Mercurial > repo
view paste/paste.20529 @ 9554:23f43464694e
<Zarutian> le/rn Frams\xc3\xb3knarflokkurinn/A, now defunct, political party in Iceland. Like its sister party Sj\xc3\xa1lfst\xc3\xa6\xc3\xb0isflokkurinn it is named by the antonym of what it is. (The name means the Progressive Party but they have nearly always been highly regressive). Think dumb Hill-Billies in ill fitting suits and you get their constiuents.
author | HackBot |
---|---|
date | Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:33:24 +0000 |
parents | e1c037345e52 |
children |
line wrap: on
line source
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. 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. 2008-08-07.txt:15:32:26: -!- tusho changed the topic of #esoteric to: http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric | mmm, crapidoodle. | ☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☠2008-08-08.txt:15:34:05: <tusho> "mmm...crapidoodle" 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" 2010-03-27.txt:22:22:58: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2010-03-27.txt:22:24:14: <rapido> is my language is esoteric?: http://www.enchiladacode.nl ... you decide 2010-03-27.txt:22:25:18: <oerjan> rapido: looks far too well-developed to be esoteric :D 2010-03-27.txt:22:26:14: <rapido> i think to most interesting esoteric languages are extremely well-developed to be different 2010-03-27.txt:22:26:49: <rapido> pikhq: you insult me! - usable? - nah 2010-03-27.txt:22:27:06: <fax> rapido -- it doesn't look esoteric but I just glanced 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 2010-03-27.txt:22:28:48: <rapido> but i guess most esoteric languages have that property 2010-03-27.txt:22:29:12: <rapido> may be not 2010-03-27.txt:22:29:31: <pikhq> rapido: Many languages are difficult to compile efficiently. 2010-03-27.txt:22:29:58: <oerjan> rapido: befunge has that as a design feature 2010-03-27.txt:22:30:45: <rapido> pikhq: enchilada's eval is always there - always 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:18: <alise> rapido: you're the enchilada creator? 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:26: <pikhq> rapido: BTW, what makes it difficult to compile efficiently? 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:31: <alise> great to meet you rapido 2010-03-27.txt:22:31:46: <rapido> alise: thanks! 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:10: <rapido> pikhq: every unwritten term carries a hash 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:25: <rapido> code = data = hashed 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. 2010-03-27.txt:22:32:55: <rapido> alise: SHA-1 is just one choice of hash 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:05: <alise> rapido: But it is true of every hash. 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:15: <rapido> alise: is it? 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:20: <pikhq> rapido: Hashes, by definition, cannot satisfy what you ask of it. 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:36: <rapido> what is the chance of your memory to fail or have a hash collision? 2010-03-27.txt:22:33:46: <rapido> not your memory of course ;) 2010-03-27.txt:22:34:28: <pikhq> rapido: Hashes are not unique. 2010-03-27.txt:22:34:50: <alise> rapido: Well there's all sorts of "chance"; many hash functions have been broken. 2010-03-27.txt:22:35:10: <alise> rapido: Correctness doesn't care about the practical reality, though, because it is about mathematical properties. 2010-03-27.txt:22:36:46: <alise> rapido: I think Enchilada is certainly one of the most unique extant languages. 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 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:04: <alise> rapido: Me and cpressey discussed one aspect of it recently, actually. 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:15: <alise> rapido: Go and look up how many hash functions have been broken. 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:46: <rapido> alise: forget about SHA1 - think about hashes 2010-03-27.txt:22:37:58: <alise> rapido: If we're being abstract we have to be formal too. 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:04: <pikhq> rapido: This is a problem with all hashes. 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 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:30: <rapido> pikhq: i don't see it as a problem - i see it as a opportunity 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:44: <pikhq> rapido: An opportunity... For security flaws. 2010-03-27.txt:22:38:48: <rapido> if you give a little you gain a lot 2010-03-27.txt:22:39:07: <rapido> pikhq: memory failure is also a possibility 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. 2010-03-27.txt:22:39:25: <rapido> you need a physical platform - which is faulty 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. 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. 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:30: <rapido> alise: try comparing two sets which are different in only one element 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:42: <alise> rapido: How big are these sets? 2010-03-27.txt:22:41:46: <rapido> big 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:00: <rapido> let's do some O complexity 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:14: <rapido> two sets with size n and m 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. 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:34: <alise> rapido: you are appealing to practical reasons 2010-03-27.txt:22:42:58: <rapido> sure it does - but what's the most efficient algorithm? 2010-03-27.txt:22:43:53: <rapido> alise: hey, i'm just being esoteric ;) 2010-03-27.txt:22:45:19: <rapido> fax: Heresy! 2010-03-27.txt:22:45:20: <alise> rapido: Anyway, add dependent types and termination checking and I'll love it. 2010-03-27.txt:22:46:45: <rapido> alise: no exceptions, yes baby! 2010-03-27.txt:22:46:56: <alise> rapido: But it has _|_, I presume? 2010-03-27.txt:22:47:44: <rapido> no, it doesn't have bottom - everything terminates eventually 2010-03-27.txt:22:47:50: <fax> poor rapido having to listen to this :P 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. 2010-03-27.txt:22:49:42: <AnMaster> try to be somewhat nicer to rapido 2010-03-27.txt:22:49:43: <rapido> alise: i have thought of this. what about doing something 10^100000 times? 2010-03-27.txt:22:50:18: <alise> rapido: So, you are an ultrafinitist, then? 2010-03-27.txt:22:50:34: <alise> rapido: If something could never be computed it is not computable. 2010-03-27.txt:22:51:19: <rapido> alise: i like brouwer - the dutch mathematician 2010-03-27.txt:22:51:53: <alise> rapido: You are at least a constructivist then. 2010-03-27.txt:22:53:38: <rapido> let me try to explain my case 2010-03-27.txt:22:53:48: <rapido> let's say you have a long winding proof 2010-03-27.txt:22:54:00: <rapido> the proof will hold references to other proofs 2010-03-27.txt:22:54:27: <rapido> and those proofs will hold references to yet other proofs 2010-03-27.txt:22:54:49: <rapido> what is the chance of any reference to be faulty? 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:06: <rapido> what can we do to lower that chance? 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:30: <rapido> can we make a reference absolutely non-faulty - always? 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:34: <rapido> i don't believe so 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:41: <rapido> we can lower it 2010-03-27.txt:22:55:44: <alise> rapido: Eh? 2010-03-27.txt:22:56:04: <Sgeo_> rapido, that's a problem of mathematicians being wrong, not a property of mathematics itself 2010-03-27.txt:22:56:15: <rapido> alise: think of the reference itself 2010-03-27.txt:22:56:27: <alise> rapido: Define what a reference to a proof IS, as an actual object. 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:10: <rapido> alise: i'm saying that you need pointers 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:20: <alise> rapido: This is false. 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:25: <rapido> alise: to scala 2010-03-27.txt:22:57:29: <rapido> scala <- scale 2010-03-27.txt:22:58:10: <rapido> doesn't abstract mathematics need pointers? 2010-03-27.txt:22:58:27: <rapido> to refer to something? a word is a pointer 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? 2010-03-27.txt:22:59:17: <alise> rapido: No, a name is just a placeholder. 2010-03-27.txt:23:00:02: <rapido> alise: but the name must be unique, not? 2010-03-27.txt:23:00:21: <rapido> otherwise the statement will be ambigious 2010-03-27.txt:23:00:31: <rapido> ambiguous 2010-03-27.txt:23:01:13: <rapido> come on - names refer to bigger things 2010-03-27.txt:23:01:23: <rapido> they compress the bigger things 2010-03-27.txt:23:01:40: <rapido> they are a poor-mans hash of the things they refer to 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:11: <rapido> the bigger things have names in them 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:21: <rapido> they refer to other objects 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:32: <alise> rapido: I think that's rubbish. 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:37: <rapido> alise: ok 2010-03-27.txt:23:02:55: <rapido> i think it's exactly that 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:03: <rapido> that's abstraction 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:07: <rapido> to compress 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:03:34: <rapido> oerjan: yes, that's why i like hashes better than names 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:05:22: <rapido> oerjan: names may not - but who will make sure the names don't clash? 2010-03-27.txt:23:05:35: <oerjan> rapido: the compiler/verifier 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:11: <rapido> oerjan: don't you agree that names compress the complex objects hat they refer to? 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:21: <rapido> hat <- that 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:06:59: <rapido> otherwise you would end up with pure value passing semantics - which is very inefficient 2010-03-27.txt:23:07:24: <rapido> oerjan: and what's my actual argument? 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' 2010-03-27.txt:23:09:03: <rapido> fax: this would end up with names as big as the objects themselves 2010-03-27.txt:23:09:34: <rapido> fax: just would rather have the objects - thank you very much 2010-03-27.txt:23:10:06: <oerjan> rapido: i think you are reading fax backwards 2010-03-27.txt:23:11:03: <rapido> oerjan: that's right 2010-03-27.txt:23:11:16: <rapido> fax: it is an interesting thought - thanks! 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:13:11: <rapido> you just say: hey i've got this object and a name it x 2010-03-27.txt:23:13:29: <rapido> now i have this other object y, and it holds 4 x's 2010-03-27.txt:23:13:50: <rapido> and so forth 2010-03-27.txt:23:14:27: <rapido> but how are you going to name the 10^10000 object that holds other object names? 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:15:24: <rapido> who is giving out the names? 2010-03-27.txt:23:19:37: <rapido> i will give myself a name, and a won't be a hash 2010-03-27.txt:23:20:31: <Sgeo_> rapido, to be clear, you're talking about computers, and not math, right? 2010-03-27.txt:23:21:30: <rapido> Sgeo_: math is riddled with references and names that refer to complex abstractions 2010-03-27.txt:23:22:26: <rapido> Sgeo_: of course, you can always create the full proof down the axioms, without references 2010-03-27.txt:23:23:40: <rapido> Sgeo_: 'math' doesn't difference from 'computers' - whatever that means 2010-03-27.txt:23:24:55: <rapido> you can never be certain 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:03: <rapido> even mathematical proofs aren't certain 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:06: <alise> rapido: sigh 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:15: <rapido> you need faulty humans to falsify mathematical proofs 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:56: * Sgeo_ wonders if rapido might be pulling a fax. 2010-03-27.txt:23:25:59: <alise> rapido, saying that proofs aren't certain because you need humans to falsify them or something 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:31: <rapido> change <-chance 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:35: <alise> rapido: except when computers go wrong - they don't say "Yes this is valid omg!" 2010-03-27.txt:23:26:54: <rapido> fax: thanks for correcting me - thank you very much 2010-03-27.txt:23:27:03: <alise> he pinged Oranjer, rapido 2010-03-27.txt:23:27:16: <fax> rapido, what? 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:02: <rapido> heisenbug! now you are talking my way! 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:22: <rapido> i like heisenbugs! 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:25: <rapido> they are great! 2010-03-27.txt:23:28:57: <rapido> we should create a esoteric language called heisenbug! 2010-03-27.txt:23:29:40: <rapido> the default would be an heisenbug statement - with the remote exception of a correct statement 2010-03-27.txt:23:30:55: <rapido> if the heisenbug language proves to be turing complete - i'm done! 2010-03-27.txt:23:33:00: <rapido> pikhq: just to make you shiver: 'corporate' storage depends on hashes (that may have collisions) 2010-03-27.txt:23:33:55: <pikhq> rapido: Yes, hash tables are common. 2010-03-27.txt:23:33:56: <alise> rapido: You are mixing the practical and the theoretical, seemingly repeatedly. 2010-03-27.txt:23:34:59: <rapido> alise: i think theoretical abstractions need reality to be expressed. 2010-03-27.txt:23:35:08: <rapido> i do see the difference 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. :) 2010-03-27.txt:23:36:25: <rapido> alise: i see that - no prob :) 2010-03-27.txt:23:36:53: <alise> fax: rapido :P 2010-03-27.txt:23:37:07: <alise> rapido: Well, I applaud your work on Enchilada and hope you'll visit here often. 2010-03-27.txt:23:37:28: <rapido> fax: lol! 2010-03-27.txt:23:37:48: <rapido> fax: hey - at least i've made something runnable! 2010-03-27.txt:23:40:00: <rapido> sound like the scientific approach - repeat and measure 2010-03-27.txt:23:40:18: <rapido> alise: again we disagree 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. 2010-03-27.txt:23:42:21: <rapido> alise: your romance with math is before 1935 2010-03-27.txt:23:43:13: <rapido> alise: that math is much to great and complex and interesting to be certain 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. 2010-03-27.txt:23:44:01: <rapido> alise: and that axioms are not enough - godel has proved that 2010-03-27.txt:23:44:34: <fax> rapido: btw I think most people here are post-godel 2010-03-27.txt:23:45:03: <fax> rapido: of course it is a big factor 2010-03-27.txt:23:45:03: <rapido> sure - i'm more into popper <- an oldie also 2010-03-27.txt:23:45:38: <rapido> alise: that's one way of putting it 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:32: <rapido> alise: what i don't understand is that you allow proof checkers 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:47: <pikhq> rapido: What's to not understand? 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:49: <alise> rapido: Perhaps you do not understand what a proof checker is. 2010-03-27.txt:23:46:54: <rapido> why do you rely on faulty memory 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:05: <rapido> alise: i perfectly understand. 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:11: <alise> rapido: Your appeal to errors in memory to demonstrate that mathematics is uncertain is really poor. 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:15: <rapido> do you trust the compiler 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:27: <rapido> has the compiler been proved correctly? 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:32: <rapido> what about the processor? 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:34: <rapido> etc, etc 2010-03-27.txt:23:47:47: <alise> rapido: There is an article about this. 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 2010-03-27.txt:23:48:51: <rapido> fax: very true 2010-03-27.txt:23:49:18: <rapido> alise: http://r6.ca/homework.html <- this i don't like 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...' 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... 2010-03-27.txt:23:55:55: <rapido> now i will stop moaning about hashes 2010-03-27.txt:23:56:04: <alise> rapido: no that's false 2010-03-27.txt:23:56:29: <Sgeo_> alise, I think rapido is trying to make an analogy? 2010-03-27.txt:23:56:40: <rapido> the checking bits of faulty ram is smaller than the ram 2010-03-27.txt:23:57:28: <rapido> you can't have absolutely perfect ram 2010-03-27.txt:23:58:20: <rapido> fax: no, the most kind of impossible there is - is god 2010-03-27.txt:23:59:11: <fax> rapido oh you're another of the atheist people I guess -_- 2010-03-27.txt:23:59:12: <rapido> dixon: a sponge bob - another hero if mine! 2010-03-27.txt:23:59:24: <rapido> if <- of 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:06: <rapido> dixon: uuuh - i need to study your reference to sponge constructions 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:41: <dixon> rapido: http://sponge.noekeon.org/ 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:50: <rapido> i could believe in god and still find the concept of god to be impossible 2010-03-28.txt:00:01:54: <rapido> such is believe 2010-03-28.txt:00:02:29: <rapido> dixan: ah, thanks! 2010-03-28.txt:00:02:41: <dixon> rapido: They're cryptographic hashes, however. 2010-03-28.txt:00:03:03: <rapido> dixon: cryptographic hashes are the only ones i'm considering 2010-03-28.txt:00:04:04: <dixon> rapido: But yes, by definition they're surjective when useful and thus have collisions. 2010-03-28.txt:00:04:26: <rapido> lament: then you would be a flying lunatic with wings 2010-03-28.txt:00:06:13: <rapido> dixon: all that i want is a naming service that is scalable 2010-03-28.txt:00:06:28: <Sgeo_> rapido, let the name of the proof be the content of the proof. 2010-03-28.txt:00:07:00: <rapido> Sgeo_: but proofs can be huge - think of computer generated proofs 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 ... 2010-03-28.txt:00:10:40: -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido). 2010-03-31.txt:20:29:19: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2010-03-31.txt:21:56:37: -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido). 2010-04-01.txt:07:06:04: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2010-04-01.txt:07:07:26: -!- rapido has parted #esoteric (?). 2010-04-07.txt:21:22:45: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2010-04-07.txt:21:27:31: -!- rapido has parted #esoteric (?). 2010-04-08.txt:19:45:27: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2010-04-08.txt:20:15:36: -!- rapido has quit (Quit: rapido). 2010-05-28.txt:03:58:39: <oerjan> la grande rapido universidad estatal 2011-03-21.txt:20:22:13: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2011-03-21.txt:20:27:38: <rapido> are there an interesting 'collection oriented' language that is not apl/j/k? 2011-03-21.txt:20:27:46: <rapido> are <- is 2011-03-21.txt:20:29:48: <rapido> is there something like 'map theory'? I know there is something like 'array theory' 2011-03-21.txt:20:32:37: <rapido> array theory: http://www.nial.com/ArrayTheory.html 2011-03-21.txt:20:33:20: <rapido> ah found something: http://www.mangust.dk/skalberg/papers/gkli-slides1.pdf 2011-03-21.txt:20:33:25: <rapido> map theorie: v 2011-03-21.txt:20:33:30: <rapido> map theory: http://www.mangust.dk/skalberg/papers/gkli-slides1.pdf 2011-03-21.txt:20:35:14: <rapido> wouldn't it be nice to have a map oriented language? 2011-03-21.txt:20:35:32: <rapido> everything is a map - data and code 2011-03-21.txt:20:36:02: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, map? 2011-03-21.txt:20:37:18: <rapido> concrete map: [0=0;1=1;2=4;3=9] 2011-03-21.txt:20:37:33: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, so everything is an associative array? 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:03: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: yes, that's one way of phrasing it 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:12: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, finite or infinite? 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:17: <rapido> finite! 2011-03-21.txt:20:38:28: <rapido> total functions would be nice 2011-03-21.txt:20:39:46: <rapido> this would be a lazy map: [x<-[0..10000000];x*x] 2011-03-21.txt:20:40:41: <rapido> still finite because the domain is finite 2011-03-21.txt:20:42:00: <rapido> Gregor: ok, i haven't really settled for a notation 2011-03-21.txt:20:42:08: <rapido> notation <- syntax 2011-03-21.txt:20:43:39: <rapido> domain: 0..10000000 : range: x*x 2011-03-21.txt:20:44:09: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: yes - thanks 2011-03-21.txt:20:47:09: <rapido> the domain (keys) and range (values) can be maps too. 2011-03-21.txt:20:47:48: <rapido> In fact, literals are maps in disguise 2011-03-21.txt:20:48:02: <rapido> there should be only maps! 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) 2011-03-21.txt:20:51:49: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, so basically everything is a function from a finite sense? 2011-03-21.txt:20:52:43: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: yes 2011-03-21.txt:20:56:39: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: say that you have an recursive function that doesn't terminate 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' 2011-03-21.txt:20:58:09: <rapido> when the interpreter reaches the 'number of interpreter steps' it terminates 2011-03-21.txt:20:59:30: <rapido> oerjan: consing can be done - nice observation 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) 2011-03-21.txt:21:06:12: <rapido> thing <- think 2011-03-21.txt:21:07:06: <rapido> oh - the same block of bytes should map always return the same name 2011-03-21.txt:21:08:33: <cpressey> rapido: I don't think it's possible. 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? 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? 2011-03-21.txt:21:12:04: <rapido> or square(n)? 2011-03-21.txt:21:12:23: <rapido> dns scales pretty good 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 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:24: <pikhq_> rapido: No. 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:44: <pikhq_> rapido: Universal memoization is not as good an idea as you may think. 2011-03-21.txt:21:18:46: <rapido> pikhq_: no? 2011-03-21.txt:21:20:03: <rapido> pikhq_: it doesn't need to be persistent always - just the most used functions (structures) 2011-03-21.txt:21:20:29: <pikhq_> rapido: Automatic memoization is a *hard* problem. 2011-03-21.txt:21:20:54: <rapido> pikhq_: 'memoization is a *hard* problem' - i like that! 2011-03-21.txt:21:21:34: <pikhq_> rapido: At least as hard as parallel computing. 2011-03-21.txt:21:21:47: <rapido> pikhq_: i'm the author of enchilada - i have done some 'experiments' on the subject. 2011-03-21.txt:21:22:34: <oklopol> "<rapido> are there an interesting 'collection oriented' language that is not apl/j/k?" <<< toi 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 2011-03-21.txt:21:25:16: <rapido> oklopol: is there a interesting 'collection oriented' language that is also esoteric ;) 2011-03-21.txt:21:33:49: <rapido> don't surjectively inject your hilbert hotel principle into the discussion - please! 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? 2011-03-21.txt:21:42:58: <oklopol> rapido: no, but those are essentially the same thing 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 2011-03-21.txt:21:45:12: <oerjan> rapido: mcell has some "ca families" that use memory 2011-03-21.txt:21:45:35: <rapido> oerjan: thanks for the pointer 2011-03-21.txt:21:46:18: <oklopol> rapido: well i haven't seen them used, at least 2011-03-21.txt:21:48:34: <rapido> i like surreal numbers 2011-03-21.txt:21:48:51: <rapido> surreal number subsume all numbers 2011-03-21.txt:21:49:00: <rapido> number <- numbers 2011-03-21.txt:21:49:26: <rapido> hyperreal? ah yeah! 2011-03-21.txt:21:50:39: <rapido> same for quaternions 2011-03-21.txt:21:51:14: <rapido> or biquaternions 2011-03-21.txt:21:54:17: -!- rapido has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 2011-03-21.txt:21:58:07: -!- rapido has joined #esoteric. 2011-03-21.txt:22:05:53: <rapido> is there a fractal based esoteric language? 2011-03-21.txt:22:06:16: <rapido> 'living on the edge' which is infinite 2011-03-21.txt:22:08:49: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, well, there were the Sierpiński numbers... 2011-03-21.txt:22:10:14: <rapido> Phantom_Hoover: aaah, a new number system to learn....... how many are there? 2011-03-21.txt:22:10:32: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, it's countably infinite. 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 2011-03-21.txt:22:11:15: <rapido> i don't like infinite/uncountable stuff - but hey - i'' make an exception 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 2011-03-21.txt:22:12:27: <Phantom_Hoover> rapido, well, just restrict it to finite strings. 2011-03-21.txt:22:14:36: <rapido> HP: Hilbert Problem? 2011-03-21.txt:22:15:57: <rapido> i like reversible languages: <shameless plug> enchilada is reversible (modulo hash collisions) [too many lines; stopping]