00:08:38 -!- XorSwap has quit (Quit: the creeping crawling chaos will return.). 01:04:34 -!- Cale has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 01:17:29 -!- Cale has joined. 01:43:35 -!- nfd9001 has joined. 02:16:52 -!- tromp has joined. 02:19:13 -!- pimlu has joined. 02:21:51 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 02:49:12 -!- S_Gautam has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 03:35:30 -!- Guest61282 has quit (Quit: WeeChat 1.2). 03:55:56 -!- erkin has joined. 04:05:29 -!- tromp has joined. 04:10:12 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 04:13:53 -!- S_Gautam has joined. 05:16:36 [[User:Saka]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57563&oldid=57266 * Saka * (+257) 05:22:56 -!- yaewa has joined. 05:24:14 -!- moei has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds). 05:49:38 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 05:53:28 -!- tromp has joined. 05:57:46 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 05:59:37 -!- yaewa has quit (Quit: Leaving...). 06:15:14 -!- sebbu2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 06:15:44 -!- sebbu has joined. 06:24:57 -!- pimlu has joined. 06:29:33 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 06:33:05 -!- S_Gautam has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 06:57:07 -!- moei has joined. 07:05:01 -!- pimlu has joined. 07:05:09 -!- tromp has joined. 07:09:04 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 07:28:02 [[Game of Life]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57564&oldid=57555 * Ais523 * (+202) mention that 144 is the smallest known TC starting population 07:42:33 -!- arseniiv has joined. 07:48:33 -!- joast has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 08:18:25 -!- pimlu has joined. 08:20:21 -!- AnotherTest has joined. 08:20:31 -!- xkapastel has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 08:22:39 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 08:24:33 -!- copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds). 08:25:43 -!- contrapumpkin has joined. 08:56:51 -!- spiegelau has quit (Quit: leaving). 08:58:50 -!- pimlu has joined. 09:03:21 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 09:15:38 -!- wob_jonas has joined. 09:16:18 `? instance 09:16:20 instance? ¯\(°​_o)/¯ 09:16:26 "instance" is among my favourite words 09:19:37 Sgeo_: with what operating system and libraries presumed? linux? NNIX? demoscenes typically want to give interesting output, such as nice videos and sounds, so just "MMIX" isn't enough to specify what you can access, just like "486 with 16M RAM" or "6502 with 64K RAM" aren't enough either. 09:29:47 -!- pimlu has joined. 09:34:09 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 09:46:16 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 09:48:04 -!- pimlu has joined. 09:49:27 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 09:52:30 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 10:12:13 shachaf: Sorry for spoiling your teaching moment... I have too many other things on my mind, I'm afraid. So while I'm prepare to reminisce about the fact that adjunctions foiled me (15 years ago, give or take), I'm not really prepared to learn about them now. 10:15:12 int-e: It wasn't so much a teaching moment as me rambling about a thing incoherently to an audience that already expressed disinterest. 10:15:59 so we both felt bad about that... great. :/ 10:17:28 ! 10:17:34 don't feel bad about it twh 10:19:58 Note the past tense. Feeling better now :P 10:20:02 Or :) 10:20:51 Also I'd bet a third party that adjunctions wouldn't foil you if you spent a small time on them 10:21:08 (Small realization: ":P" is easier to type than ":)"...) 10:21:23 i was going to say a disinterested party but then i realized that wouldn't rule you out 10:22:15 I feel like I should do more actual betting to get better at estimating odds. 10:22:29 Yes, indifference is a strong factor here. 10:23:21 Anyway, back to work... 10:23:24 Maybe I should bet you that you won't figure it out. 10:23:44 `quote indifference 10:23:45 1320) int-e does not like this [...] shachaf: I experience heightened levels of indifference :P Higher than your usual? who cares? 10:24:28 -!- pimlu has joined. 10:28:48 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 10:45:12 [[User talk:Ais523]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57565&oldid=56187 * B jonas * (+799) /* Game of Life theorem subtleties */ new section 10:46:08 [[User talk:Ais523]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57566&oldid=57565 * B jonas * (+119) /* Game of Life theorem subtleties */ 10:58:23 -!- pimlu has joined. 11:02:37 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 11:22:30 -!- john_metcalf has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 11:36:03 -!- pimlu has joined. 11:40:39 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 11:50:20 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 12:04:59 -!- wob_jonas has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client). 12:07:12 -!- wob_jonas has joined. 12:07:47 -!- pimlu has joined. 12:12:00 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds). 12:21:42 -!- user24 has joined. 12:25:16 -!- SopaXorzTaker has joined. 12:25:54 -!- Essadon has joined. 12:26:33 -!- wob_jonas has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client). 12:33:40 -!- wob_jonas has joined. 12:36:35 [[BFC]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=57567 * Sinthorion * (+2811) Created page with "BFC or Brainfuck Compressed is a low level optimisation of Brainfuck code, aiming at reducing the code length of Brainfuck code while making it faster to run on a BFC interpre..." 12:37:06 [[BFC]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57568&oldid=57567 * Sinthorion * (+1) 12:38:12 [[BFC]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57569&oldid=57568 * Sinthorion * (+117) 12:42:31 -!- pimlu has joined. 12:47:18 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 13:15:17 -!- pimlu has joined. 13:19:33 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 13:32:27 -!- S_Gautam has joined. 13:44:41 -!- xkapastel has joined. 13:51:25 -!- pimlu has joined. 13:55:34 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 14:01:21 -!- contrapumpkin has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…). 14:02:12 -!- SopaXorzTaker has quit (Quit: Leaving). 14:03:25 -!- copumpkin has joined. 14:18:32 -!- user24 has quit (Quit: Leaving). 14:21:35 -!- joast has joined. 14:23:20 -!- pimlu has joined. 14:27:27 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 14:36:49 -!- sleepnap has joined. 14:57:47 -!- pimlu has joined. 15:02:09 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 15:28:52 -!- bradcomp has joined. 15:29:16 -!- pimlu has joined. 15:30:44 -!- wob_jonas has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client). 15:33:27 -!- pimlu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 16:42:12 -!- SopaXorzTaker has joined. 17:23:59 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 17:25:04 `olist 1140 17:25:05 olist 1140: shachaf oerjan Sgeo FireFly boily nortti b_jonas 17:31:07 -!- deltab has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 17:38:31 -!- deltab has joined. 17:46:04 [[User talk:Ais523]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57570&oldid=57566 * Ais523 * (+1039) /* Game of Life theorem subtleties */ r to b_jonas 17:58:18 -!- zseri has joined. 17:59:23 -!- lldd_ has joined. 18:51:59 -!- S_Gautam has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 19:09:02 -!- JWinslow23 has joined. 19:09:39 -!- JWinslow23 has quit (Client Quit). 19:10:10 -!- tromp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 19:12:34 -!- zseri has quit (Quit: Leaving). 19:15:45 -!- MDude has quit (Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)). 19:23:08 -!- tromp has joined. 19:28:28 -!- erkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds). 19:33:40 -!- erkin has joined. 19:42:14 -!- lldd_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds). 19:46:39 [[Turing (Joshop)]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57571&oldid=55856 * Joshop * (-901) Blanked the page 19:52:35 -!- SopaXorzTaker has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 19:54:53 [[Cappuccino]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=57572 * Joshop * (+368) Created page with "== Description == Cappuccino is like Java, but different. In fact, it is almost identical to Java,but with some key differences. For example, if you try to access a class that..." 20:05:51 [[Cappuccino]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=57573&oldid=57572 * Joshop * (+398) 21:11:28 -!- ais523 has joined. 21:11:47 @messages? 21:11:47 Sorry, no messages today. 21:21:21 -!- MDude has joined. 21:26:57 -!- MDude has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 21:39:56 -!- contrapumpkin has joined. 21:41:09 -!- Essadon has quit (Quit: Qutting). 21:43:27 -!- AnotherTest has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 21:43:50 -!- copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds). 22:03:04 -!- bradcomp has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 22:04:10 -!- bradcomp has joined. 22:04:29 -!- wob_jonas has joined. 22:05:48 ais523: "There's a conceptual difference between, say, the :*()^a! subset of Underload and the :()^ subset of Underload; the former lets you build "arbitrary Underload circuits", the latter doesn't and yet it's still TC. The "fixed maximum population count" version of Life is an example of the latter, whereas most actual effort in Life programming 22:05:48 has concentrated on the former." => 22:06:54 wob_jonas: did your comment get cut off? that's just a quote of me, plus => 22:07:07 I don't understand by what you mean by arbitrary circuits in the Life case. It's sometimes not even easy to tell what constructs you can get as a rectangular subsection of a one-step evolution of any pattern. 22:07:37 (not cut off. I broke it deliberately there.) 22:07:43 also, guess what: 22:08:02 the normal standard is "anything that can be constructed via colliding gliders", which turns out to be almost everything 22:08:36 I'm proud, because the IRC timing sword cuts both ways: schmorp just told me something close to "I have to leave now because I'm tired, I only stayed up because you were in [the irc channel]" 22:09:11 What's the closest thing to a cellular automaton that could be made relativistic? 22:09:35 -!- atslash has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep). 22:11:08 shachaf: are you talking about Game of Life or in general? 22:11:18 shachaf: special relativistic (Lorentz) or general relativistic (Minkowski/Riemann)? 22:11:34 shachaf: you probably couldn't put either on a simple grid 22:11:40 you'd have to use something more tricky 22:13:04 ais523: Well, I don't think relativistic effects could happen in Game of Life. 22:13:23 wob_jonas: Special relativistic would be enough (both would be interesting) 22:13:52 shachaf: I don't really understand that 22:14:27 there's this language I've been thinking about for ages in which relativity seems to become a natural part of the mechanics… 22:14:53 it's actually got me thinking about the "is the universe a simulation" concept; if it /is/, you'd expect something like relativity to exist, as otherwise the simulation would be hard to parallelise 22:16:48 ais523: what? no. you'd only expect a speed of light (maximal speed) to exist. you wouldn't expect Lorentz-invariance because you wouldn't expect Gallilei invariance in the low speed region in first place. 22:17:01 ais523: You'd expect locality, but why relativity? 22:17:45 wob_jonas: shachaf: basically because you want there to be a maximum rate at which values can change, so that you know when transitions will happen; if you have a maximum velocity relative to a fixed reference, the sum or difference of two velocities can exceed that 22:17:52 somehow you want a calculation of the form c + c = c 22:18:11 ais523: I think a maximal speed like in our universe is useful for the anthropic principle too, because it means people can't travel interstellar distances quickly, so anything fast-spreading like an explosion or a civilization won't be able to form a virus that eats everything else in the universe. 22:18:13 Well, something like the game of life has a speed of light and doesn't even have a primitive notion of velocity. 22:18:40 But I don't see why you'd expect Gallilei invariance for a simulation or for the anthropic principle. I don't understand why it would help. 22:19:13 shachaf: it's also inherently slow, I suspect; it'd be interesting to see how fast Life computers can calculate in computational class terms 22:19:21 err, complexity class terms 22:19:45 Is relativity compatible with a Hashlife-style algorithm in a nice way? 22:19:52 ais523: Game of Life, for example, has a fixed reference frame. It's not as nice as our universe, which has gravity that keeps people and their nuclear bombs at least bound onto the surface of big iron balls, so they can't just expand everywhere like some Life patterns do. 22:20:15 Game of life also doesn't have conservation of energy (?) 22:20:20 What is energy? I don't even know, man. 22:20:33 shachaf: game of life has a maximum movement speed that's different from c 22:20:43 e.g. a pattern can't move faster than c/2 orthogonally or c/4 diagonally forever 22:20:47 But the maximum information transmission speed is c 22:20:48 there's a conservation rule that implies that 22:20:55 I mean c is achievable 22:20:55 So while Life has a fixed reference frame, I don't expect it to evolve nice small regions separated by long hard to cross empty space so that a supernova or civilization in one place can't destroy too big a region. 22:21:14 yes, c's achievable for information, but you then have to spend time slowly repairing the communication medium you used 22:21:24 I mean, compared to us, a supernova explosion still is huge and destructive, but compared to a galaxy, it doesn't matter, and the universe is much bigger than that, 22:21:39 communication that fast is necessarily destructive 22:21:51 it has galaxies separated by huge empty spaces, and even clusters of galaxies separated by even larger mostly empty spaces. 22:21:58 all because of gravity 22:23:00 one problem with Life is that it seems inherently hard/impossible to make a self-repairing machine 22:23:32 Physics seems to have a primitive notion of velocity as well as position (?) 22:23:34 the Hubble expansion also helps, because with Gallilei/Lorentz-invariance, normally you'd expect various galaxies having very huge speed compared to each other, since a huge speed doesn't internally change them, so they'd get close randomly, whereas with a Hubble expansion, they get close much less often 22:23:40 Which is different from any cellular automaton I know. 22:23:42 you can make machines that are protected against very specific sorts of disturbance (e.g. a glider on a particular path), but I don't think it's possible in general to make something that can determine that part of it has been damaged, clear that space, and recreate the damaged component 22:23:46 So it seems like the relativity is just making this harder. 22:23:47 because clearing the space is too hard 22:23:56 e.g. if you shoot gliders at it you might just end up making a crystal 22:25:25 shachaf: yes, and I'm not saying that this physics is bad, only that I don't understand why this happens to be a good design, and why a simulation or the anthropic principle would imply such a design 22:25:42 there are probably some partial explanations for why certain other designs wouldn't work as well 22:26:13 -!- sleepnap has left. 22:26:43 ais523: yeah 22:26:59 actually, let me express it this way: suppose that position isn't the only thing that has a "speed of light" 22:27:05 suppose /every/ number in your system has a maximum rate at which it can change 22:27:24 then you end up with something like relativity because you need to be able to handle changes to the results of formulas, in addition to the variables they use 22:27:50 Why does that give you something like relativity? 22:28:20 ais523: I don't understand why you'd end up relativity that just for that. Why couldn't you end up with a fixed reference frame with objects generally moving with slow speed, a fixed upper limit on speed, and objects generally accelerating slowly? 22:28:29 shachaf: say 1 is the largest number that exists 22:28:36 then addition has to be defined in a way that lets you do 1+1 22:29:24 wob_jonas: suppose you have multiple forces acting on the same object 22:29:40 in order to avoid going over the maximum acceleration you need to cap the sum somehow 22:30:01 you can do it with saturating caps, but relativistic addition seems neater in a way 22:30:04 ais523: the accelerations could add up with a v0+v1-v0v1 rule 22:30:17 no sorry 22:30:22 the speed could add up that way 22:30:34 sort of like in our universe 22:30:44 but you only have one reference frame where that works 22:30:54 it doesn't work after anything like a gallilei transformation 22:31:04 or would that still end up with special relativity? hmm 22:31:16 yeah no, that would be special relativity 22:31:16 right, I don't think you necessarily get /all/ the rules of relativity this way; you just need something that has similar mathematical consequences to it 22:31:17 hmm 22:32:41 I guess what I mean is "you can't deduce the rules of relativity this way, just the existence of relativity" 22:33:15 dunno, I'll think about that 22:34:29 the even crazier part is why we have quantum mechanics of course 22:35:10 Quantum mechanics doesn't violate locality, at least. 22:36:07 wait, is quantum mechanics simply a real-life implementation of nondeterminism? 22:36:14 ais523: no 22:36:17 the declarative languages concept, I mean? 22:36:24 It's a pretty peculiar kind of nondeterminism. 22:36:30 ais523: I don't think it's just that 22:36:32 right, because different threads can interfere 22:38:06 quantum mechanics is strange, you can't really compare it to anything you've seen before quantum mechanics. it implies some things, like randomness and stuff, but it's not JUST that. 22:38:24 I don't think you need any randomness for quantum mechanics? 22:38:39 I mean, if you're simulating it. 22:39:04 right, it only looks random from the "inside", picking a particular world 22:39:12 Right. 22:39:45 interference of probabilities between worlds is weird, but it isn't that much weirder than, say, the cut operator in Prolog 22:39:52 shachaf: it's... complicated. you can say you don't need randomness to simulate it in the sense that you don't need randomness to simulate classical randomness if you want to compute the probability distribution in the end. in that sense, you also don't need randomness to simulate quantum mechanics. but then you have a choose a sample in the end, o 22:39:52 nly in case of quantum mechanics, it's not clear what the "in the end" part means. 22:40:09 Why does there need to be an end? 22:41:20 shachaf: because you can't just choose a sample earlier. not even necessarily reduce the amount of samples. you have to keep the whole probability distributions for the whole time. but then when does a sample get chosen? is it chosen once for the whole universe, sort of after or outside the whole thing?\ 22:41:43 Why do you need to choose a sample at all? 22:42:34 -!- atslash has joined. 22:43:20 shachaf: so that eventually there's only one outcome we see 22:43:25 of everything 22:43:30 Sure, if you're in the simulation like we are. 22:43:54 But if you're simulating it it all seems deterministic. 22:43:58 It seems that if you pick a sample at any point, you need to violate locality and do it globally. Right? 22:43:58 how does "simulation" change anything here? 22:44:13 ais523 was arguing for a "simulation" for how to make it efficiently parallelizable 22:44:45 I'm confused by who "we" is who's seeing the outcome. 22:44:49 Someone inside the system or outside? 22:44:53 shachaf: yes, that's the whole problem 22:46:34 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 22:46:49 For someone inside the system making an observation, you don't need to sample, you just get a superposition or whatever it is of multiple possible observations. Right? 22:47:07 shachaf: yes 22:47:19 For someone outside the system making an observation, you need to violate locality, which is scow. 22:47:37 It seems like wanting there to be just a single sample is an inside-the-system view of things. From the outside why would you want it? 22:48:28 well, if you want to keep the entire superposition for everything, you'll need a huge amount of memory 22:48:41 Right. 22:48:55 Maybe collapse is a form of stop-the-world GC. 22:49:03 ais523: that's not really my problem though 22:49:04 so it makes sense that there'd be some sort of cut/prune operation going on 22:49:13 that means that some samples will have a higher status than others 22:49:36 ais523: yes, but there are almost certainly no cut/prune operations, at least not observable ones. 22:50:43 well, "state collapse due to observation" may be one, in which case it might be observable by definition! 22:50:48 they don't seem to use the same rules as those in Prolog though 22:51:34 ais523: yes, but we suspect there's no mandatory collapses, or at least some people think there aren't any, although we aren't quite sure, because some people like Gil Kalai think there are 22:52:29 we can't prove it either way yet, we'll need a technically hard experiment to prove that there are no mandatory collapses, or some crazy new mathematics to prove that there are mandatory collapses 22:53:10 unless some of what we strongly believe is incorrect of course 22:53:19 which would be even more surprising than any of the other two 22:54:02 -!- atslash has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep). 22:55:18 not really, I'd be very surprised if we didn't have at least one really major misconception about physics 22:55:53 I mean, our theories of physics are p. fundamentally incompatible with each other, aren't they? 22:56:00 I can't imagine a way that we wouldn't have one. 22:56:01 ais523: sure, but not in the part that implies these 22:56:16 ais523: we probably still have misconceptions about modern particle physics, we don't understand how it works 22:56:23 but not about the basic quantum mechanics rules 22:56:44 or about the speed limit and lorentz-invariance 22:56:54 and some of the other conservation laws 22:57:57 you are way too confident :-D 22:58:20 100 years ago few people would have had doubts about Newtonian gravity 22:58:27 ais523: I'm just saying, I'm more confident in that than whether the other questions 22:58:37 120 years ago maybe 22:58:39 ais523: there's still no problem with newtonian gravity 23:27:58 -!- tromp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 23:28:02 -!- wob_jonas has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client). 23:30:22 <\oren\> I think our math is probably basically right but our reasoning is probably way off. Just like keplers laws 23:32:23 -!- XorSwap has joined. 23:38:54 -!- arseniiv has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 23:43:33 -!- bradcomp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 23:43:38 -!- tromp has joined. 23:48:38 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds).