many total as the counter 12:09:37 right 12:09:47 occasionally the tokens die and just get replaced with a new token 12:09:51 How does stifling save a card? you don't need a stifle effect otherwise, do you? or do you use one to start the loop? 12:10:01 the deck naturally contains a copy of Trickbind 12:10:25 ah 12:10:31 `card-by-name Trickbind 12:10:33 Trickbind \ 1U \ Instant \ Split second (As long as this spell is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.) \ Counter target activated or triggered ability. If a permanent's ability is countered this way, activated abilities of that permanent can't be activated this turn. (Mana abilities can't be tar 12:11:16 that's helpful because post-combo, Trickbind + 4 copies of Force of Will mean that the opponent is unlikely to be able to interfere 12:12:22 if you want attacking, you have to pull the combo off before your combat. that's not an obstacle for this deck, right? 12:12:52 nah, in fact the setup even benefits from passing the turn on occasion 12:13:08 the setup sure 12:13:15 given that the opponent will have no permanents and we'll have an extra turn right after, I don't see much of a problem from that 12:13:29 ok 12:13:31 the whole thing happens at mana ability speed in the middle of combat 12:13:34 he will untap though 12:13:37 like, the trigger 12:13:40 wob_jonas: nothing /to/ untap 12:13:52 and no, you don't untap if you don't get a turn 12:13:55 untap phase is part of your turn 12:13:58 oh, you kill all his permanents too? what with? 12:14:05 not kill, we bounce them with Wipe Away 12:14:24 ok... 12:15:01 that sounds a bit dangerous because it could trigger some leaves tb abilities, but I guess that can't be helped 12:15:19 well, we can get Trickbind before doing that 12:15:24 true 12:15:46 but yes, there's always a danger period immediately after we're in the start state (our entire deck in our hand, Omniscience or Dream Halls in play) 12:15:52 and it's definitely safer than leaving arbitrary permanents in play. the alternative is exiling all permanents 12:15:54 but before we've fully neutralised the opponent 12:16:11 oh right, you exile them from his hand later 12:16:15 with Cranial Extraction 12:16:28 that's better 12:16:28 not in the current version, Extraction turned out to be unneeded 12:16:34 we just let them exist in hand and counter anything they try to play 12:16:42 -!- LKoen has joined. 12:16:47 hmm 12:16:55 there's not much that can be played with no mana and no permanents, after all 12:17:14 and we have four hard counters in hand 12:17:29 it's not 100% secure, but it becomes more so over time 12:17:31 yeah 12:19:20 (you need to pass the turn to remove the summoning sickness from the copy of Emrakul that stays on the battlefield to legend-rule the one we play as part of the loop) 12:20:24 but doesn't being able to pass the turn cost one or more cards? if you just need haste, you can give it with one card, especially since you already have Evolution 12:21:05 why would it? 12:21:20 Emrakul gives you an extra turn when you hardcast it 12:21:33 so passing the turn hardly does anything 12:21:34 yeah 12:22:13 though it ends some effects, probably none of them are crucial 12:22:25 I don't think we're using any of them during the setup phase 12:22:42 you're not trying to keep anything alive with a growth despite the continuous -2/-2, right? 12:23:18 no 12:23:33 there are some things we have to keep alive but we can use Hungry Lynx to put +1/+1 counters on them 12:23:37 during the setup, that is 12:23:45 so it's another use of using the same card for two purposes 12:23:52 ok 12:25:31 and all that is after you set up the infinite card recycling combo, right? 12:25:44 yes 12:25:57 the infinite combo exists "naturally" in Omnitell 12:26:01 I'm not sure if most people noticed, though 12:26:10 because they don't expect a Regrowth effect to cost 27 mana 12:26:30 (with Omniscience out, though, the cost gets reduced to 0 so we can do it easily) 12:26:47 in general the deck doesn't /need/ a 27 mana regrowth so people weren't looking for one 12:26:49 but we do, so :-) 12:33:55 the difficulty is not just the 27 mana, but coming out positively in card balance in them. and I'm not quite sure green would consider that natural, because green has Recollect/Reclaim effects which get one card back and cost one card, plus Repopulate which is an instant that returns creatures only. 12:34:47 it's one thing to live longer by swapping some Conjurer's Baubles, but much more difficult to make it infinite and returning arbitrary sorceries 12:35:33 the Beacons and the Elixir can do it, but those aren't good for us, firstly because you need two, secondly because then you need a way to get rid of cards you don't need 12:37:34 By the way, once you set up the infinite card recycling and the Omniscience, Manamorphose would give you infinite mana in any color if you needed that; but you probably don't need it, because using activated abilities can cause difficulties with taking the choice away later. 12:39:23 I'm still laughing at the Harmless Offering. I should addquote that. 12:40:13 `? addquote 12:40:15 addquote? ¯\(°​_o)/¯ 12:40:15 `? quote 12:40:17 Quotes are just elements of the quantum dilapidated bogosphere. See qdb. 12:40:21 `? quote format 12:40:22 quote format? ¯\(°​_o)/¯ 12:40:24 `? quote formatting 12:40:26 quote formatting? ¯\(°​_o)/¯ 12:40:28 um 12:40:50 #`addquote oh, we also need a Donate effect Harmless Offering is the obvious choice given that we'll mostly be donating Hungry Lynxes 12:41:23 `? quoteformat 12:41:27 quoteformat is: message; * nick action; two spaces between messages; all elisions marked with [...] other than irrelevant intervening messages; for messages separated by elision, one space on each side, not two. 12:42:22 `addquote oh, we also need a Donate effect Harmless Offering is the obvious choice given that we'll mostly be donating Hungry Lynxes 12:42:31 1322) oh, we also need a Donate effect Harmless Offering is the obvious choice given that we'll mostly be donating Hungry Lynxes 12:45:09 wob_jonas: for the mana ability speed version of this, we can do that using Wild Cantor 12:45:20 for the instant speed version, we don't need Wild Cantor at all 12:45:27 (the trigger would be donating Elesh Norn) 12:45:38 `card-by-name Harmless Offering 12:45:39 Harmless Offering \ 2R \ Sorcery \ Target opponent gains control of target permanent you control. \ EMN-R 12:45:44 wait, it's a sorcery 12:45:47 sorcery speed version then :-) 12:45:53 actually, hmm 12:46:01 I'm not sure we can easily trigger this without a Wild Cantor 12:46:11 which would be a good reason to leave it in 12:46:29 meh, just throw in an Orrery, you'll find you need it anyway sooner or later :-) 12:46:31 and doing it at split second speed is flashier (and harder to interfere with) 12:46:43 wob_jonas: some versions of the deck actually play a Quicken maindeck 12:46:56 although not my reference list 12:47:01 there are other mana ability speed things comparable to Wild Cantor though 12:47:56 Phyrexian Tower is the most famous one 12:48:51 -!- LKoen has quit (Quit: “It’s only logical. First you learn to talk, then you learn to think. Too bad it’s not the other way round.”). 12:49:42 that doesn't really fit very well in the deck, though, as it doesn't naturally play creatures 12:50:56 there's no one card that lets you repeatedly draw and discard at instant speed, right? Jayemdae Tome and that colored but cheaper version they printed later allows drawing at instant speed, but instant speed discard is rare 12:51:25 well, there's all sorts of looting 12:52:26 -!- AisRauli has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 12:52:39 what do you want that for? 12:52:47 eww, my searches are getting dirty by all these Portal cards 12:53:18 there are quite a few creatures with abilities that cost "discard a card" 12:53:54 `card-by-name Mesmeric Trance 12:53:55 Mesmeric Trance \ 1UU \ Enchantment \ Cumulative upkeep {1} (At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this permanent, then sacrifice it unless you pay its upkeep cost for each age counter on it.) \ {U}, Discard a card: Draw a card. \ IA-R, ME2-R 12:53:59 is that what you want? 12:54:00 dunno, I was just thinking because Dimir Guildmage is so useful if you have enough mana, because both the discard and the draw can target any player. you can make the opponent discard all cards with it... not that that really helps in this construction 12:54:31 no, I'm thinking more of something that lets you discard a card, force the opponent to discard a card, or you draw a card, any of these at instant speed and multiple times 12:54:49 but that probably doesn't exist all on one card 12:55:11 making the opponent loot is not good enough, he'll still have cards in his hand, until he loses from not being able to draw 12:55:57 Wizards don't like instant speed discard 12:56:40 yep 12:56:53 it still happens sometimes, but not just as a plain activated ability for no reason 12:57:08 and the colored Jayemdae is called Scepter of Insight 12:57:15 Necrogen Spellbomb would work if you didn't have to sacrifice it 12:57:27 `card-by-name Necrogen Spellbomb 12:57:27 Necrogen Spellbomb \ 1 \ Artifact \ {B}, Sacrifice Necrogen Spellbomb: Target player discards a card. \ {1}, Sacrifice Necrogen Spellbomb: Draw a card. \ MRD-C 12:57:34 but I think that's about as close as you'll get 12:57:55 I think you can get a bit closer than that 12:58:17 `card-by-name Cinderhaze Wretch 12:58:18 Cinderhaze Wretch \ 4B \ Creature -- Elemental Shaman \ 3/2 \ {T}: Target player discards a card. Activate this ability only during your turn. \ Put a -1/-1 counter on Cinderhaze Wretch: Untap Cinderhaze Wretch. \ SHM-C 12:58:46 `card-by-name Disrupting Scepter 12:58:47 Disrupting Scepter \ 3 \ Artifact \ {3}, {T}: Target player discards a card. Activate this ability only during your turn. \ A-R, B-R, U-R, RV-R, 4E-R, 5E-R, 6E-R, 7E-R, 8ED-R, 9ED-R 12:58:50 and several more similar ones 12:58:56 those don't draw cards 12:59:10 oh, I see 12:59:22 you said Necrogen Spellbomb because it lets you draw too 12:59:30 yeah, makes sense 13:00:22 I should have realized, I have the white and green spellbombs (gain life and animate land) and have seen the red one (shock), and each of them has a draw a card ability. 13:01:40 there are two cycles of spellbombs, I think? 13:01:59 there are two? 13:02:24 you're right, they made a worse one in Scars of Mirroding 13:02:34 just like how they made a cycle of worse Guildmages in RTR 13:03:04 `card-by-name Nihil Spellbomb 13:03:05 Nihil Spellbomb \ 1 \ Artifact \ {T}, Sacrifice Nihil Spellbomb: Exile all cards from target player's graveyard. \ When Nihil Spellbomb is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may pay {B}. If you do, draw a card. \ SOM-C, C13-C, C17-C 13:03:16 that's a pretty widely played card 13:03:25 yes, maybe they aren't worse 13:03:35 exiling a graveyard and drawing a card for 1B is a pretty useful effect 13:03:53 and the exact wording makes it usable in some combo decks 13:04:02 I have copies of Lifespark Spellbomb and Sunbeam Spellbomb. they're not very useful, although Lifespark Spellbomb might perhaps find some marginal utility in an infinite mana combo deck 13:04:23 yeah 13:07:52 Ok, back to the main topic 13:09:55 the program loop is in your turn. you simulate counters with one token of a specific creature type each. you use Hungry Lynx controlled by the opponent to have triggers the trigger on when the counter would get reduced to zero. 13:11:12 this way you want to simulate The Amnesiac from Minsk level 1, and to avoid having to use triggers with a decrease effect, you modify each trigger by adding a constant to every counter, and keep reducing the counters. 13:11:20 right 13:11:47 you reduce them slower than the program triggers by using triggers on objects you control... I'm not sure if that works really 13:12:04 what was the strange card you used for that now? 13:12:45 Noxious Ghoul 13:12:56 we control the Ghoul, and also one Rotlung Reanimator 13:13:05 set to Zombie for both creature types 13:13:26 when we create a zombie token via the reanimator, it immediately dies due to the opponent's Elesh Norn 13:13:30 the rotlung reanimator is for recreating the counter after the Hungry Lynx triggered so it's usable again 13:13:31 thus causing another zombie token to be created, etc. 13:13:40 wob_jonas: we use them for two purposes 13:13:45 the opponent has them for recreating the counters 13:13:51 and we have one for creating this infinite loop of zombies dying 13:14:05 every dead zombie triggers the Noxious Ghoul and -1/-1's all the counters 13:14:09 `card-by-name Noxious Ghoul 13:14:11 Noxious Ghoul \ 3BB \ Creature -- Zombie \ 3/3 \ Whenever Noxious Ghoul or another Zombie enters the battlefield, all non-Zombie creatures get -1/-1 until end of turn. \ LGN-U, HOP-U 13:14:30 but why are two players enough for this? 13:15:07 well, let's start at the "main loop", where the only things on the stack are a Noxious Ghoul trigger and Rotlung Reanimator trigger (in either order) 13:15:16 both controlled by us, as the active player 13:15:25 we can stack them in either order, but it doesn't matter which 13:15:40 if the Reanimator trigger goes first, it just creates another 0/0 zombie, which gives us another of each trigger 13:16:04 so there's always one Reanimator trigger and arbitrarily many Noxious Ghoul triggers, but the point is that it doesn't matter how many Ghoul triggers we allow to stack up before resolving them 13:16:07 the counters are also recreated by Noxious Ghoul, and you use some Radiant Destiny to make those tokens not die, right? 13:16:27 the counters are recreated by Rotlung Reanimators controlled by the opponents 13:16:38 we can use Blades of Velis Vel to make them Zombies in addition to their other types 13:16:54 so that they don't get caught in the "blast radius" of the Noxious Ghoul 13:17:08 it might be doable without, using mathematics to make sure that the toughness never falls to 0, but that's harder 13:17:56 anyway, the point is that what we have on our side of the field leads to an infinite sequence of Noxious Ghoul triggers 13:18:03 "it doesn't matter how many Ghoul triggers we allow to stack up before resolving them" => it's not so simple. that might mean, depending on how exactly the infinite loop rules work, that you're permitted to draw the game at will. if that's true, then you must use a construction where the program can cause you to win, as opposed to one where the pro 13:18:03 gram causes you to lose if it terminates. 13:18:06 /unless/ something happens to Elesh Norn, in which case the sequence will end 13:18:22 wob_jonas: the rules say you can never choose to do something infinitely many times in a row if you have another option 13:18:57 which means that if there's a legal stacking combination on our side that leads to game over, we have to take it 13:19:17 and it's clear that if any combination leads to game over, the combination of always stacking the reanimator trigger below the ghoul trigger will do it 13:19:24 ARGH! now we use "counter" in three different ways 13:19:35 :-) 13:19:46 let's use "variable" in the explanation then 13:19:55 and none of them is your fault 13:20:06 minsky machines used "counter" for decades 13:20:24 now, if a noxious ghoul trigger causes one of the opponent's creatures representing a variable to die 13:20:31 wob_jonas: don't worry, it's all counter-intuitive. 13:20:34 there will be a range of triggers on the opponent's side too, via game rules those always resolve first 13:20:59 but they're commutative in the sense that they all act independently so the order in which the opponent stacks them doesn't matter 13:21:38 yes, the opponent triggers are commutative 13:21:52 the triggers a) recreate the dead creature as a 2/2+2/2 token (unless it was Elesh Norn), b) put +1/+1 counters on creatures of a specific creature type 13:22:07 b) will affect both ROM and RAM, but for ROM it doesn't matter how high the toughness is as it never dies anyway 13:22:49 so the only relevant part of the effect is the one that toughens up variables other than the one that just became zero 13:23:22 so we have "when a counter hits 0, its value becomes 4 and a constant is added to each other counter" 13:24:04 you're saying that extra triggers of the special Reanimator doesn't matter, because we only move forward with the trigger of the Noxious Ghoul. but what happens when we have triggers by the ordinary Reanimators, the ones that recreate counters. isn't it a problem to stack those in the wrong order, with respect to the Noxious Ghoul trigger? 13:24:31 wob_jonas: they're owned by a different player 13:24:33 specifically, the opponent 13:24:41 it's our turn, so our triggers stack before theirs and thus resolve after theirs 13:24:59 so both the Lynxes and the per-counter Reanimators are owned by the opponent? I see 13:25:32 yep 13:25:42 err, controlled, not owned 13:26:03 technically speaking we own all the cards involved, this is at least partly because we don't want to rely on specific cards existing in the opponent's deck 13:26:05 and what card exactly did you use as a lord effect, to add toughness to the tokens? 13:26:12 yeah 13:26:14 Elesh Norn again 13:26:20 makes the tokens come in as 4/4s 13:26:32 um... 13:26:34 that's a deviation from TWM's spec, because it's meant to be arbitrary there 13:26:38 but I believe the language is still TC 13:26:59 who controls the single tokens that represent the variables? 13:27:02 opponent 13:27:10 right, because he has the reanimator 13:27:13 opponent controls all ROM and RAM, we control the clock 13:27:15 I see, so that's why Elesh Norn works 13:27:26 that's impressive golfing, yes 13:27:39 I thought you'd need some other lord you copy or something 13:27:44 . o O ( So... what would happen if at a sanctioned M:tG tournament, two players were to set up a game state where the winner depends on whether the Goldbach conjecture is true or not? ) 13:27:54 (poor referee) 13:27:57 :P 13:27:58 int-e: we were debating that earlier 13:28:14 I don't think there's any legal option, the practical option would likely be to call the game a draw 13:28:23 that said, setting that up without violating slow play rules will be hard 13:28:31 as we need to be able to state the resulting gamestate in a reasonable length of time 13:28:36 meaning it'll need to be heavily golfed 13:28:44 int-e: we were talking about that earlier. I was arguing that the player who sets it up would be disqualified no matter what, the other player might continue if he calls a judge early and doesn't cooperate 13:28:55 int-e: but after alercah's statements, I'm no longer convinced of this. 13:29:01 perhaps the Collatz Conjecture would be golfier 13:29:21 int-e: it is still very unlikely that you could set this up, because you'd need to set up and explain everything without notes you took before the tournament, on a strict time limit to an impatient judge 13:29:21 it's basically made for counter machines 13:30:19 and either of those might be easier than to set up a universal turing machine, which is what you'd need to encode some hard cryptographical problem 13:30:52 but I wonder if you could do even more golfier by encoding factoring of some particular composite number of your choice 13:31:08 more precisely the decision problem of whether it has a factor between 2 and a particular limit 13:31:41 or a factor that's 3 modulo 4 and below a particular limit, that might be slightly golfier so you don't have to skip 1 13:32:19 if you pick a number with n digits at random (where n is large), what's the probability that it'll be hard to factorise quickly? 13:32:29 the benefit of that is that you could just make up a number on the spot 13:32:34 and have no idea whether it lead to a win for you or not 13:32:35 you don't need to pick one at random 13:32:44 you can choose a particular easy to remember number 13:32:53 one with most middle digits zero 13:32:55 wob_jonas: yes but the point is that you need to not yourself know whether or not it's composite 13:32:57 so you don't know who won 13:33:07 you choose one that's definitely composite 13:33:11 you just don't know its factors 13:33:37 and you win if the factor is lower than a limit you set 13:33:48 and you set the limit right so it doesn't come out trivial 13:34:25 primality testing is too easy if the judge has access to the internet, you'd need a much higher number for it to be hard 13:34:29 you want factoring 13:34:50 I see, so you use a probably-prime test, see it says "not prime" 13:34:54 but still don't know what the factor is? 13:35:06 yes 13:36:42 sort of like a composite number you'd use for RSA, although you might use a challenge that's slightly easier than you'd use for real world cryptography, as long as it still won't be factored during the tournament 13:37:42 so you choose an easy to learn one, one which has a form where all but six digits at the start and six digits at the end are zero, which probably would be too few digits for real world cryptography, but OK here 13:38:00 oh, and unlike in real world cryptography, nobody needs to have ever known the factors 13:38:05 not even the computer that generated the number 13:38:42 in fact, it's probably best if nobody knows the factors and the answer 13:39:06 you certainly aren't allowed to know that, because you knowing and not telling would probably be a tournament rules violation 13:40:58 per tournament rules 4.1 "Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match." 13:41:15 so you aren't allowed to know the result of the Turing machine but not reveal it 13:44:21 wow, that's rather strong 13:44:41 (since it fails to limit the scope of the questions) 13:48:18 The collatz conjecture is probably better 13:49:01 it's golfier, and if the opponent or a judge solves it, then we've won regardless of what happens with the tournament 13:54:46 wob_jonas: you certainly wouldn't get disqualified for trying this 13:54:57 at the very worst, you get an upgraded slow play game loss 13:55:29 I suppose if you kept at it you could get yourself disqualified but really? 13:55:48 if you got disqualified it would be for Stalling 13:56:19 alercah: not even if you would succeed? as opposed to trying it but never getting even remotely close 13:56:25 but I think there's precedent saying that if you're genuinely performing your game actions as fast as possible, and they lead to progress in the gamestate, it's not Stalling even if those actions aren't working towards a win 13:56:35 alercah: and does the bribery chapter matter for this? 13:57:05 this isn't bribery any more than Mana Clash is 13:57:09 ais523: and they're not working for a draw either? 13:57:10 that's correct 13:57:15 stalling must be explicitly to abuse the time limit 13:57:31 you could eventually get disqualified for intentional slow play 13:57:46 but I would only consider that after a game loss 13:58:35 interesting 13:58:38 ais523 might be right then 13:59:08 in that this is hard to pull of, but probably not impossible 13:59:43 I'll have to look up some card prices then, to see if any of the pieces we used are very expensive 14:00:18 well, the maindeck is a tournament-viable Legacy deck so it's naturally expensive 14:00:24 but I think our additions would be very cheap 14:00:40 that's my guess too, but since I can look them up, I will 14:01:04 and if any piece is expensive, I can look for cheaper substitutes 14:01:06 let's try to get a complete list of added cards 14:01:58 Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul is the core of the combo, we definitely need those three 14:02:10 everything else is more flexible but we can't do it with those three alone 14:02:58 currently we have Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite as the -2/-2 effect, and Harmless Offering, Artificial Evolution (OK this is probably inflexible), Cackling Counterpart, Wild Cantor as the setup 14:03:15 8 added cards, not bad 14:03:27 that means we only have to remove half the sideborad 14:03:29 *sideboard 14:04:03 (we need a few other cards that are in the deck naturally, like Emrakul, the Aeons Torn; Wipe Away; and Omniscience+Enter the Infinite) 14:04:37 how many copies of Emrakul? 14:04:45 two, there are already two in the deck naturally though 14:06:48 plus 4 Omniscience, 4 Force of Will (that latter seems the most expensive so far) 14:06:57 Force of Will is in the deck naturally too 14:07:12 also it isn't technically required, just makes it harder for the opponent to screw with us 14:07:23 as I said, it's a tournament-viable Legacy deck and thus will naturally be expensive 14:07:31 yeah 14:07:39 although obviously you can resell it afterwards 14:08:01 (resell the expensive cards that is) 14:08:15 I wasn't planning to actually do this myself 14:08:20 sure 14:08:27 among other things, there aren't many Legacy tournaments around here 14:08:30 I'm just talking in general, since you brought up the possibility 14:08:41 and I want to justify the old joke that mathematics is cheap 14:11:50 2 City of Traitors (isn't cheap either) 14:11:58 (yes, I know it's not essential) 14:12:22 hmm, I wonder if there's an argument for putting the Wild Cantor maindeck 14:12:38 because it would also act as acceleration, and the reference version I linked earlier can generate red mana 14:13:01 and then 4 Scalding Tarn, 1 Volcanic Island (pretty expensive) 14:13:11 well, yes, it's a Legacy deck and it isn't monocolour 14:13:29 that said, Steam Vents would work almost as well 14:13:48 yeah 14:14:14 not with Misty Rainforest, mind you 14:14:30 that's a search land 14:14:37 oh right 14:14:44 Steam Vents is one of the ravnica rare duals 14:14:47 so it can be searched for 14:14:54 yes 14:15:04 it's two life worse than Volcanic Island, but in Legacy combo decks two life is rarely relevant 14:15:09 (it comes up sometimes but not very often) 14:15:25 so many dual lands out there, and many of the cycles have unconnected names 14:16:22 yes :-( 14:16:38 they do it because they want generic names that they can print on any plane 14:16:44 right 14:16:56 although I'm not convinced by this reasoning as it rarely worked out in practice 14:17:08 e.g. the Steam Vents cycle has been printed only on Ravnica 14:17:20 and they ended up having to print Dragonskull Summit on Ixalan, which doesn't have dragons 14:17:31 sometime they manage names that at least sound similar, such as Barren Moor, Forgotten Cave, Lonely Sandbar, Secluded Steppe, Tranquil Thicket; and of course it gets much easier if you see the actual cards, with art and frame and all 14:18:29 does Ixalan at least have skulls on pirate flags? 14:18:41 not sure 14:19:41 `card-by-name Territorial Hammerskull 14:19:42 Territorial Hammerskull \ 2W \ Creature -- Dinosaur \ 2/3 \ Whenever Territorial Hammerskull attacks, tap target creature an opponent controls. \ XLN-C 14:19:51 that's not a pirate 14:22:06 the Steam Vents cycle got reprinted in the Return to Ravnica block because it's so iconic, and if it weren't reprinted, it was because of its power level, which they might not have realized back in ravnica. I'm not sure that's too relevant about the naming. 14:22:21 yeah, I guess that's still "on Ravnica" for planes 14:22:22 well, they haven't reprinted the Selesnya Sanctuary cycle either 14:22:26 which does have a plane-specific name 14:22:28 and which I rather liked 14:22:34 I think they consider that one too powerful too, though 14:22:44 Ravnica had a /lot/ of color fixing 14:22:46 they have reprinted that in commanders 14:22:47 of very high quality 14:22:59 but it is commons so it's cheap enough that I have four-of of most of them 14:23:13 four copies of five or six out of the ten I think 14:23:51 they don't need to reprint if it's common and there's enough on the market 14:24:12 and with nice mirrodin frames too 14:24:50 I hate the font used in the title line of the recent cards. why did they have to choose a worse font, after they replaced the horrible colors and font of the old title line in Mirrodin? 14:25:20 um 14:25:23 that's ambiguous 14:25:49 the current version of the font was chosen to be a font that isn't publicly available, to make the cards harder to counterfeit 14:28:35 mirage to invasion has bad colors and a very bad font on the title line. mirrodin to theros has a good font and good colors (not counting some time spiral block shenanigans). khans of tarkir to present has a somewhat worse font but still good colors. 14:28:55 really, counterfeiting is their reason? that sounds a bit stupid 14:30:44 it's a major threat to their business, given the difference between the amount they charge for cards and the amount they cost to print 14:30:58 that's why they started adding the hologram stamp on rares 14:32:08 In that Omnitell deck, which already includes wishes, is any card from the original sideboard necessary? 14:32:27 I mean, can you just throw the whole sideboard away to fill it with cards for the turing-machine setup? 14:33:08 The hologram makes sense, sure 14:33:24 Enter the Infinite and Show and Tell in the sideboard are not technically necessary, but they make it a lot stronger 14:33:46 Release the Ants is the intended finisher of the deck, although I think that's a mistake because there's a reliable kill just with the cards in the maindeck 14:33:54 plus Wipe Away 14:34:22 But doesn't everyone have much better resolution scanners these days than printers, so the text outline for any card can be easily reconstructed? I have scanned graphics and photos in 600 dpi because it doesn't cost me anything more than a 300 dpi scan, and once you actually want to make decent quality counterfeits, you can go even higher. 14:35:01 not commercial printers, their output has a better resolution than most scanners (and most modern printers, for that matter) can manage 14:35:05 at least when printing text 14:35:12 they print different layers separately 14:35:51 this is why the easiest way to tell a counterfeit is normally to look at the edge of the expansion symbol with a powerful magnifying glass 14:36:16 printers whose input for that was a set of pixels, rather than vector-format, tend to be unable to recreate it accurately, it's obviously fuzzy 14:36:37 -!- atslash has joined. 14:37:22 btw, the maindeck Impulse is only there for a combo with Firemind's Foresight, so if you remove one you can remove the other too 14:39:53 I see 14:41:16 -!- atslash has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds). 14:52:14 and it's not likely that just Sigma-one or primitive recursion or something is easier to simulate in M:tG than full Turing-completeness, right? 14:53:42 I guess that would be possible if we could have a trigger that copies a token to another token with the same variable toughness but different type 14:55:03 or perhaps if we represented variables with as many tokens as its value 14:57:12 `card-by-name Fungal Sprouting 14:57:13 Fungal Sprouting \ 3G \ Sorcery \ Create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control. \ M13-U 14:57:27 `card-by-name Kin-Tree Invocation 14:57:29 Kin-Tree Invocation \ BG \ Sorcery \ Create an X/X black and green Spirit Warrior creature token, where X is the greatest toughness among creatures you control. \ KTK-U 14:57:30 oh, that's more promising 14:57:49 `card-by-name Miming Slime 14:57:50 Miming Slime \ 2G \ Sorcery \ Create an X/X green Ooze creature token, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control. \ GTC-U 15:00:31 but you can't easily repeat those effects, because Spellbinder and similar effects are optional 15:00:40 not mandatorily that is 15:05:43 So how much does the translation from that small Minsky machine to Amnesiac level 1 blow up? I think going from Amnesiac to Waterfall doesn't blow up too much. 15:10:18 Amnesiac L1 is an O(n) blowup with the mechanical compilations 15:10:24 but I think it's normally less if you do it by hand 15:11:09 ais523: O(n) blowup when the Minsky machine can increment or decrement variables by any fixed integer, and that integer is represented in binary in the description? 15:11:15 @metar lowi 15:11:15 LOWI 031450Z VRB01KT 9999 FEW090 SCT110 BKN250 09/M02 Q0992 R08/19//95 NOSIG 15:11:19 ...warm 15:11:31 that is, the blowup doesn't depend on the integer increment values, but only on the number of counters and states? 15:11:47 wob_jonas: yes, the blowup is to remember which state you're in when you do an increment 15:11:52 -!- Cale_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 15:11:53 @metar egbb 15:11:54 EGBB 031450Z 07013KT 3000 BR OVC006 01/M00 Q0993 15:11:57 good 15:12:09 then it might fit the 237 creature types 15:12:12 that time looks out of date 15:12:26 (I should've checked before I left the house... could have picked a different coat 15:13:45 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1749905/code-golf-fractran/1802570#1802570 --- WTF! this is on Stack Overflow? as opposed to Code Golf SE or something? 15:14:52 (ais523 linked to that earlier, but I didn't look) 15:15:17 it predates PPCG being created 15:15:20 and got locked for being offtopic 15:15:40 PPCG got created mostly as a result of posts like that being repeatedly locked, people liked them and wanted somewhere to put them 15:15:41 and fractran might be a good language for this sort of M:tG construction too 15:15:55 I don't think so, divisibility tests in M:tG are hard 15:16:16 no no 15:16:26 you'd store only the prime exponents 15:16:38 not the representation as a single integer 15:16:42 but multiple counters 15:17:07 it might not be as good as Waterfall, but still 15:22:11 oh, in that case, tests for simultaneous presence of a particular subset of creatures are hard to do in M:tG 15:25:07 and you still use Blades of Velis Vel to protect the opponent's Rotlung Reanimators from the breath of the Ghouls, right? 15:25:39 I think so, you need /something/ to add an additional creature type to it 15:26:12 yeah, Blade of Velis Vel is the easiest for that 15:26:47 there might be a way to do it mathematically, have their toughnesses changing over time but never hitting 0 15:27:41 that could certainly work for the factoring problem where we have a strict easy to compute upper limit on the runtime 15:27:49 Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Harmless Offering, Artificial Evolution, Cackling Counterpart, Wild Cantor, Blades of Velis Vel 15:28:55 would be nice to golf this down a bit 15:29:36 wait, we need research//development, too 15:29:45 Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Harmless Offering, Artificial Evolution, Cackling Counterpart, Wild Cantor, Blades of Velis Vel, Research//Development 15:32:52 10 cards :-( 15:45:05 it's a pity Mastermind's Aquisition costs double-black, if not for that it might have been viable in the maindeck 15:45:13 we could still use it as an R//D replacement 15:56:32 `card-by-name Fractured Identity 15:56:32 Fractured Identity \ 3WU \ Sorcery \ Exile target nonland permanent. Each player other than its controller creates a token that's a copy of it. \ C17-R 15:57:10 close to merging two of our slots but doesn't quite get there because we can't get the Lynx back out of exile 15:57:12 unless, hmm 15:58:40 `card-by-name coax from the blind eternities 15:58:42 Coax from the Blind Eternities \ 2U \ Sorcery \ You may choose an Eldrazi card you own from outside the game or in exile, reveal that card, and put it into your hand. \ EMN-R 15:58:47 can we use that rather than R//D? 15:59:04 (you artificially evolve "Eldrazi" to match a creature type of the creature that got exiled) 16:00:56 the idea is that we use Cunning and Burning wishes that we naturally have in our deck to fetch Coax, Fractured, and Artificial 16:01:04 `card-by-name Blades of Velis Vel 16:01:05 Blades of Velis Vel \ 1R \ Tribal Instant -- Shapeshifter \ Changeling (This card is every creature type.) \ Up to two target creatures each get +2/+0 and gain all creature types until end of turn. \ LRW-C, MM2-C 16:01:15 Blades of Velis Vel is naturally an Eldrazi, so we can get that too 16:01:19 using Coax 16:02:09 then we use the standard double-Emrakul trick to keep recycling Coax and Artifical in order to get all the creatures out of our sideboard 16:02:11 I think that works 16:02:48 Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Artificial Evolution, Wild Cantor, Blades of Velis Vel, Fractured Identity, Coax from the Blind Eternities 16:02:52 down to 9 cards 16:05:23 -!- HereToAnnoy has joined. 16:07:05 Hi, I guess 16:07:12 hi 16:08:10 right now we're busy trying to prove Magic: the Gathering to be Turing complete even with no decisions made by the players (once a crafted gamestate is set up) 16:08:46 Haha 16:10:46 or, rather, we've already pretty much proved it but we're trying to golf down the construction so that we can fit it in the sideboard of a tournament-viable deck 16:11:35 ‎<‎ais523‎>‎ Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Artificial Evolution, Wild Cantor, Blades of Velis Vel, Fractured Identity, Coax from the Blind Eternities 16:11:42 current record is 9 cards, it seems likely we can do better though 16:12:11 (this also makes certain assumptions about the rest of the deck; we're working from this Omnitell list: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=113604) 16:15:56 -!- Cale_ has joined. 16:24:46 -!- HereToAnnoy has left. 16:33:38 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 16:34:03 -!- Sgeo has joined. 16:37:10 Fractured Identity? does that mean you have to play Elesh last? 16:37:20 and also, that you don't use Harmless Offering now? 17:01:01 yes, the idea was to save a card 17:01:32 you would indeed need to play Elesh pretty late, but you'd have to do that anyway 17:01:50 the idea is that Fractured Identity can combine the token-making and donating parts of the setup 17:02:19 although that has the downside that the card gets exiled, so we have to change the "get cards out of our sideboard" part of the setup to compensate 17:07:29 -!- atslash has joined. 17:09:21 -!- LKoen has joined. 17:11:55 -!- augur has joined. 17:23:19 err, hmm, there's a mistake in the construction: Blade of Velis Vel can't legally target Hungry Lynx no matter how much you adjust the creature types 17:24:15 which makes it even more important to try to save that slot 17:27:12 <706.2> Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied. 17:27:19 so we can't just switch to Shields of Veils Vel either 17:30:02 I think Master Biomancer works but it'd be awkward 17:30:26 (you hack it to say Zombie rather than Mutant while you're deploying the cats, then bounce it before you deploy the tokens) 17:31:48 -!- laerling has joined. 17:32:17 I think it's the only option though 17:39:12 `card-by-name Master Biomancer 17:39:13 Master Biomancer \ 2GU \ Creature -- Elf Wizard \ 2/4 \ Each other creature you control enters the battlefield with a number of additional +1/+1 counters on it equal to Master Biomancer's power and as a Mutant in addition to its other types. \ GTC-M, C16-M 17:45:01 -!- j-bot has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 17:47:40 ouch 17:50:20 ais523: why can't Shields of Velis Vel work? 17:50:32 if you do the construction in the right order? 17:51:18 `card-by-name shields of velis vel 17:51:20 Shields of Velis Vel \ W \ Tribal Instant -- Shapeshifter \ Changeling (This card is every creature type.) \ Creatures target player controls get +0/+1 and gain all creature types until end of turn. \ LRW-C 17:51:27 oh wait, you can aim it at your opponent 17:51:34 for some reason I assumed it'd only affect you 17:51:37 use, that works then 17:51:40 *yes, 17:52:07 we sent the ROM over first, then Shields it, then send over the RAM 17:52:36 later on we can Shields ourself to prevent our Rotlung dying to the enemy Elesh Norn 17:53:01 (the /+1 also keeps the enemy ROM and RAM alive while we temporarily cast Elesh so that we can copy her) 17:54:17 9 cards:‎ Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Artificial Evolution, Wild Cantor, Shields of Velis Vel, Fractured Identity, Coax from the Blind Eternities 17:54:40 actually, let me order that by card type 17:55:11 9 cards:‎ CREATURE: Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Wild Cantor, INSTANT: Artificial Evolution, Shields of Velis Vel, SORCERY: Fractured Identity, Coax from the Blind Eternities 17:55:20 because that's relevant in how we get them out of the sideboard 17:55:22 actually 17:55:25 -!- variable has joined. 17:55:38 9 cards:‎ CREATURE/TRIBAL: Hungry Lynx, Rotlung Reanimator, Noxious Ghoul, (Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite), Wild Cantor, Shields of Velis Vel, INSTANT: Artificial Evolution, SORCERY: Fractured Identity, Coax from the Blind Eternities 17:55:53 as we're getting out Shields based on its tribal type 17:56:48 this is mostly creatures/tribals which is great, as it means we can use the existing Burning Wishes for the sorceries and existing Cunning wish for the instant and are unlikely to have run out 17:57:01 (the wishes self-exile, so we can't loop them; Coax doesn't, so we canA) 17:57:03 *can 17:59:31 ais523: don't you still need Wipe Away? 18:00:02 and maybe something more for either the recycling or the cleanup after the setup? I don't think I understand how that works 18:00:39 `card-by-name Coax from the Blind Eternities 18:00:39 Coax from the Blind Eternities \ 2U \ Sorcery \ You may choose an Eldrazi card you own from outside the game or in exile, reveal that card, and put it into your hand. \ EMN-R 18:01:58 ais523: how do you create the ram in first place? 18:02:13 yes, we wish for Wipe Away 18:03:12 to create the RAM we start by creating the Cleric tokens on our side of the field (via, e.g. Rotlung Reanimator set to Shaman and sacrificing a Cantor), then Fracturing them onto the other side of the battlefield 18:03:51 and after you send the tokens through, you evolve them to the right type? could work 18:03:54 yep 18:04:12 then to set the values away from all-2s we use a spare creature type and have a stack of Lynxes set to that type 18:04:22 -!- aloril has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 18:04:36 sacrifice an evolved Cantor on our side and the Lynxes will place a precise amount of +1/+1 counters on everything based on their type 18:04:46 then we never use the type again 18:05:17 instead of the Cantor, can't you use something that serves another function too though? 18:05:28 something that sacrifices for some other useful effect 18:07:29 it does serve a useful function, it lets us start the combo with Wipe Away still on the stack 18:07:42 ah 18:07:47 to make it obvious that neither side can interfere 18:07:49 yeah, you want split second tricks 18:08:26 -!- tromp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 18:10:49 -!- aloril has joined. 18:11:46 what if you use Starlit Sanctum's second ability to start the combo, you control it and you don't control any changelings, make sure you sacrifice the last creature of the creature type you want, and as a bonus you can use Starlit Sanctum to adjust life totals somewhat for the finisher? 18:12:02 `card-by-name starlit sanctum 18:12:04 Starlit Sanctum \ Land \ {T}: Add {C} to your mana pool. \ {W}, {T}, Sacrifice a Cleric creature: You gain life equal to the sacrificed creature's toughness. \ {B}, {T}, Sacrifice a Cleric creature: Target player loses life equal to the sacrificed creature's power. \ ONS-U 18:12:23 that isn't a mana ability 18:12:28 the second one is 18:12:30 the third one isn't 18:12:38 no it isn't 18:12:43 "you gain life" doesn't generate mana 18:12:46 oh right 18:12:47 I'm stupid 18:12:53 duh 18:12:59 ok, so Wild Cantor 18:13:24 also, creatures are the easiest card type to get out of our sideboard 18:13:35 or... let me check all the cards that generate Gold or Eldrazi Spawn tokens 18:13:51 why? aren't you still using 18:13:56 `card-by-name Development 18:13:57 Development \ 3UR \ Instant \ Create a 3/1 red Elemental creature token unless any opponent has you draw a card. Repeat this process two more times. \ [This is half of the split card Research // Development.] \ DIS-R 18:14:00 `card-by-name Research 18:14:01 Research \ GU \ Instant \ Choose up to four cards you own from outside the game and shuffle them into your library. \ [This is half of the split card Research // Development.] \ DIS-R \ \ Research // Development \ GU // 3UR \ Instant // Instant \ Choose up to four cards you own from outside the game and shuffle them into your library. // Create a 18:14:19 oh right, you also use that eldrazi stuff 18:15:17 right, we needed to get creatures back from exile too once we started using Fractured Identity 18:15:36 and Coax gets creatures from both exile and sideboard (the creature type restriction isn't relevant because we need Artificial anyway) 18:15:52 `card-by-name Essence Feed 18:15:53 Essence Feed \ 5B \ Sorcery \ Target player loses 3 life. You gain 3 life and create three 0/1 colorless Eldrazi Spawn creature tokens. They have "Sacrifice this creature: Add {C} to your mana pool." \ ROE-C 18:16:03 but I think you don't want to drain the opponent to zero, so that's not what we want 18:16:09 what's the exit condition now? 18:17:11 attack with Emrakul (naturally in the deck), in response to the annihilator trigger cast Wipe Away targeting Wild Cantor, then sacrifice Wild Cantor to generate mana 18:17:25 if the combo collapses then the opponent will be facing down Emrakul and have nothing to block it with 18:18:15 we get rid of our own Omniscience before this (after having made just enough mana to finish the combo by looping Cantor) so that we don't have any ability to stop our own win 18:18:34 but what if he has enough life for Emrakul? 18:18:42 to survive Emrakul's attack that is 18:18:48 I was envisioning using multiple attacks while the board was empty 18:19:22 but you can't make copies of Emrakul 18:20:16 multiple attacks... maybe 18:20:28 over multiple turns 18:20:30 we have infinite turns anyway 18:20:35 I guess you could just attack with more spare creatures than the opponent have lynxes 18:20:42 small ones 18:20:57 we could also pile +1/+1 counters on Emrakul 18:20:57 wait, infinite turns too? 18:21:04 wob_jonas: cast trigger on Emrakul 18:21:11 we're hardcasting it as part of the recycle loop 18:21:15 (which is why it costs 27 mana) 18:21:20 ok 18:21:20 -!- tromp has joined. 18:21:42 specifically, the loop is cast Emrakul, it dies to legend rule, shuffle your library; cast Enter the Infinite, get your library back to hand 18:21:59 end result is graveyard → hand, and it's free if Omniscience is in play, and it's entirely based on cards that are in Omnitell naturally 18:22:08 you need the other copy of Emrakul on the battlefield for this to work 18:22:13 I see! 18:22:24 (note: if it got exiled somehow, you can get it back with Coax before starting the combo) 18:22:59 that's much better than a Dark Confidant combo 18:23:18 playing Dark Confidant and Emrakul in the same deck is inadvisable anyway ;-) 18:23:43 *shuffle your graveyard into your library 18:23:57 yeah, but... 18:24:11 ok 18:25:00 wtf, Omniscience is from M2013? what did people use before that came out? 18:25:21 for what purpose? 18:25:27 Omnitell didn't exist as a deck at the time 18:25:59 I dunno, I just thought either it was older, or there's some very similar older card 18:25:59 -!- LKoen has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 18:26:08 `card-by-name Genesis Wave 18:26:09 Genesis Wave \ XGGG \ Sorcery \ Reveal the top X cards of your library. You may put any number of permanent cards with converted mana cost X or less from among them onto the battlefield. Then put all cards revealed this way that weren't put onto the battlefield into your graveyard. \ SOM-R 18:26:19 that was used for this sort of stupid combo, sometimes 18:26:21 simply because I don't usually know about rares from sets newer than M2010 18:27:10 I mean, people have invented a hundred different infinite mana combos, and some of them give any color, and some of them replace Omniscience just fine 18:27:50 ah yes, and there was another symmetric one 18:28:07 which put cards into play from your hand and from your opponent's hand too 18:29:17 `card-by-name Hypergenesis 18:29:18 Hypergenesis \ Sorcery \ Suspend 3--{1}{G}{G} (Rather than cast this card from your hand, pay {1}{G}{G} and exile it with three time counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter. When the last is removed, cast it without paying its mana cost.) \ Starting with you, each player may put an artifact, creature, enchantment, or 18:29:27 that one 18:29:40 not useful here, just that's what Genesis Wave reminds me 18:30:21 `card-by-name Eureka 18:30:22 Eureka \ 2GG \ Sorcery \ Starting with you, each player may put a permanent card from his or her hand onto the battlefield. Repeat this process until no one puts a card onto the battlefield. \ LE-R, VMA-M, MED-R 18:30:38 that's the original version Hypergenesis is nerfing 18:31:34 `card-by-name Show and Tell 18:31:35 Show and Tell \ 2U \ Sorcery \ Each player may put an artifact, creature, enchantment, or land card from his or her hand onto the battlefield. \ US-R, CN2-M 18:31:45 that's actually in Omnitell, it's how it affords to play Omniscience 18:31:53 ah 18:31:58 (it can also just put Emrakul in directly if it has no better option, which is risky because the opponent can often remove it) 18:34:51 -!- ais523 has quit (Quit: quit). 19:03:38 [[Talk:StackFlow]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54274&oldid=42023 * B jonas * (+12734) 19:03:41 [[StackFlow]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54275&oldid=54273 * B jonas * (-12176) 19:05:07 [[Talk:StackFlow]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54276&oldid=54274 * B jonas * (+146) 19:05:10 [[StackFlow]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54277&oldid=54275 * B jonas * (-164) 19:05:34 -!- variable has quit (Quit: /dev/null is full). 19:15:51 -!- variable has joined. 19:23:07 -!- LKoen has joined. 20:11:31 [[RTFM]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=54278 * TeslaX93 * (+1643) first version 20:12:13 [[F^3]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=54279 * TeslaX93 * (+18) redirect 20:36:15 -!- sleffy has joined. 21:01:08 -!- atslash has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep). 21:08:53 Did you see if there is a mistake in ZPXDB? 21:09:22 I am not sure how I should test it properly, but maybe you know, and then you can tell me how. 21:11:08 -!- wob_jonas has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client). 21:20:26 -!- LKoen has quit (Quit: “It’s only logical. First you learn to talk, then you learn to think. Too bad it’s not the other way round.”). 21:21:01 -!- augur has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 21:26:30 -!- ais523 has joined. 21:47:50 -!- augur has joined. 21:54:05 -!- ais523 has quit (Quit: quit). 22:12:16 [[Language list]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=54280&oldid=54259 * TeslaX93 * (+35) added RTFM and F3 22:16:13 -!- wob_jonas has joined. 22:17:55 ais523: One more important question about the M:tG construction is this. If you don't insist on tournament viability, how can you modify the construction such that the abstract machine can safely query inputs from either player at its choice, in order that we can simulate an M:tG game or any other game. 22:23:40 so you're making an alternating TM? 22:23:56 `? atm 22:23:58 An ATM is when you're withdrawing money right now at a machine that will duplicate your relevant info. 22:24:07 mmm 22:25:15 yeah I guess that's better than "An ATM is an alternating Turing machine. It alternates between dispensing and not dispensing money." (but here's the idea for the record) 22:26:59 int-e: I don't know what an alternating Turing machine is 22:28:20 int-e: ah. yes, something like that. 22:28:54 although you might not find the true value it computes, because you and the opponent need not play optimally. 22:29:37 "alternating" generalizes "non-deterministic"; when you get to make a choice in a non-deterministic TM, it will accept if any of the choices leads to an accepting state; in an ATM, for some of the non-deterministic choices, *all* of the paths need to lead to acceptance, while for others, like in NTMs, it suffices for one of the choices to lead to accepting paths (this gives rise to an arbitrary... 22:29:43 ...alternation of finite existential and universal quantifiers) 22:30:07 And that in turn has game semantics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfeucht%E2%80%93Fra%C3%AFss%C3%A9_game ... closing the circle. 22:30:44 Plus I guess you might want to add a random source too. 22:31:08 yeah there's nothing probabilistic about ATMs. 22:33:17 -!- j-bot has joined. 22:33:50 Luckily M:tG has tons of cards that offers a choice to the controller, and a large enough selection of cards that offer a choice to the opponent or make a choice at random, so it is probably possible to add all that. 22:34:09 Hmm, that might not be enough though 22:34:52 You might also want a way for some of the state of the program to be hidden from the players, and that might be very hard if you want it working strictly, 22:35:25 because there's almost no way in M:tG to store more hidden state than what the permutation of the physical cards can store. 22:36:09 Luckily, state hidden from both players isn't a big problem, you can just approximate that with randomness and lots of computation. State hidden from just one player can be a problem. 22:36:17 And that might be hard to simulate too. 22:42:46 . o O ( morphs ) 22:43:54 (but you can only havea bounded number of those, I guess, and even if you *can* operate on such hidden information, that act would reveal it) 22:43:59 I guess you could use cryptography to simulate the hidden information 22:44:22 but that would only work if you forced the opponent to do expensive cryptographic operations in his head 22:44:53 him or a judge 22:45:41 it's probably easier to just simulate a perfect information game, like chess or go 22:46:58 or backgammon, if you want to use the probabilistic feature 22:48:14 The advantage is that there are already nice small implementations of chess for multiple real computers, so you only need to simulate most of a 6502 plus RAM plus some IO devices and then run an existing chess program 22:49:36 int-e: yeah. and if you can't easily store arbitrary hidden information, that means not only you can't simulate M:tG, you also can't simulate Scrabble or Starcraft. 22:49:50 which lead me to https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/is-backgammon-in-p/ (still reading, but at least some people are interested :) ) 22:52:13 although you could simulate a single-player game with hidden information and randomness, if you don't mind a few more levels of exponential slowdown (since we're using a counter machine, you already have at least one level of exponential slowdown) 22:52:21 homomorphic encryption is a relevant keyword 22:52:35 (if you want to simulate hidden information through crypto) 22:54:18 int-e: you could technically do that, but I don't think you need that. Much less power is enough to just simulate M:tG, although you might need homomorphic encryption to faithfully simulate Starcraft or a Counterstrike deathmatch. 22:55:01 which still isn't practical, I guess. "In late 2014, a re-implementation of homomorphic evaluation of the AES-encryption circuit using HElib, reported evaluation time of just over four minutes on 120 inputs, bringing the amortized per-input time to about 2 seconds." [wikipedia] 22:55:01 And again, the problem would be that the opponent would need to compute difficult crypto computations in his head to keep hidden information, or at least ask a judge to do it for him. 22:55:35 And it'd be hard to convince a non-accomplice to do that. 22:55:43 :P 22:56:08 Although... wait 22:58:24 you're already using a construction that has at least one level of exponential slowdown. You obviously shortcut most of that. So you could just say that the opponent only needs to encrypt each of his decisions (with random salt), the simulated machine decrypts it (in double or triple exponential time, who cares), and since you're shortcutting every 22:58:24 thing, you can just shortcut all the crypto part too by just playing the simulated game and keeping hidden info with pieces of paper facing down and similar traditional methods. 22:59:41 Mind you, it might be possible to make an improved reduction to M:tG that has only polynomial slowdown, in particular a fixed simulation of StackFlow could probably do that. 23:00:05 (StackFlow with a bounded number of stacks and states etc.) 23:03:24 -!- laerling has quit (Quit: Leaving). 23:11:10 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 23:33:57 -!- AnotherTest has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds).