Mercurial > repo

comparison paste/paste.20529 @ 900:e1c037345e52

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
<Phantom_Hoover> pastelog rapido
author HackBot
date Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:22:45 +0000
parents
children
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
899:ee12065796be 900:e1c037345e52
1 2008-08-07.txt:15:14:55: <tusho> Introductions are a lot of fun, some crap, crapidoodle... mmm, crapidoodle. Introductions are a lot of fun, some crap, crapidoodle... mmm, crapidoodle. Introductions are a lot of fun, some crap, crapidoodle... mmm, crapidoodle. Introductions are a lot of fun, some crap, crapidoodle... mmm, crapidoodle. Introductions are a lot of fun, some crap, crapidoodle... mmm, crapidoodle.
2 2008-08-07.txt:15:15:36: -!- Deewiant changed the topic of #esoteric to: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | <bsmntbombdood> lol tornado brb | ☃ | mmm, crapidoodle.
3 2008-08-07.txt:15:32:26: -!- tusho changed the topic of #esoteric to: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | mmm, crapidoodle. | ☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃â˜
4 2008-08-08.txt:15:34:05: <tusho> "mmm...crapidoodle"
5 2009-04-17.txt:03:06:57: <GregorR> Can somebody translate this from psuedoSpanish to English? "ooooooooooooo que bacano lo boy aitalar para que mi pc me corra mas rapido jajaja no pero enserio esta bacano"
6 2010-03-27.txt:22:22:58: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
7 2010-03-27.txt:22:24:14: <rapido> is my language is esoteric?: http://www.enchiladacode.nl ... you decide
8 2010-03-27.txt:22:25:18: <oerjan> rapido: looks far too well-developed to be esoteric :D
9 2010-03-27.txt:22:26:14: <rapido> i think to most interesting esoteric languages are extremely well-developed to be different
10 2010-03-27.txt:22:26:49: <rapido> pikhq: you insult me! - usable? - nah
11 2010-03-27.txt:22:27:06: <fax> rapido -- it doesn't look esoteric but I just glanced
12 2010-03-27.txt:22:28:27: <rapido> the esoteric bit is that it would be very difficult to compile enchilada to efficient machine code
13 2010-03-27.txt:22:28:48: <rapido> but i guess most esoteric languages have that property
14 2010-03-27.txt:22:29:12: <rapido> may be not
15 2010-03-27.txt:22:29:31: <pikhq> rapido: Many languages are difficult to compile efficiently.
16 2010-03-27.txt:22:29:58: <oerjan> rapido: befunge has that as a design feature
17 2010-03-27.txt:22:30:45: <rapido> pikhq: enchilada's eval is always there - always
18 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:18: <alise> rapido: you're the enchilada creator?
19 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:26: <pikhq> rapido: BTW, what makes it difficult to compile efficiently?
20 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:31: <alise> great to meet you rapido
21 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:46: <rapido> alise: thanks!
22 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:10: <rapido> pikhq: every unwritten term carries a hash
23 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:25: <rapido> code = data = hashed
24 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:30: <alise> rapido: May I comment? Making the correctness of your language depend on the infallibility of SHA-1 is unwise.
25 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:55: <rapido> alise: SHA-1 is just one choice of hash
26 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:05: <alise> rapido: But it is true of every hash.
27 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:15: <rapido> alise: is it?
28 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:20: <pikhq> rapido: Hashes, by definition, cannot satisfy what you ask of it.
29 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:36: <rapido> what is the chance of your memory to fail or have a hash collision?
30 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:46: <rapido> not your memory of course ;)
31 2010-03-27.txt:22:34:28: <pikhq> rapido: Hashes are not unique.
32 2010-03-27.txt:22:34:50: <alise> rapido: Well there's all sorts of "chance"; many hash functions have been broken.
33 2010-03-27.txt:22:35:10: <alise> rapido: Correctness doesn't care about the practical reality, though, because it is about mathematical properties.
34 2010-03-27.txt:22:36:46: <alise> rapido: I think Enchilada is certainly one of the most unique extant languages.
35 2010-03-27.txt:22:36:49: <rapido> alise: i believe the reality is not correct - at least my computer fails me many more times than hash collisions which have probability 10 ^ -30 - depending on the hash function
36 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:04: <alise> rapido: Me and cpressey discussed one aspect of it recently, actually.
37 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:15: <alise> rapido: Go and look up how many hash functions have been broken.
38 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:46: <rapido> alise: forget about SHA1 - think about hashes
39 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:58: <alise> rapido: If we're being abstract we have to be formal too.
40 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:04: <pikhq> rapido: This is a problem with all hashes.
41 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:27: <alise> rapido: forall f:A->B, (card B < card A) -> exists x:A,y:A. f x = f y
42 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:30: <rapido> pikhq: i don't see it as a problem - i see it as a opportunity
43 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:44: <pikhq> rapido: An opportunity... For security flaws.
44 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:48: <rapido> if you give a little you gain a lot
45 2010-03-27.txt:22:39:07: <rapido> pikhq: memory failure is also a possibility
46 2010-03-27.txt:22:39:15: <alise> rapido: pikhq is actually right about security: consider an Enchilada program comparing for equality to some secret value.
47 2010-03-27.txt:22:39:25: <rapido> you need a physical platform - which is faulty
48 2010-03-27.txt:22:40:00: <alise> rapido: IMO that is an error similar to the one that claims that Turing-completeness of a language is impossible because no universal Turing machine can be constructed.
49 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:00: <alise> rapido: Actually if we are considering physical things, why do you use hashes? Comparison is not slow.
50 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:30: <rapido> alise: try comparing two sets which are different in only one element
51 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:42: <alise> rapido: How big are these sets?
52 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:46: <rapido> big
53 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:00: <rapido> let's do some O complexity
54 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:14: <rapido> two sets with size n and m
55 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:18: <pikhq> rapido: Depends heavily on the representation of the set, the location of the difference, and the comparison algorithm in use.
56 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:34: <alise> rapido: you are appealing to practical reasons
57 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:58: <rapido> sure it does - but what's the most efficient algorithm?
58 2010-03-27.txt:22:43:53: <rapido> alise: hey, i'm just being esoteric ;)
59 2010-03-27.txt:22:45:19: <rapido> fax: Heresy!
60 2010-03-27.txt:22:45:20: <alise> rapido: Anyway, add dependent types and termination checking and I'll love it.
61 2010-03-27.txt:22:46:45: <rapido> alise: no exceptions, yes baby!
62 2010-03-27.txt:22:46:56: <alise> rapido: But it has _|_, I presume?
63 2010-03-27.txt:22:47:44: <rapido> no, it doesn't have bottom - everything terminates eventually
64 2010-03-27.txt:22:47:50: <fax> poor rapido having to listen to this :P
65 2010-03-27.txt:22:48:15: <alise> rapido: Well, that is good. I do hope you realise that this means it cannot be turing-complete.
66 2010-03-27.txt:22:49:42: <AnMaster> try to be somewhat nicer to rapido
67 2010-03-27.txt:22:49:43: <rapido> alise: i have thought of this. what about doing something 10^100000 times?
68 2010-03-27.txt:22:50:18: <alise> rapido: So, you are an ultrafinitist, then?
69 2010-03-27.txt:22:50:34: <alise> rapido: If something could never be computed it is not computable.
70 2010-03-27.txt:22:51:19: <rapido> alise: i like brouwer - the dutch mathematician
71 2010-03-27.txt:22:51:53: <alise> rapido: You are at least a constructivist then.
72 2010-03-27.txt:22:53:38: <rapido> let me try to explain my case
73 2010-03-27.txt:22:53:48: <rapido> let's say you have a long winding proof
74 2010-03-27.txt:22:54:00: <rapido> the proof will hold references to other proofs
75 2010-03-27.txt:22:54:27: <rapido> and those proofs will hold references to yet other proofs
76 2010-03-27.txt:22:54:49: <rapido> what is the chance of any reference to be faulty?
77 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:06: <rapido> what can we do to lower that chance?
78 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:30: <rapido> can we make a reference absolutely non-faulty - always?
79 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:34: <rapido> i don't believe so
80 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:41: <rapido> we can lower it
81 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:44: <alise> rapido: Eh?
82 2010-03-27.txt:22:56:04: <Sgeo_> rapido, that's a problem of mathematicians being wrong, not a property of mathematics itself
83 2010-03-27.txt:22:56:15: <rapido> alise: think of the reference itself
84 2010-03-27.txt:22:56:27: <alise> rapido: Define what a reference to a proof IS, as an actual object.
85 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:10: <rapido> alise: i'm saying that you need pointers
86 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:20: <alise> rapido: This is false.
87 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:25: <rapido> alise: to scala
88 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:29: <rapido> scala <- scale
89 2010-03-27.txt:22:58:10: <rapido> doesn't abstract mathematics need pointers?
90 2010-03-27.txt:22:58:27: <rapido> to refer to something? a word is a pointer
91 2010-03-27.txt:22:59:07: <Sgeo_> rapido, a reference to a proof is just um.. kind of included, I guess? More like a #define than an import?
92 2010-03-27.txt:22:59:17: <alise> rapido: No, a name is just a placeholder.
93 2010-03-27.txt:23:00:02: <rapido> alise: but the name must be unique, not?
94 2010-03-27.txt:23:00:21: <rapido> otherwise the statement will be ambigious
95 2010-03-27.txt:23:00:31: <rapido> ambiguous
96 2010-03-27.txt:23:01:13: <rapido> come on - names refer to bigger things
97 2010-03-27.txt:23:01:23: <rapido> they compress the bigger things
98 2010-03-27.txt:23:01:40: <rapido> they are a poor-mans hash of the things they refer to
99 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:11: <rapido> the bigger things have names in them
100 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:21: <rapido> they refer to other objects
101 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:32: <alise> rapido: I think that's rubbish.
102 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:37: <rapido> alise: ok
103 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:55: <rapido> i think it's exactly that
104 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:03: <rapido> that's abstraction
105 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:07: <rapido> to compress
106 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:10: <oerjan> rapido: a name would only be a hash if it was derived entirely from the thing it named
107 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:34: <rapido> oerjan: yes, that's why i like hashes better than names
108 2010-03-27.txt:23:04:02: <oerjan> rapido: and it is also why hashes must have the possibility of collisions, but names need not
109 2010-03-27.txt:23:05:22: <rapido> oerjan: names may not - but who will make sure the names don't clash?
110 2010-03-27.txt:23:05:35: <oerjan> rapido: the compiler/verifier
111 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:11: <rapido> oerjan: don't you agree that names compress the complex objects hat they refer to?
112 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:21: <rapido> hat <- that
113 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:54: <oerjan> rapido: now you are just shifting the meaning of a term, it won't help your actual argument any
114 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:59: <rapido> otherwise you would end up with pure value passing semantics - which is very inefficient
115 2010-03-27.txt:23:07:24: <rapido> oerjan: and what's my actual argument?
116 2010-03-27.txt:23:08:39: <rapido> fax: 'heh you could hard code in something that ensures that every variable name you use, names some term which is larger'
117 2010-03-27.txt:23:09:03: <rapido> fax: this would end up with names as big as the objects themselves
118 2010-03-27.txt:23:09:34: <rapido> fax: just would rather have the objects - thank you very much
119 2010-03-27.txt:23:10:06: <oerjan> rapido: i think you are reading fax backwards
120 2010-03-27.txt:23:11:03: <rapido> oerjan: that's right
121 2010-03-27.txt:23:11:16: <rapido> fax: it is an interesting thought - thanks!
122 2010-03-27.txt:23:12:28: <rapido> but i do still think names/pointers/links are meant to compress information - think of exact repetitions
123 2010-03-27.txt:23:13:11: <rapido> you just say: hey i've got this object and a name it x
124 2010-03-27.txt:23:13:29: <rapido> now i have this other object y, and it holds 4 x's
125 2010-03-27.txt:23:13:50: <rapido> and so forth
126 2010-03-27.txt:23:14:27: <rapido> but how are you going to name the 10^10000 object that holds other object names?
127 2010-03-27.txt:23:15:09: <rapido> names are important especially in a distributed setup where you can't have a central naming service
128 2010-03-27.txt:23:15:24: <rapido> who is giving out the names?
129 2010-03-27.txt:23:19:37: <rapido> i will give myself a name, and a won't be a hash
130 2010-03-27.txt:23:20:31: <Sgeo_> rapido, to be clear, you're talking about computers, and not math, right?
131 2010-03-27.txt:23:21:30: <rapido> Sgeo_: math is riddled with references and names that refer to complex abstractions
132 2010-03-27.txt:23:22:26: <rapido> Sgeo_: of course, you can always create the full proof down the axioms, without references
133 2010-03-27.txt:23:23:40: <rapido> Sgeo_: 'math' doesn't difference from 'computers' - whatever that means
134 2010-03-27.txt:23:24:55: <rapido> you can never be certain
135 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:03: <rapido> even mathematical proofs aren't certain
136 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:06: <alise> rapido: sigh
137 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:15: <rapido> you need faulty humans to falsify mathematical proofs
138 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:56: * Sgeo_ wonders if rapido might be pulling a fax.
139 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:59: <alise> rapido, saying that proofs aren't certain because you need humans to falsify them or something
140 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:09: <rapido> alise: but computers are faulty - the change of computers to faulty is much higher than hash collisions
141 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:31: <rapido> change <-chance
142 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:35: <alise> rapido: except when computers go wrong - they don't say "Yes this is valid omg!"
143 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:54: <rapido> fax: thanks for correcting me - thank you very much
144 2010-03-27.txt:23:27:03: <alise> he pinged Oranjer, rapido
145 2010-03-27.txt:23:27:16: <fax> rapido, what?
146 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:02: <rapido> heisenbug! now you are talking my way!
147 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:22: <rapido> i like heisenbugs!
148 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:25: <rapido> they are great!
149 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:57: <rapido> we should create a esoteric language called heisenbug!
150 2010-03-27.txt:23:29:40: <rapido> the default would be an heisenbug statement - with the remote exception of a correct statement
151 2010-03-27.txt:23:30:55: <rapido> if the heisenbug language proves to be turing complete - i'm done!
152 2010-03-27.txt:23:33:00: <rapido> pikhq: just to make you shiver: 'corporate' storage depends on hashes (that may have collisions)
153 2010-03-27.txt:23:33:55: <pikhq> rapido: Yes, hash tables are common.
154 2010-03-27.txt:23:33:56: <alise> rapido: You are mixing the practical and the theoretical, seemingly repeatedly.
155 2010-03-27.txt:23:34:59: <rapido> alise: i think theoretical abstractions need reality to be expressed.
156 2010-03-27.txt:23:35:08: <rapido> i do see the difference
157 2010-03-27.txt:23:35:48: <alise> rapido: Then it is a philosophical disagreement we have, and having reached the bottom layer of where rationality works, we should abandon the discussion immediately. :)
158 2010-03-27.txt:23:36:25: <rapido> alise: i see that - no prob :)
159 2010-03-27.txt:23:36:53: <alise> fax: rapido :P
160 2010-03-27.txt:23:37:07: <alise> rapido: Well, I applaud your work on Enchilada and hope you'll visit here often.
161 2010-03-27.txt:23:37:28: <rapido> fax: lol!
162 2010-03-27.txt:23:37:48: <rapido> fax: hey - at least i've made something runnable!
163 2010-03-27.txt:23:40:00: <rapido> sound like the scientific approach - repeat and measure
164 2010-03-27.txt:23:40:18: <rapido> alise: again we disagree
165 2010-03-27.txt:23:41:15: <alise> rapido: Well, I think I have the evidence on my side. There are many mechanical proof checkers upon which a large part of mathematics has been formulated.
166 2010-03-27.txt:23:42:21: <rapido> alise: your romance with math is before 1935
167 2010-03-27.txt:23:43:13: <rapido> alise: that math is much to great and complex and interesting to be certain
168 2010-03-27.txt:23:43:56: <alise> rapido: I really do invite you to go up to any of the many people who have worked on proof checkers, proof assistants, and laboriously defined and proved things in these systems - and say that to them.
169 2010-03-27.txt:23:44:01: <rapido> alise: and that axioms are not enough - godel has proved that
170 2010-03-27.txt:23:44:34: <fax> rapido: btw I think most people here are post-godel
171 2010-03-27.txt:23:45:03: <fax> rapido: of course it is a big factor
172 2010-03-27.txt:23:45:03: <rapido> sure - i'm more into popper <- an oldie also
173 2010-03-27.txt:23:45:38: <rapido> alise: that's one way of putting it
174 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:32: <rapido> alise: what i don't understand is that you allow proof checkers
175 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:47: <pikhq> rapido: What's to not understand?
176 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:49: <alise> rapido: Perhaps you do not understand what a proof checker is.
177 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:54: <rapido> why do you rely on faulty memory
178 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:05: <rapido> alise: i perfectly understand.
179 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:11: <alise> rapido: Your appeal to errors in memory to demonstrate that mathematics is uncertain is really poor.
180 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:15: <rapido> do you trust the compiler
181 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:27: <rapido> has the compiler been proved correctly?
182 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:32: <rapido> what about the processor?
183 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:34: <rapido> etc, etc
184 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:47: <alise> rapido: There is an article about this.
185 2010-03-27.txt:23:48:38: <fax> rapido - of course the main thing people are forgetting is there's so much more to mathematics than formal proof
186 2010-03-27.txt:23:48:51: <rapido> fax: very true
187 2010-03-27.txt:23:49:18: <rapido> alise: http://r6.ca/homework.html <- this i don't like
188 2010-03-27.txt:23:54:43: <rapido> alise: 'For one, you can have RAM with so much error checking that it is physically impossible for it not to detect an error for the computation you are doing...'
189 2010-03-27.txt:23:55:27: <rapido> alise: for one, you can have hashes with so many bits that it is physically impossible not to detect an error for the computation you are doing...
190 2010-03-27.txt:23:55:55: <rapido> now i will stop moaning about hashes
191 2010-03-27.txt:23:56:04: <alise> rapido: no that's false
192 2010-03-27.txt:23:56:29: <Sgeo_> alise, I think rapido is trying to make an analogy?
193 2010-03-27.txt:23:56:40: <rapido> the checking bits of faulty ram is smaller than the ram
194 2010-03-27.txt:23:57:28: <rapido> you can't have absolutely perfect ram
195 2010-03-27.txt:23:58:20: <rapido> fax: no, the most kind of impossible there is - is god
196 2010-03-27.txt:23:59:11: <fax> rapido oh you're another of the atheist people I guess -_-
197 2010-03-27.txt:23:59:12: <rapido> dixon: a sponge bob - another hero if mine!
198 2010-03-27.txt:23:59:24: <rapido> if <- of
199 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:06: <rapido> dixon: uuuh - i need to study your reference to sponge constructions
200 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:41: <dixon> rapido: http://sponge.noekeon.org/
201 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:50: <rapido> i could believe in god and still find the concept of god to be impossible
202 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:54: <rapido> such is believe
203 2010-03-28.txt:00:02:29: <rapido> dixan: ah, thanks!
204 2010-03-28.txt:00:02:41: <dixon> rapido: They're cryptographic hashes, however.
205 2010-03-28.txt:00:03:03: <rapido> dixon: cryptographic hashes are the only ones i'm considering
206 2010-03-28.txt:00:04:04: <dixon> rapido: But yes, by definition they're surjective when useful and thus have collisions.
207 2010-03-28.txt:00:04:26: <rapido> lament: then you would be a flying lunatic with wings
208 2010-03-28.txt:00:06:13: <rapido> dixon: all that i want is a naming service that is scalable
209 2010-03-28.txt:00:06:28: <Sgeo_> rapido, let the name of the proof be the content of the proof.
210 2010-03-28.txt:00:07:00: <rapido> Sgeo_: but proofs can be huge - think of computer generated proofs
211 2010-03-28.txt:00:10:20: <rapido> look.... the coq has giving me sign - it's hanging low - it's time to go to bed.... later ...
212 2010-03-28.txt:00:10:40: -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido).
213 2010-03-31.txt:20:29:19: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
214 2010-03-31.txt:21:56:37: -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido).
215 2010-04-01.txt:07:06:04: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
216 2010-04-01.txt:07:07:26: -!- rapido has parted #esoteric (?).
217 2010-04-07.txt:21:22:45: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
218 2010-04-07.txt:21:27:31: -!- rapido has parted #esoteric (?).
219 2010-04-08.txt:19:45:27: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
220 2010-04-08.txt:20:15:36: -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido).
221 2010-05-28.txt:03:58:39: <oerjan> la grande rapido universidad estatal
222 2011-03-21.txt:20:22:13: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
223 2011-03-21.txt:20:27:38: <rapido> are there an interesting 'collection oriented' language that is not apl/j/k?
224 2011-03-21.txt:20:27:46: <rapido> are <- is
225 2011-03-21.txt:20:29:48: <rapido> is there something like 'map theory'? I know there is something like 'array theory'
226 2011-03-21.txt:20:32:37: <rapido> array theory: http://www.nial.com/ArrayTheory.html
227 2011-03-21.txt:20:33:20: <rapido> ah found something: http://www.mangust.dk/skalberg/papers/gkli-slides1.pdf
228 2011-03-21.txt:20:33:25: <rapido> map theorie: v
229 2011-03-21.txt:20:33:30: <rapido> map theory: http://www.mangust.dk/skalberg/papers/gkli-slides1.pdf
230 2011-03-21.txt:20:35:14: <rapido> wouldn't it be nice to have a map oriented language?
231 2011-03-21.txt:20:35:32: <rapido> everything is a map - data and code
232 2011-03-21.txt:20:36:02: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, map?
233 2011-03-21.txt:20:37:18: <rapido> concrete map: [0=0;1=1;2=4;3=9]
234 2011-03-21.txt:20:37:33: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, so everything is an associative array?
235 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:03: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: yes, that's one way of phrasing it
236 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:12: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, finite or infinite?
237 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:17: <rapido> finite!
238 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:28: <rapido> total functions would be nice
239 2011-03-21.txt:20:39:46: <rapido> this would be a lazy map: [x<-[0..10000000];x*x]
240 2011-03-21.txt:20:40:41: <rapido> still finite because the domain is finite
241 2011-03-21.txt:20:42:00: <rapido> Gregor: ok, i haven't really settled for a notation
242 2011-03-21.txt:20:42:08: <rapido> notation <- syntax
243 2011-03-21.txt:20:43:39: <rapido> domain: 0..10000000 : range: x*x
244 2011-03-21.txt:20:44:09: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: yes - thanks
245 2011-03-21.txt:20:47:09: <rapido> the domain (keys) and range (values) can be maps too.
246 2011-03-21.txt:20:47:48: <rapido> In fact, literals are maps in disguise
247 2011-03-21.txt:20:48:02: <rapido> there should be only maps!
248 2011-03-21.txt:20:51:23: <rapido> I've done something similar with enchilada- but i like to be more restrictive than enchilada (i.e. finitie maps only)
249 2011-03-21.txt:20:51:49: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, so basically everything is a function from a finite sense?
250 2011-03-21.txt:20:52:43: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: yes
251 2011-03-21.txt:20:56:39: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: say that you have an recursive function that doesn't terminate
252 2011-03-21.txt:20:57:38: <rapido> now let's imagine an interpreter that takes this same recursive function, together with a user-defined 'number of interpreter steps'
253 2011-03-21.txt:20:58:09: <rapido> when the interpreter reaches the 'number of interpreter steps' it terminates
254 2011-03-21.txt:20:59:30: <rapido> oerjan: consing can be done - nice observation
255 2011-03-21.txt:21:06:03: <rapido> question: how would you give a unique name to a arbitrary block of bytes without hashing (=possible collisions) and without using a central service (thing p2p)
256 2011-03-21.txt:21:06:12: <rapido> thing <- think
257 2011-03-21.txt:21:07:06: <rapido> oh - the same block of bytes should map always return the same name
258 2011-03-21.txt:21:08:33: <cpressey> rapido: I don't think it's possible.
259 2011-03-21.txt:21:10:28: <rapido> cpressey: ok, what about a central service which just increases a counter for each new block that has been issued?
260 2011-03-21.txt:21:11:38: <rapido> what if we scale the central naming service to log(n) naming services - with n being the number of blocks issued?
261 2011-03-21.txt:21:12:04: <rapido> or square(n)?
262 2011-03-21.txt:21:12:23: <rapido> dns scales pretty good
263 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:16: <rapido> cpressey: i want to achieve (function) memoization - not only within one instance of running program - but globally
264 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:24: <pikhq_> rapido: No.
265 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:44: <pikhq_> rapido: Universal memoization is not as good an idea as you may think.
266 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:46: <rapido> pikhq_: no?
267 2011-03-21.txt:21:20:03: <rapido> pikhq_: it doesn't need to be persistent always - just the most used functions (structures)
268 2011-03-21.txt:21:20:29: <pikhq_> rapido: Automatic memoization is a *hard* problem.
269 2011-03-21.txt:21:20:54: <rapido> pikhq_: 'memoization is a *hard* problem' - i like that!
270 2011-03-21.txt:21:21:34: <pikhq_> rapido: At least as hard as parallel computing.
271 2011-03-21.txt:21:21:47: <rapido> pikhq_: i'm the author of enchilada - i have done some 'experiments' on the subject.
272 2011-03-21.txt:21:22:34: <oklopol> "<rapido> are there an interesting 'collection oriented' language that is not apl/j/k?" <<< toi
273 2011-03-21.txt:21:22:53: <rapido> i want to get rid of enchilada's cryptographic hashes - but still scale in a distributed setup
274 2011-03-21.txt:21:25:16: <rapido> oklopol: is there a interesting 'collection oriented' language that is also esoteric ;)
275 2011-03-21.txt:21:33:49: <rapido> don't surjectively inject your hilbert hotel principle into the discussion - please!
276 2011-03-21.txt:21:42:07: <rapido> are there any CA formalism that takes previous (N not just the current) world states as input?
277 2011-03-21.txt:21:42:58: <oklopol> rapido: no, but those are essentially the same thing
278 2011-03-21.txt:21:44:40: <rapido> oklopol: could such formalism be more powerful - not in a TC sense - but in a 'programming' sense - whatever that means
279 2011-03-21.txt:21:45:12: <oerjan> rapido: mcell has some "ca families" that use memory
280 2011-03-21.txt:21:45:35: <rapido> oerjan: thanks for the pointer
281 2011-03-21.txt:21:46:18: <oklopol> rapido: well i haven't seen them used, at least
282 2011-03-21.txt:21:48:34: <rapido> i like surreal numbers
283 2011-03-21.txt:21:48:51: <rapido> surreal number subsume all numbers
284 2011-03-21.txt:21:49:00: <rapido> number <- numbers
285 2011-03-21.txt:21:49:26: <rapido> hyperreal? ah yeah!
286 2011-03-21.txt:21:50:39: <rapido> same for quaternions
287 2011-03-21.txt:21:51:14: <rapido> or biquaternions
288 2011-03-21.txt:21:54:17: -!- rapido has quit (Remote host closed the connection).
289 2011-03-21.txt:21:58:07: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric.
290 2011-03-21.txt:22:05:53: <rapido> is there a fractal based esoteric language?
291 2011-03-21.txt:22:06:16: <rapido> 'living on the edge' which is infinite
292 2011-03-21.txt:22:08:49: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, well, there were the Sierpiński numbers...
293 2011-03-21.txt:22:10:14: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: aaah, a new number system to learn....... how many are there?
294 2011-03-21.txt:22:10:32: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, it's countably infinite.
295 2011-03-21.txt:22:10:35: <cpressey> < rapido> is there a fractal based esoteric language? <-- I know there were a few that got to the "planning" stage, but I don't know of any complete ones
296 2011-03-21.txt:22:11:15: <rapido> i don't like infinite/uncountable stuff - but hey - i'' make an exception
297 2011-03-21.txt:22:11:16: <oerjan> <rapido> is there a fractal based esoteric language? <-- i'm pretty sure there was one but i don't remember the name
298 2011-03-21.txt:22:12:27: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, well, just restrict it to finite strings.
299 2011-03-21.txt:22:14:36: <rapido> HP: Hilbert Problem?
300 2011-03-21.txt:22:15:57: <rapido> i like reversible languages: <shameless plug> enchilada is reversible (modulo hash collisions)
301 [too many lines; stopping]