From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 16:46:27 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tU2f-000Ejy-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:46:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:46:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tU2X-000Ejs-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:46:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:46:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail.rib.de ([213.68.181.228]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tU2U-000Ejm-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:46:02 +0300 Received: from 172.16.17.6 by mail.rib.de ([213.68.181.228] running VPOP3) with SMTP for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:44:48 +0200 From: "Carsten Kuckuk" To: Subject: [chat] AW: Re: AW: Re: [rant] COM sucks Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:44:48 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Server: VPOP3 V1.5.0b - Registered X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: ck@kuckuk.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: ck@kuckuk.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc >>>>> What I *don't* like about .NET is the fact that all the high-level languages apparently "have to" be modified to become more Java-like. The VB programmers deserve it, though... <<<<< You forgot the C++ compiler. It generates "unsafe" IL code when used with the /CLR switch. All the safety goes up the chimney with it! From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 17:43:30 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tUvs-0000Ww-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:43:16 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:43:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tUvh-0000Wq-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:43:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:43:03 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tUve-0000Wk-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 17:43:02 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:21680 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[ShOkVCS06Dk93JMGsWH22MzLRYmSA8VX]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:42:52 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:42:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [lang] Re: New language: conser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Orjan Johansen wrote: > > If you cut the real line then one of the parts will have an end point. > > However, when interpreted as a surreal number the cut is not that end > > point, but rather the simplest infinitesimal between the end point and = the > > other cut part. > > I have difficulties understanding this, but I will try to ask for > clarifications. If I cut the real line by a predicate like "<3.4", the > true part will not have an end point, and the false part will - OK. But > the infinitesimal should always be part of the real line, because no > matter how close we get in the true part to the value of 3.4, it will > always be a real number, by definition (even if infinitesimal). No. There are no infinitesimal real numbers. The real number given by a cut is always one of the end points, in this case 3.4. However, cuts are interpreted differently as surreal numbers. For surreal numbers, the definition of equality says that the surreal number represented by the cut above _is_ strictly between the left and right part, and since all real numbers are either in the left or the right part, it cannot be a real number. > Similarly, if you do the same to surreal numbers, the same should > happen - it is the definition of the real line that there is no space > between reals ("an infinitesimal") that will not be a real number. The definition of the real line says that if you cut it into a left part and a right part, then one of the parts will have an end point. The "no space" formulation is just an intuitive way of saying that. There is no real number squeezed in strictly between the set { x | x < 3.4 } and the set { x | x >=3D 3.4 }. There are, however, many surreal numbers= =2E > The infinitesimal from 3.4 downwards should be a part of the true > part. Thus, surreal and real numbers seem isomorphic, or rather, > surreal numbers seem one representation of real numbers. The surreal numbers representing reals are just a tiny part of all surreal numbers. There are infinitely many surreal numbers that are <3.4 but greater than all real numbers <3.4. There are even too many of them to be a set, they are a proper class. > How is an infinitesimal different from a real number that is guaranteed t= o > be >0.0 but is smaller than any given number that is >0.0? The latter does not exist, while infinitesimals can exist if you include more numbers than reals. The surreal numbers are one way of doing that. An infinitesimal is, by definition, a number that is >0.0 but smaller than any _real_ number >0.0. Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRS9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 19:24:16 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tWVS-0000k2-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:24:06 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:23:55 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tWUx-0000jw-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:23:35 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:23:28 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tWUq-0000jq-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 19:23:28 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:27312 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[kmWvWyxritfmUoA8Spri0p8jHxh/2/d6]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:23:08 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:23:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: CHIQRSX9+ In-Reply-To: <200204050306.g3536Xs23957@ns3.safety.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Cliff L. Biffle wrote: > On Thursday 04 April 2002 10:48 am, you wrote: > > What are you two talking about? What do the these commands do? > > X implements Turing-completeness. When you run X, the programming langua= ge > becomes Turing-complete. I have now implemented this important command in my CHIQRS9+ interpreter, which is therefore now renamed CHIQRSX9+.pl. I believe I have managed to preserve the spirit of the language in doing so. Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 21:39:51 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tYcT-0000zh-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:39:29 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:39:22 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tYc6-0000zb-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:39:06 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:39:00 +0300 (EEST) Received: from ns3.safety.net ([216.40.201.32]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tYbz-0000zV-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:38:59 +0300 Received: from there (rs.rackshack.net.safety.net [216.40.201.32]) by ns3.safety.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g35Icjs30814 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:38:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200204051838.g35Icjs30814@ns3.safety.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Cliff L. Biffle" To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: CHIQRSX9+ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:38:49 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cbiffle@safety.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cbiffle@safety.net Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Friday 05 April 2002 09:23 am, you wrote: > I have now implemented this important command in my CHIQRS9+ interpreter, > which is therefore now renamed CHIQRSX9+.pl. I believe I have managed to > preserve the spirit of the language in doing so. *grin* Wonderfully done. And your implementation of the X operator also invokes the halting problem, because at that point not even the programmer can predict if the program will halt. :-) -Cliff From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 22:15:48 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZBL-00017C-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:15:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:15:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZB6-000176-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:15:16 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:15:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZAu-000170-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:15:04 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-231-251.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.231.251]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD113803D for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:14:53 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CADF7DA.893CB714@dds.nl> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:15:38 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Purpose of "+" in HQ9+ ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc John Colagioia wrote: > > - No I/O. You can still use the "Omniscient-View Communications" to read some > > results, but I follow the "usual" programmer's view of this being cheating. > > Turing's machine and SMETANA, among others(?). > > Is it "cheating" to post results into a shared memory segment which > another process may read at a later date? If so, then there are many > database applications out there that cheat heavily. If the program is careful only to mark those memory segments that are actually used for I/O as "shared", and keeps the rest private, then I do not call that cheating. > > - Batch I/O. Lazy K, Kayak, Oroogu, and probably many more esoteric lanugage, > > but > > obsolete on the non-esoteric field. > > How about multiple batches? Fixed-number and variable-number, of > course... Errr... What? > > - Terminal I/O. You can read from a single stream (the keyboard) and write to > > a > > single stream (the monitor), but you can do such at any moment. Most > > esoteric > > languages, little used outside of the esoteric community because it is > > usually > > trivial to extend this to the following, which is... > > But then you miss character-oriented I/O, line-oriented I/O, A line is simply a very wide character... > buffering systems, A buffering system is (theoretically) seperate from I/O. If they are so broken that they are noticable and unavoidable, then your I/O system does not qualify. > and even screen-oriented I/O (like old PC applications that > just wrote text to video memory). Just wrote text to video memory? That's the application's choice. We're talking programming languages here. The programming languages that the applications were written in offered full I/O. > > - Full I/O. Like Terminal I/O, but allows free opening, reading, writing, and > > closing of an arbitrary amount of files, and maybe also things like pipes, > > sockets, and similar operating system extensions which are beyond the scope > > of > > this document. Used in most non-esoteric languages, but sadly, rare inside > > the > > esoteric community. > > And the high end ("supra-full"?) graphical output, which you're of > course ignoring on purpose. Not to mention non-visual I/O (you'll see > a very good example when the Essie results get posted). Graphics look different from characters, but the computer couldn't care less whether the number represents a color, a character, or a roman numeral (see below). > Also, where does one fit a C-library-like system, where all the > functions are implemented except, say, fseek()? Or worse, where does > INTERCAL (verbose number names as input, Roman(like) numerals as > output) fit? Or a language built on an HTML/CGI model, where we can do > whatever we need on the "back-end," but can only communicate with the > user once per session in each direction? INTERCAL (I assume we're speaking about INTERCAL-72 without C-INTERCAL's Turing text extensions) fits in as "Terminal I/O". Theoretically, the distinction between number I/O and ASCII I/O is no more important than the distinction between ASCII I/O and EBCDIC I/O. And sure, it has a strange format, but again, who cares? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 22:19:59 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZFe-00018m-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:19:58 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:19:51 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZFS-00018g-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:19:46 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:19:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZFL-00018a-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:19:39 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-231-251.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.231.251]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F85376C2 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:19:37 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CADF8F6.3000FB34@dds.nl> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:20:22 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: CHQRS9+ References: <20020404083638.14C8314C86@abydos.freakymousemats.net> <3CAC91EB.3FC2F16@dds.nl> <200204050306.g3536Xs23957@ns3.safety.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Cliff L. Biffle wrote: > On Thursday 04 April 2002 10:48 am, you wrote: > > What are you two talking about? What do the these commands do? > > X implements Turing-completeness. When you run X, the programming language > becomes Turing-complete. Turing completeness doesn't work by fiat. You cannot simply declare a language to be Turing complete, you actually have to do something for that. When X is run, what does it do to the input and/or output? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 22:20:30 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZGA-00019R-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:20:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:20:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZG1-000199-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:20:21 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:20:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tZFu-000193-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:20:14 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-231-251.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.231.251]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9AB36E58 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:20:13 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CADF91A.9E4881F4@dds.nl> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:20:58 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Beatnik Interpreter ? References: <20020405053351.8744.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Nikita Ayzikovsky wrote: > --- "Cliff L. Biffle" wrote: > > > I personally want to see an interpreter written in Beatnik. That rhymes. > > And follows iambic pentameter. :-) > > Is it even possible? Beatnik is not TC, is it? You have seen ACCIDENT, right? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 05 23:55:40 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tak8-0001M1-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:55:32 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:55:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tajn-0001Lv-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:55:11 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:55:00 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tajX-0001Lm-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 23:54:55 +0300 Received: (qmail 20515 invoked by uid 20150); 5 Apr 2002 20:54:15 -0000 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:54:15 -0500 (EST) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Purpose of "+" in HQ9+ ? In-Reply-To: <3CADF7DA.893CB714@dds.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > John Colagioia wrote: > > > - No I/O. You can still use the "Omniscient-View Communications" to read some > > > results, but I follow the "usual" programmer's view of this being cheating. > > > Turing's machine and SMETANA, among others(?). > > Is it "cheating" to post results into a shared memory segment which > > another process may read at a later date? If so, then there are many > > database applications out there that cheat heavily. > If the program is careful only to mark those memory segments that are actually > used > for I/O as "shared", and keeps the rest private, then I do not call that > cheating. Ah, but where does the line get drawn? Just about every output format used has irrelevant bits. This can be the system state. > > > - Batch I/O. Lazy K, Kayak, Oroogu, and probably many more esoteric lanugage, > > > but > > > obsolete on the non-esoteric field. > > How about multiple batches? Fixed-number and variable-number, of > > course... > Errr... What? Let's say I have a language like Oroogu, where any variable starting with the letter 'd' is printed on termination. Now assume that I add a new level of I/O where any variable starting with the letter 'c' is printed at some point during the run of the program (pick an event or timestamp). We still have batch output, but there are two batches. Obviously, this is "more powerful" than a single batch (it allows for two interactions, if you add an input point, rather than the one), yet is certainly not as powerful as "higher level I/O." > > > - Terminal I/O. You can read from a single stream (the keyboard) and write to > > > a > > > single stream (the monitor), but you can do such at any moment. Most > > > esoteric > > > languages, little used outside of the esoteric community because it is > > > usually > > > trivial to extend this to the following, which is... > > But then you miss character-oriented I/O, line-oriented I/O, > A line is simply a very wide character... Fair enough, but you're not answering the question. Is character- oriented I/O (TECO) more powerful? Less powerful? The same? On a different scale? > > buffering systems, > A buffering system is (theoretically) seperate from I/O. If they are so broken > that they are noticable and unavoidable, then your I/O system does not qualify. Buffering may or may not be part of the I/O system, depending on how the I/O system is defined. That C/UNIX leaves buffering to the operating system does not make this universal. See batch I/O for one approach to combining the two. > > and even screen-oriented I/O (like old PC applications that > > just wrote text to video memory). > Just wrote text to video memory? That's the application's choice. Again, you're confusing what has been done with what might be done. This may be the de facto standard in some language (i.e., "the video terminal is represented by the SCREEN array, indexed as..."). > We're > talking > programming languages here. The programming languages that the applications > were > written in offered full I/O. Are you absolutely sure about every one...? And all future possibilities? > > > - Full I/O. Like Terminal I/O, but allows free opening, reading, writing, and > > > closing of an arbitrary amount of files, and maybe also things like pipes, > > > sockets, and similar operating system extensions which are beyond the scope > > > of > > > this document. Used in most non-esoteric languages, but sadly, rare inside > > > the > > > esoteric community. > > And the high end ("supra-full"?) graphical output, which you're of > > course ignoring on purpose. Not to mention non-visual I/O (you'll see > > a very good example when the Essie results get posted). > Graphics look different from characters, but the computer couldn't care less > whether the number represents a color, a character, or a roman numeral (see > below). All architectures? All *languages*? > > Also, where does one fit a C-library-like system, where all the > > functions are implemented except, say, fseek()? Or worse, where does > > INTERCAL (verbose number names as input, Roman(like) numerals as > > output) fit? Or a language built on an HTML/CGI model, where we can do > > whatever we need on the "back-end," but can only communicate with the > > user once per session in each direction? > INTERCAL (I assume we're speaking about INTERCAL-72 without C-INTERCAL's Turing > text > extensions) fits in as "Terminal I/O". Theoretically, the distinction between > number I/O and ASCII I/O is no more important than the distinction between > ASCII I/O and EBCDIC I/O. And sure, it has a strange format, but again, who > cares? Well, let's see. An INTERCAL program to print digits of pi (see the examples in the package) needs to print each digit (as a Roman numeral) and move to the next line. That seems a bit more restrictive than what you describe as "Terminal I/O," which would appear to put it in a different classification. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 02:07:00 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tcn7-0001Z9-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:06:45 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:06:38 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tcmj-0001Z3-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:06:21 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:06:14 +0300 (EEST) Received: from ctb-mesg1.saix.net ([196.25.240.73]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tcma-0001Yx-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 02:06:13 +0300 Received: from lennie (woc53-01-p09.wc.saix.net [155.239.129.9]) by ctb-mesg1.saix.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g35N5xK23039 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:06:03 +0200 (SAT) Message-ID: <019c01c1dcf5$b10e7ee0$0981ef9b@lennie> From: "D De Villiers" To: References: Subject: [lang] Re: CHQRS9+ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:52:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: ddevilliers@lando.co.za Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: ddevilliers@lando.co.za Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Orjan Johansen, > You asked for it. It turned out to be very easy in Perl, included below. Thank You !! :-) -- Lennie De Villiers PL/I for Palm Project: http://www.crosswinds.net/~lennie2000/comp/PLI_Palm/ e (Exclamation) Programming Language: http://www.crosswinds.net/~lennie2000/comp/e_lang/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 www.geekcode.com GB/CS/CC/IT/M d++ s:,s---:--- a-- C+++ P+ L+++ W++ N+++ K--- w++ PS t+ 5++ tv+ b++ G++ h-- !r !y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 03:50:08 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16teOw-0002d7-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:49:54 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:49:47 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16teOZ-0002d1-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:49:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:49:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web21408.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.232.78]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16teOR-0002cv-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:49:23 +0300 Message-ID: <20020406004917.11541.qmail@web21408.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.120.209.42] by web21408.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:49:17 PST Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:49:17 -0800 (PST) From: Quowong Liu Subject: [lang] Description of conser on the web To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc I've put a revised description of conser at http://www.geocities.com/qpliu/conser The language is now lazily evaluated, and input and output are lazy bit lists. An implementation will be available RSN. Eventually. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 05:32:13 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tfzq-0002ns-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:32:06 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:31:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tfzU-0002nm-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:31:44 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:31:37 +0300 (EEST) Received: from ns3.safety.net ([216.40.201.32]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tfzM-0002ng-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 05:31:36 +0300 Received: from there (rs.rackshack.net.safety.net [216.40.201.32]) by ns3.safety.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g362VUs18353 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:31:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200204060231.g362VUs18353@ns3.safety.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Cliff L. Biffle" To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: CHQRS9+ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:31:34 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <20020404083638.14C8314C86@abydos.freakymousemats.net> <200204050306.g3536Xs23957@ns3.safety.net> <3CADF8F6.3000FB34@dds.nl> In-Reply-To: <3CADF8F6.3000FB34@dds.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cbiffle@safety.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cbiffle@safety.net Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Friday 05 April 2002 12:20 pm, you wrote: > Turing completeness doesn't work by fiat. You cannot simply declare a > language to be Turing complete. I just did. :-) Perhaps all discussion regarding my HQ9+ design should be moved to chat, to highlight it as the complete and utter silliness that it always has been. -Cliff L. Biffle From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 07:19:05 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16they-00030R-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:18:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:18:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16theU-00030L-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:18:10 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:18:03 +0300 (EEST) Received: from dark.darkweb.com ([216.163.74.170]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16theM-00030F-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:18:02 +0300 Received: from localhost (benrg@localhost) by dark.darkweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29085 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:17:50 -0800 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:17:49 -0800 (PST) From: Ben Rudiak-Gould To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] [sci] Re: New language: conser Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc [On a completely unrelated note to the below, I have been having email troubles recently and may have lost some incoming messages. If you sent me personal mail in the last couple of days and I haven't replied, please resend it. If it was longer ago than that, I just haven't had a chance to reply. Thanks.] Orjan Johansen wrote: > If you cut the real line then one of the parts will have an end point. > However, when interpreted as a surreal number the cut is not that end > point, but rather the simplest infinitesimal between the end point and > the other cut part. You seem to be using "cut" in two different ways here. The left and right sets used when forming a surreal number are not a cut of the surreals in the usual sense. They might be a cut of the reals, but that's irrelevant as far as constructing surreals is concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with what you said -- it just seems confusing to me. Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > I have difficulties understanding this, but I will try to ask for > clarifications. If I cut the real line by a predicate like "<3.4", the > true part will not have an end point, and the false part will - OK. > But the infinitesimal should always be part of the real line, because > no matter how close we get in the true part to the value of 3.4, it > will always be a real number, by definition (even if infinitesimal). > Similarly, if you do the same to surreal numbers, the same should > happen - it is the definition of the real line that there is no space > between reals ("an infinitesimal") that will not be a real number. The property you are referring to -- that given any cut P|Q of the reals, either P or Q contains an endpoint -- can certainly be interpreted as meaning that the reals are "complete in and of themselves" in a certain sense. However, this is not the same as saying that no more numbers can be added in between them. For example, consider the set R' of ordered pairs of reals, written as a+b\delta, with a total ordering defined by a+b\delta < c+d\delta <=> a=0 }). R' isn't very useful because there's no natural way to define a field structure on it, but you can think of S as a better R': it has infinitesimals, but it also has a field structure (and it contains R as an ordered subfield). However, S still seems to lack the cut property, so it's less complete than its subset R in some sense. I suppose this means that "completeness" is a poor choice of name for this property. -- Ben From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 12:31:15 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tmX6-0003X7-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:30:52 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:30:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tmWd-0003Wy-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:30:23 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:30:16 +0300 (EEST) Received: from dark.darkweb.com ([216.163.74.170]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tmWV-0003Ws-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:30:16 +0300 Received: from localhost (benrg@localhost) by dark.darkweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01802 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:30:07 -0800 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:30:06 -0800 (PST) From: Ben Rudiak-Gould To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Laziness in conser: will it work? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc In terms of expressive power, the potential benefits of adding lazy evaluation to conser are: 1. Infinitely deep data structures (e.g. lazy lists). 2. Infinite sets. 3. Interactivity through lazy I/O. Infinitely deep structures are useful and I see no practical obstacle to implementing them. Infinite sets seem nice at first, but on reflection I don't think it's actually possible to write a program which uses an infinite set in a non-trivial way. Basically the reason is that all set operations in conser apply to the entire set, and so any program which terminates cannot depend on *any* of the contents of an infinite set. More rigorously, let @ (and @' and @'') denote sets whose contents cannot be enumerated in finitely many computational steps (infinite sets are a special case of this), let . denote a set which can be shown to be empty in finitely many steps, and let S denote a nonempty set whose contents can be enumerated in finitely many steps. Then: f @ . = . f @ S = @' f @ @' = @'' (@ .) = @ (@ S) = @' (@ @') = @'' (@ & .) = . (@ & S) = S or @' (@ & @')= @'' (@ ! .) = @ (@ ! S) = @' (@ ! @')= @'' (S ! @) = . or @' (. ! @) = . < @ = @' > @ = @' A necessary condition for being able to extract any information from @ is that some operation on it can return at least two distinct results other than @. None of the primitive operations above meets this criterion. What about compound operations? Only (@ & S) and (S ! @) are potential candidates, and no combination of them can help because of the following identities: (S&(T&@)) = (S&T)&@ (S&(T!@)) = (S&T)!@ (S!(T&@)) = (S!T) (S!@) (S!(T!@)) = (S!T) (S&@) Lazy I/O also sounds like a good idea, and it certainly is possible with lazy lists. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work when the whole input or output is stored as a fractional surreal number, because extracting the value of any bit requires a recursive calculation which percolates through the entire data structure. It *might* be possible to short-circuit this by using a more complicated representation for the number: instead of 0.1011 = (0.101, 0.11), using 0.1011 = (0 0.1 0.101, 1 0.11). But this would only work if the comparison function looked at the set elements in the proper order and used short-circuiting logical operations. I don't think this can be done in conser. All of these problems might be solvable in an implementation smart enough to prove higher-level properties of the program, but this is a much stronger requirement than mere laziness. -- Ben From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 13:42:08 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tndt-0003gx-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:41:57 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:41:50 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tndT-0003gr-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:41:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:41:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tndM-0003gl-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 13:41:24 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g36AfMr17020 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:41:23 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g36AfIe13059 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:41:18 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:41:18 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] [library] [Ocaml] shameless ad, call for comments Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Due to the discussions on this list, I began writing a monad library for Ocaml. I already announced a very primitive version of the library, but now the library has also some more sophisticated monads: an execution-bounding monad (allowing for soft parallelism and supervising of possibly-nonterminating ocmputations) and an indeterminism monad based on lazy lists. I'm thinking of releasing this eventually to the Ocaml community, but first I'd like to ask the people here who know something about the subject to take a look and provide comments and criticism. The URL is: http://sange.fi/~atehwa/omlib/ The contents of the files are the following: computation.ml: some of the most basic monads. indeterminism.ml: the lazy indeterminism monad. (differs from the list monad significantly in order of evaluation.) lift.ml: facilities for lifting basic operations to any functor. monad.ml: common convenience routines for monads. monoid.ml: I'm a bit lost here. Maybe I should drop this module. numeric.ml: modules for numeric datatypes. (I think Ocaml should have gone this way from the beginning, instead of using operator suffixes.) step.ml: bounded execution monad. Panu -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 23:16:47 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16twb4-00050s-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:15:38 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:15:31 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16twYg-00050j-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:13:10 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:13:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16twYU-00050d-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:12:58 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-213-143.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.213.143]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42421375D0 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 22:10:36 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CAF5576.B28EACC8@dds.nl> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:07:18 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Purpose of "+" in HQ9+ ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc John Colagioia wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > > John Colagioia wrote: > > > > - No I/O. You can still use the "Omniscient-View Communications" to read some > > > > results, but I follow the "usual" programmer's view of this being cheating. > > > > Turing's machine and SMETANA, among others(?). > > > Is it "cheating" to post results into a shared memory segment which > > > another process may read at a later date? If so, then there are many > > > database applications out there that cheat heavily. > > If the program is careful only to mark those memory segments that are actually > > used > > for I/O as "shared", and keeps the rest private, then I do not call that > > cheating. > > Ah, but where does the line get drawn? Just about every output format > used has irrelevant bits. This can be the system state. You mean like the ignored high-level bit in ASCII, or the higher-level bytes when C functions use "int" rather than "char"? Keep them zero, and even if the language doesn't force you to, if the operating system can strip off the necessary bits but application programmer can not, I consider that cheating. > > > > - Batch I/O. Lazy K, Kayak, Oroogu, and probably many more esoteric lanugage, > > > > but > > > > obsolete on the non-esoteric field. > > > How about multiple batches? Fixed-number and variable-number, of > > > course... > > Errr... What? > > Let's say I have a language like Oroogu, where any variable starting > with the letter 'd' is printed on termination. Now assume that I add a > new level of I/O where any variable starting with the letter 'c' is > printed at some point during the run of the program (pick an event or > timestamp). We still have batch output, but there are two batches. > Obviously, this is "more powerful" than a single batch (it allows for > two interactions, if you add an input point, rather than the one), yet > is certainly not as powerful as "higher level I/O." I assume you forgot to mention that, at this "some poing during the run of the program" (which, by the way, must be predictible to the programmer or you're cheating), immediately after giving the output, the user is also asked for more input, which will depend in information or a prompt given in the output. If this isn't what you meant, your system is no more powerful than batch I/O, since it works a bit differently but provides the same level of "interaction" - it doesn't matter when I get the output sinceI won't be able to use it until the next program run anyway - so I will ignore that case. With my addition, I admit it's a case I haven't thought about yet and perhaps it should be inserted as a seperate I/O form. > > > > - Terminal I/O. You can read from a single stream (the keyboard) and write to > > > > a > > > > single stream (the monitor), but you can do such at any moment. Most > > > > esoteric > > > > languages, little used outside of the esoteric community because it is > > > > usually > > > > trivial to extend this to the following, which is... > > > But then you miss character-oriented I/O, line-oriented I/O, > > A line is simply a very wide character... > > Fair enough, but you're not answering the question. Is character- > oriented I/O (TECO) more powerful? Less powerful? The same? On a > different scale? Let's see. Line-oriented I/O is where the basic item is a string that you can input/output as lines, similar to puts() and gets(), right? Now define a "wide character" as a line. Now you have reduced the problem to characters. You can claim this is more powerful than character-oriented I/O because there is an infinity of "wide characters". But the basic idea is the same, and by the way, most actual implementations of "lines" are limited to 80 characters or some similar limit. > > > buffering systems, > > A buffering system is (theoretically) seperate from I/O. If they are so broken > > that they are noticable and unavoidable, then your I/O system does not qualify. > > Buffering may or may not be part of the I/O system, depending on how > the I/O system is defined. That C/UNIX leaves buffering to the > operating system does not make this universal. See batch I/O for one > approach to combining the two. If your buffering works so nontransparently, then you have only batch I/O, not terminal I/O. See above. > > > > - Full I/O. Like Terminal I/O, but allows free opening, reading, writing, and > > > > closing of an arbitrary amount of files, and maybe also things like pipes, > > > > sockets, and similar operating system extensions which are beyond the scope > > > > of > > > > this document. Used in most non-esoteric languages, but sadly, rare inside > > > > the > > > > esoteric community. > > > And the high end ("supra-full"?) graphical output, which you're of > > > course ignoring on purpose. Not to mention non-visual I/O (you'll see > > > a very good example when the Essie results get posted). > > Graphics look different from characters, but the computer couldn't care less > > whether the number represents a color, a character, or a roman numeral (see > > below). > > All architectures? All *languages*? I hereby propose a new way of outputting a 80x25 graphic on an ASCII terminal with the size of an IBM PC monitor. Each pixel may have one of 95 predefined colors, mapped to the ASCII characters from " " to "~". When a color is put in a pixel, the system actually outputs that character on the corresponding place on the screen. It is then up to the user to use a character chart to transform the characters to colors. This may be less "useful" to the user, but is theoretically equally powerful as a 80x25 grid of real colors, and if you're color blind, you might actually like my idea. So my point is: whether you talk about "characters", "colors", or "numbers" has a lot to do with the hardware of your monitor and the human understanding, and very little to do with software-level I/O. To you ASCII and EBCDIC may seem less far apart than ASCII and graphics, but the software makes equal distinction. > > > Also, where does one fit a C-library-like system, where all the > > > functions are implemented except, say, fseek()? Or worse, where does > > > INTERCAL (verbose number names as input, Roman(like) numerals as > > > output) fit? Or a language built on an HTML/CGI model, where we can do > > > whatever we need on the "back-end," but can only communicate with the > > > user once per session in each direction? > > INTERCAL (I assume we're speaking about INTERCAL-72 without C-INTERCAL's Turing > > text > > extensions) fits in as "Terminal I/O". Theoretically, the distinction between > > number I/O and ASCII I/O is no more important than the distinction between > > ASCII I/O and EBCDIC I/O. And sure, it has a strange format, but again, who > > cares? > > Well, let's see. An INTERCAL program to print digits of pi (see the > examples in the package) needs to print each digit (as a Roman numeral) > and move to the next line. > > That seems a bit more restrictive than what you describe as "Terminal > I/O," which would appear to put it in a different classification. So you may be right that I'm misunderstanding many of your points, but this time you misunderstood mine *waits to be told that it's my fault for not stating it clearly enough*. Here is "Hello world!" the way INTERCAL would print it (overlines are not used so the empty rows have been removed): LXXII CI CVIII CVIII etc., I'm not going to figure all of them out. The numbers are not outputted as letters, but even in normal languages this is not the application taking care of this but the monitor. At application level, you can calculare with the number seventy-two just as easily as when it's input "H" and output "H" as when it's input "SEVEN TWO" and output "LXXII". Hence the EBCDIIC comparison - character 72 in EBCDIIC is something completely different (don't ask me what, I don't know). From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 06 23:16:52 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16twbo-000519-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:16:24 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:16:17 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16twbb-000512-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:16:11 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:16:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16twbT-00050w-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:16:04 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-213-143.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.213.143]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564BD3763D for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 22:15:40 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CAF55AD.C2239E0A@dds.nl> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:08:13 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: CHQRS9+ References: <20020404083638.14C8314C86@abydos.freakymousemats.net> <200204050306.g3536Xs23957@ns3.safety.net> <3CADF8F6.3000FB34@dds.nl> <200204060231.g362VUs18353@ns3.safety.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Cliff L. Biffle wrote: > On Friday 05 April 2002 12:20 pm, you wrote: > > Turing completeness doesn't work by fiat. You cannot simply declare a > > language to be Turing complete. > > I just did. :-) Okay, I'll rephrase: You can simply declare a language to be Turing complete, but you might be lying. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 00:18:34 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16txZm-0005IL-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:18:22 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:18:16 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16txZN-0005IF-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:17:57 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:17:50 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16txZF-0005I9-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:17:49 +0300 Received: (qmail 22779 invoked by uid 20150); 6 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0000 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:17:09 -0500 (EST) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Purpose of "+" in HQ9+ ? In-Reply-To: <3CAF5576.B28EACC8@dds.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > John Colagioia wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > > > John Colagioia wrote: > > > > > - No I/O. You can still use the "Omniscient-View Communications" to read some > > > > > results, but I follow the "usual" programmer's view of this being cheating. > > > > > Turing's machine and SMETANA, among others(?). > > > > Is it "cheating" to post results into a shared memory segment which > > > > another process may read at a later date? If so, then there are many > > > > database applications out there that cheat heavily. > > > If the program is careful only to mark those memory segments that are actually > > > used > > > for I/O as "shared", and keeps the rest private, then I do not call that > > > cheating. > > Ah, but where does the line get drawn? Just about every output format > > used has irrelevant bits. This can be the system state. > You mean like the ignored high-level bit in ASCII, or the higher-level bytes > when C > functions use "int" rather than "char"? Maybe. Also, consider any database program, for example. The output is almost invariably more verbose than would be strictly necessary. > Keep them zero, and even if the > language > doesn't force you to, if the operating system can strip off the necessary bits None of this, however, relates to the language. > but > application programmer can not, I consider that cheating. So is it cheating if a language specifies Unicode characters but you only use ASCII? That's an extra byte per character that "you have no control over." Or, more to the point, it's a byte per character that must be essentially ignored. > > > > > - Batch I/O. Lazy K, Kayak, Oroogu, and probably many more esoteric lanugage, > > > > > but > > > > > obsolete on the non-esoteric field. > > > > How about multiple batches? Fixed-number and variable-number, of > > > > course... > > > Errr... What? > > Let's say I have a language like Oroogu, where any variable starting > > with the letter 'd' is printed on termination. Now assume that I add a > > new level of I/O where any variable starting with the letter 'c' is > > printed at some point during the run of the program (pick an event or > > timestamp). We still have batch output, but there are two batches. > > Obviously, this is "more powerful" than a single batch (it allows for > > two interactions, if you add an input point, rather than the one), yet > > is certainly not as powerful as "higher level I/O." > I assume you forgot to mention that, at this "some poing during the run of the > program" (which, by the way, must be predictible to the programmer or you're > cheating), immediately after giving the output, the user is also asked for > more input, which will depend in information or a prompt given in the output. > If this isn't what you meant, your system is no more powerful than batch I/O, > since it works a bit differently but provides the same level of "interaction" > - it doesn't matter when I get the output sinceI won't be able to use it until > the next program run anyway - so I will ignore that case. With my addition, I > admit it's a case I haven't thought about yet and perhaps it should be inserted > as a seperate I/O form. No, no. Consider the following boring language called "Two-Batch." In Two-Batch, you write two functions. The first function takes user input as its parameter, and prints its return value to the screen. The second function (which runs immediately after the first terminates) takes more user input as a parameter (though other parameters may be supplied by the first function) and also prints its return value to the screen. Then, the program terminates. There is no other I/O. This is what I mean by "multiple batches." We can also extend this to a variable number of batches, which is "interesting" (if this is the sort of thing you get excited about) in that I/O must occur in exactly a 1:1 ratio. That is, each output must be preceded by one input. > > > > > - Terminal I/O. You can read from a single stream (the keyboard) and write to > > > > > a > > > > > single stream (the monitor), but you can do such at any moment. Most > > > > > esoteric > > > > > languages, little used outside of the esoteric community because it is > > > > > usually > > > > > trivial to extend this to the following, which is... > > > > But then you miss character-oriented I/O, line-oriented I/O, > > > A line is simply a very wide character... > > Fair enough, but you're not answering the question. Is character- > > oriented I/O (TECO) more powerful? Less powerful? The same? On a > > different scale? > Let's see. Line-oriented I/O is where the basic item is a string that you can > input/output as lines, similar to puts() and gets(), right? Now define a "wide > character" as a line. Now you have reduced the problem to characters. You can > claim > this is more powerful than character-oriented I/O because there is an infinity > of "wide > characters". But the basic idea is the same, You're still dodging my actual question (I assume it's a clarity issue). Is character-oriented I/O (where I *might* be able to insert characters into arbitrary points in the output stream--again, think of TECO) more or less powerful than your terminal I/O? > and by the way, most actual > implementations of "lines" are limited to 80 characters or some similar limit. This is news to me in the language world. Can you point me to a language specification that says this? > > > > buffering systems, > > > A buffering system is (theoretically) seperate from I/O. If they are so broken > > > that they are noticable and unavoidable, then your I/O system does not qualify. > > Buffering may or may not be part of the I/O system, depending on how > > the I/O system is defined. That C/UNIX leaves buffering to the > > operating system does not make this universal. See batch I/O for one > > approach to combining the two. > If your buffering works so nontransparently, then you have only batch I/O, not > terminal > I/O. See above. You mean like in most C libraries, where nothing prints until you output a linefeed (and likewise with input)? Gosh, I didn't know C was limited to batch I/O... > > > > > - Full I/O. Like Terminal I/O, but allows free opening, reading, writing, and > > > > > closing of an arbitrary amount of files, and maybe also things like pipes, > > > > > sockets, and similar operating system extensions which are beyond the scope > > > > > of > > > > > this document. Used in most non-esoteric languages, but sadly, rare inside > > > > > the > > > > > esoteric community. > > > > And the high end ("supra-full"?) graphical output, which you're of > > > > course ignoring on purpose. Not to mention non-visual I/O (you'll see > > > > a very good example when the Essie results get posted). > > > Graphics look different from characters, but the computer couldn't care less > > > whether the number represents a color, a character, or a roman numeral (see > > > below). > > All architectures? All *languages*? > I hereby propose a new way of outputting a 80x25 graphic on an ASCII terminal [...] > So my point is: whether you talk about "characters", "colors", or "numbers" has > a lot > to do with the hardware of your monitor and the human understanding, and very > little > to do with software-level I/O. To you ASCII and EBCDIC may seem less far apart > than > ASCII and graphics, but the software makes equal distinction. This is incorrect, though, because you speak of "full I/O" in terms of streams, and that's just fine for text. However, graphics aren't linear. They can (and usually should) move in different directions, back up, overlap each other, and so on. ASCII and EBCDIC, yes, are just a set of symbols that get appended to print text. However, windows on a screen are not, and can't be treated that way by the programmer (assuming he wants anything to happen). > > > > Also, where does one fit a C-library-like system, where all the > > > > functions are implemented except, say, fseek()? Or worse, where does > > > > INTERCAL (verbose number names as input, Roman(like) numerals as > > > > output) fit? Or a language built on an HTML/CGI model, where we can do > > > > whatever we need on the "back-end," but can only communicate with the > > > > user once per session in each direction? > > > INTERCAL (I assume we're speaking about INTERCAL-72 without C-INTERCAL's Turing > > > text > > > extensions) fits in as "Terminal I/O". Theoretically, the distinction between > > > number I/O and ASCII I/O is no more important than the distinction between > > > ASCII I/O and EBCDIC I/O. And sure, it has a strange format, but again, who > > > cares? > > Well, let's see. An INTERCAL program to print digits of pi (see the > > examples in the package) needs to print each digit (as a Roman numeral) > > and move to the next line. > > That seems a bit more restrictive than what you describe as "Terminal > > I/O," which would appear to put it in a different classification. > So you may be right that I'm misunderstanding many of your points, but this > time you > misunderstood mine *waits to be told that it's my fault for not stating it > clearly > enough*. Here is "Hello world!" the way INTERCAL would print it [...] > The numbers are not outputted > as > letters, Right. So, in my little world, "Can print a small set of symbols" is less powerful (in terms of I/O) than "Can print a large set of symbols." Therefore, INTERCAL has less powerful I/O than C. Unless you're going to claim that the symbols don't matter. Which you can, but then we're not talking about I/O, I don't think, which makes this discussion sort of a waste of time. > but even in normal languages this is not the application taking care > of this > but the monitor. Uhm...Don't take this the wrong way. It's going to come out sounding a lot harsher than I want it to, but I can't think of something more politically correct. Ready? Here goes: Have you ever actually worked with a computer? A monitor is invariably a bitmap display (that term has taken on different significance in recent years, but any CRT, including your TV, uses dots, so it's a bitmap...or wordmap, if you have color, I guess). It knows nothing about letters and numbers. *Some* monitors had extra hardware to more or less "accelerate" character printing, by "memorizing" what the letters looked like, but that was mostly software. In fact, a nifty trick on many older terminals (and printers--the C=1525 was my favorite), a neat trick to producing graphics was to build a new character set that encompassed the shapes appearing in your image, and then just printing out that text. So, no. It's not the monitor. It's one of (a) the program, (b) the language runtime, or (c) the underlying computer architecture. We can ignore (c) when the same thing happens on at least one platform which is known to be more flexible... > At application level, you can calculare with the number > seventy-two > just as easily as when it's input "H" and output "H" as when it's input "SEVEN > TWO" and > output "LXXII". Hence the EBCDIIC comparison - character 72 in EBCDIIC is > something > completely different (don't ask me what, I don't know). Yes. You can *calculate*. But what has that got to do with I/O? As I recall, the Turing completeness discussion was over before either of us was born. You, however, were talking about "I/O power," which shouldn't have anything to do with computation, and should have *everything* to do with representation. Or am I missing something? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 00:44:40 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16txz9-0005Ma-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:44:35 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:44:28 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16txyu-0005MU-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:44:20 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:44:13 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16txym-0005MO-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:44:13 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:21426 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[yO8NMREFYA/hnx/rLbjqvNlSM9MccE8q]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:44:04 +0200 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:44:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: Esoteric Languages List Subject: [lang] Re: [library] [Ocaml] shameless ad, call for comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > I'm thinking of releasing this eventually to the Ocaml community, but > first I'd like to ask the people here who know something about the subjec= t > to take a look and provide comments and criticism. The URL is: > > http://sange.fi/~atehwa/omlib/ > > The contents of the files are the following: > computation.ml: some of the most basic monads. > indeterminism.ml: the lazy indeterminism monad. (differs from the list > =09=09=09monad significantly in order of evaluation.) This seems to be broken. The function bind will in fact unpack the first list completely and evaluate f on each element, and then pack the results again. This cannot be completely fixed as long as it is not lazy whether a list is Nil, since you must then immediately evaluate f on each element in turn until you find one which doesn't give Nil as the result. Instead, try something like: type 'a llist =3D ('a unpllist) Lazy.t and 'a unpllist =3D Nil | Cons of 'a * 'a llist > lift.ml: facilities for lifting basic operations to any functor. > monad.ml: common convenience routines for monads. > monoid.ml: I'm a bit lost here. Maybe I should drop this module. While there are many monoids, there may not be that many common operations on them, other than the defining ones, so there may not be much use for a module. The only obvious operation might be to add the elements of a list, but Ocaml already defines both List.fold_left and List.fold_right which work with more than just monoids. (Although monoids have the property that it doesn't matter whether you fold left or right.) > numeric.ml: modules for numeric datatypes. (I think Ocaml should have gon= e > =09this way from the beginning, instead of using operator suffixes.) > step.ml: bounded execution monad. This looks nice, although there is one little flaw with interleave, when rescheduling the list of tasks it does so in the opposite order. Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 01:26:31 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tydQ-0005RK-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:26:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:26:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tyd3-0005RE-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:25:49 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:25:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tycw-0005R8-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:25:42 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g36MPer32448 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:25:41 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g36MPWd15342 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:25:32 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:25:32 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Laziness in conser: will it work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc The best I can come up with for modelling the alzy sets is similar to Liu's suggestion. A set is either an eagerly-evaluated data structure (possibly with some structure to speed up lookups), or a lazy list or similar, i.e. "an element producer". To guarantee such properties as member uniqueness, every such element producer should probably be accompanied with exclusion and requisite sets (in the same sense - i.e. lazy or eeager, whatever). (a b) would be implemented by for ming a new element producer, which e.g. takes elements alternately from a and b. (a & b) should return a with b united with its requisite set (or vice versa). (a ! b) should return a with b united with its exclusion set. Taking one element from a is implemented by taking as many elements from a's element producer as is needed to get one which is not a member of its exclusion set and is a meber of its requisite set, and adding this new element to its exclusion set. Actually, because the elements already extracted from the element producer can be put in an eager set, the datatype should not be a variant but a union of eager and lazy sets. And with enhacements (Ocaml): type 'a producer = unit -> 'a * 'a producer type 'a set = { values : 'a eagerset; excl : 'a eagerset; req : 'a eagerset; prod : 'a producer } What is really problematic is equality, which these operations need a lot. Is there any way to ensure equality of two sets without evaluating them totally? If not, it means that you might be able to work with infinite sets, but not with sets that contain infinite sets. On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: > f @ . = . > f @ S = @' > f @ @' = @'' These can all be implemented lazily so that f demands elements from its operands as elements are demanded from f's result. > (@ .) = @ > (@ S) = @' > (@ @') = @'' Ditto, especially with the mingle semantics of union. > (@ & .) = . > (@ & S) = S or @' > (@ & @')= @'' These are a bit problematic. The termination of (@ & .) or (@ & S) depends somewhat on who is made who's requisite list. Moreover, as there is no way to guarantee that a certain element is not forthcoming, any element actually missing from the requisite list (if it is an infinite one) will cause nondetermination. (By the way, I cannot see how (@ & S) could be an infinite set.) > (@ ! .) = @ > (@ ! S) = @' > (@ ! @')= @'' > (S ! @) = . or @' > (. ! @) = . This too, problems arise when the set who is made the other's exclusion set is infinite. Again, I can't see how (S ! @) could be infinite (unless you use that to mean nondetermination). > < @ = @' > > @ = @' These, I think can be calculated incrementally. > A necessary condition for being able to extract any information from @ is > that some operation on it can return at least two distinct results other > than @. None of the primitive operations above meets this criterion. What I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I guess you mean that some result should not be infinite to be able to do anything. The answer is twofold: on the language level, infinite entities can often be treated with by dependencies, so that no infinite entity has to be inspectable, it just has to provide enough means to provide raw material to operations that use it. On I/O level, or otherwise rising out of the program domain, it does make a problem. The best you could do is to show as much of the infinite sets as the user wants. Basically, if there was some way to know from a certain consdition that no further inspection is required, you could still cope sometimes, waiting for this condition to be fulfilled. Unfortunately, the situation with e.g. surreal fractions is exactly the opposite: it is forbidden to make a situation where one could know for sure what a certain number is (the left and right sets cannot contain the same number). > But this would only work if the comparison function looked at the set > elements in the proper order and used short-circuiting logical operations. > I don't think this can be done in conser. I don't think this is quite such a drastic problem. Basically, the evaluator should keep extracting numbers from the output pair's left and right sets, and whenever it is certain some bits are what they are, it should output them. > All of these problems might be solvable in an implementation smart enough > to prove higher-level properties of the program, but this is a much > stronger requirement than mere laziness. I think surprisingly many are solvable even without prove-able implementation. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 02:10:34 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tzKF-0005XH-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:10:27 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:10:20 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tzJt-0005X8-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:10:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:09:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tzJm-0005X2-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:09:58 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g36N9vr04904 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 02:09:57 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g36N9n317270 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 02:09:49 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 02:09:48 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: Esoteric Languages List Subject: [lang] Re: [library] [Ocaml] shameless ad, call for comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Orjan Johansen wrote: > > indeterminism.ml: the lazy indeterminism monad. (differs from the list > > monad significantly in order of evaluation.) > This seems to be broken. The function bind will in fact unpack the first > list completely and evaluate f on each element, and then pack the results > again. Ah. Thank you - now I did it with lazy functions. I'm not quite sure whether this is optimal, but it seems to work, so I'm not complaining. I ran into this problem while making the correction: it is often that the value of a lazy routine is that of another lazy routine (i.e. the other lazy routine is in a tail-call position). But because the condition of whether the routine is called at all is in the lazy closure, the call itself is also ain the lazy closure. This means that I have to force the value returned by the subroutine, because my return value is already lazy. The only way to prevent this, I think, would be if I had some way of telling that suddenly the content of my lazy closure (not just the return value) is identical to another lazy closure, and I don't think there is a way to do this. > > monoid.ml: I'm a bit lost here. Maybe I should drop this module. > While there are many monoids, there may not be that many common operations > on them, other than the defining ones, so there may not be much use for a > module. "The more general it is, the less you can do with it." :) Hmm - doubling is one of the few operations that come to mind :) > > step.ml: bounded execution monad. > This looks nice, although there is one little flaw with interleave, when > rescheduling the list of tasks it does so in the opposite order. Yes, I was a little bit lazy (heh) and anyway I intended the routine as practical, not strictly accurate. But maybe I should do more, and more accurate, operations on the step monad. By the way, I realised monad-parameterisable monads are missing. Oh well... maybe it's going to be some time until I get to release this... -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 02:13:02 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tzMj-0005av-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:13:01 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:12:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tzMb-0005ap-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:12:54 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:12:47 +0300 (EEST) Received: from ns3.safety.net ([216.40.201.32]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16tzMU-0005aj-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 02:12:46 +0300 Received: from there (rs.rackshack.net.safety.net [216.40.201.32]) by ns3.safety.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g36NCXs05289 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:12:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200204062312.g36NCXs05289@ns3.safety.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Cliff L. Biffle" To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: CHQRS9+ Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:12:38 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <20020404083638.14C8314C86@abydos.freakymousemats.net> <200204060231.g362VUs18353@ns3.safety.net> <3CAF55AD.C2239E0A@dds.nl> In-Reply-To: <3CAF55AD.C2239E0A@dds.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cbiffle@safety.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cbiffle@safety.net Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Saturday 06 April 2002 01:08 pm, you wrote: > Okay, I'll rephrase: > > You can simply declare a language to be Turing complete, but you might be > lying. True! Mankind will never know. -Cliff From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 03:46:45 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u0mk-000607-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:43:58 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:43:51 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u0m4-000601-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:43:16 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:43:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from dark.darkweb.com ([216.163.74.170]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u0lv-0005xP-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:43:07 +0300 Received: from localhost (benrg@localhost) by dark.darkweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16594 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:42:21 -0800 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:42:21 -0800 (PST) From: Ben Rudiak-Gould To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Laziness in conser: will it work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > To guarantee such properties as > member uniqueness, every such element producer should probably be > accompanied with exclusion and requisite sets (in the same sense - i.e. > lazy or eeager, whatever). (a b) would be implemented by forming a new > element producer, which e.g. takes elements alternately from a and b. This can be done very very nicely in Haskell: union [] ys = ys union (x:xs) ys = x : union (delete x ys) xs The alternation of elements from the source lists, the exclusion list to prevent duplicates, and the caching of already produced values are all in there. 'Course, it won't optimally handle the case of one list taking forever to produce its next element. That could be fixed by replacing duplicates with dummy elements instead of deleting them so that the situation never arises, but it's not as elegant. > What is really problematic is equality, which these operations need a lot. > Is there any way to ensure equality of two sets without evaluating them > totally? If not, it means that you might be able to work with infinite > sets, but not with sets that contain infinite sets. Well, you could compare the actual representation of the sets in memory, which would necessarily be finite. This isn't necessary for equality but it's sufficient, and it might work frequently in practice. Many languages don't give you access to the necessary level of detail, though (closure contents, etc.). > On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: > > f @ . = . > > f @ S = @' > > f @ @' = @'' > > These can all be implemented lazily so that f demands elements from its > operands as elements are demanded from f's result. Indeed, but that doesn't fix the problem I'm talking about. @ does not represent an infinite set. It represents a set whose contents cannot be enumerated in finitely many computational steps. (Is this what you meant by nondetermination?) All infinite sets are in this category, but so are sets like ((1 3 5 7 ...) & (2 4 6 8 ...)), which you and I know are empty, but which an interpreter will spend forever on (unless it's very clever). When I wrote "f @ . = ." what I meant was that given a set of this type, and another set which is *known* by the interpreter to be empty, as arguments to a function, any halfway-decent interpreter will figure out that it can return a known-to-be-empty set without evaluating the @ all the way. On the other hand, "f @ S" cannot take this shortcut, so the result is necessarily an @ (even though the set itself might be finite). > > A necessary condition for being able to extract any information from @ is > > that some operation on it can return at least two distinct results other > > than @. None of the primitive operations above meets this criterion. What > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I guess you mean that some result > should not be infinite to be able to do anything. The answer is twofold: > on the language level, infinite entities can often be treated with by > dependencies, so that no infinite entity has to be inspectable, it just > has to provide enough means to provide raw material to operations that use > it. I think this is what I meant by "extract any information from @". I'm all in favor of infinite entities, but they're pointless unless you can eventually derive *something* finite (or rather, finitely calculable) from them (or pass them to the magical run-time system, but conser I/O doesn't involve infinite sets). I was attempting to prove that *no* finitely calculable quantity can be derived from an infinite set in conser, by showing that any expression involving an infinite set cannot produce more than one distinct finitely-calculable answer, which therefore contains no information about the original infinite set. > > But this would only work if the comparison function looked at the set > > elements in the proper order and used short-circuiting logical operations. > > I don't think this can be done in conser. > > I don't think this is quite such a drastic problem. Basically, the > evaluator should keep extracting numbers from the output pair's left and > right sets, and whenever it is certain some bits are what they are, it > should output them. I was talking about input, but as far as output goes you may be right. This would require the program's cooperation in choosing a good number representation, but that's not too much to ask. -- Ben From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 03:47:02 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u0oP-00060S-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:45:42 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:45:35 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u0oH-00060M-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:45:33 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:45:27 +0300 (EEST) Received: from dark.darkweb.com ([216.163.74.170]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u0oA-00060G-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 03:45:26 +0300 Received: from localhost (benrg@localhost) by dark.darkweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16640 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:44:39 -0800 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:44:39 -0800 (PST) From: Ben Rudiak-Gould To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Laziness in conser: will it work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: benrg@dark.darkweb.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc I wrote: > Lazy I/O also sounds like a good idea, and it certainly is possible with > lazy lists. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work when the whole input > or output is stored as a fractional surreal number... Sorry, I didn't notice that Liu has anticipated my objection and proposed a lazy list representation on the web site. As long as we're abandoning surreal numbers, here's another possibility: - If the car is nonempty and the cdr is empty, the first bit is 0 and the remaining bits are in the car. - If the car is empty and the cdr is nonempty, the first bit is 1 and the remaining bits are in the cdr. - If both the car and cdr are empty, there are no more bits. Then "Hello world!" is ((,(((,(((((,(,(((,((,((,(,((,(,((((,(,((,(,((((, (,((,(,(,(,(((,(((((((,(,(,((,(,(,((,(,((,(,(,(,((,(,(,(((,(((,(,((,(,(( ((,(,(((,(((((,(((((,(((((,(,((,(((((,((,(,)),)),),),),)),))),),),),)),) ,),),)),),),),)),),))),),),))),))),),)),),)))),))))),))),)))),)))),),),) ,),),)),),))))),))),),),))),))),),),))),))),)),)),),))),),),),)),),)),). Has a nice symmetry to it, though it's hard to write without computer assistance. -- Ben From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 04:51:47 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u1nR-00067g-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:48:45 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:48:38 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u1kT-00067W-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:45:41 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:45:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16u1kM-00067Q-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:45:34 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g371jNr16550 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 04:45:28 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g371j9330721 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 04:45:11 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 04:45:06 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Laziness in conser: will it work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: > This can be done very very nicely in Haskell: > union [] ys = ys > union (x:xs) ys = > x : union (delete x ys) xs Yes, I'm not too surprised. It does have beauty to it, for sure. :) But I do have very strong feeling that the already-got elements should be stored in a data structure allowing for fast lookups - balanced trees or some such. Stacking deletes upon deletes will slow everything down to crawl. > > What is really problematic is equality, which these operations need a lot. > > Is there any way to ensure equality of two sets without evaluating them > > totally? If not, it means that you might be able to work with infinite > > sets, but not with sets that contain infinite sets. > Well, you could compare the actual representation of the sets in memory, > which would necessarily be finite. This isn't necessary for equality but > it's sufficient, and it might work frequently in practice. Many languages I don't think it will work very often. Of course, it is a good idea to add it, because the more we can tackle infinite data structures, the more capabilities the language gains. At least short-circuiting eq when two objects have address identity should be implemented. The reason I'm suspicious about this technique is that in conser it seems that even the simplest sets are typically results of very complicated lazy evaluations, which might very well be evaluated to a different degree and represent defferent evaluations altogether. But maybe I should get some practical experience :) > @ does not represent an infinite set. It represents a set whose contents > cannot be enumerated in finitely many computational steps. (Is this what > you meant by nondetermination?) All infinite sets are in this category, Yes, this is what I meant by nontermination (which I might well have spelled nondetermination :) I was not immediately able to understand what you were worried about, because I thought it self-evident that many sets that are in theory enumerable in finite steps are such that the implementation has no hope of ever proving it. But I think problems only arise when a set cannot provide even a single element without computing infinitely. If they can, the user can anyway get some kind of output by asking what elements the set "at least" contains. By the way, a set should probably give two pieces of information: what elements it at least contains and what it does not contain in any case. I think this could be used to sometimes solve a (S!@) case, at least. > the @ all the way. On the other hand, "f @ S" cannot take this shortcut, > so the result is necessarily an @ (even though the set itself might be > finite). Yes. I think now I did understand what you mean. I think there is no problem as long as you're able to extract some information out of the result. There are the bad cases where you typically can't extract anything, like (a b c ! (1 3 5 ... & 2 4 6...)), there are the cases where an operation of a @ and a non-@ is the non-@, and there might be intermediates... > I think this is what I meant by "extract any information from @". I'm all > in favor of infinite entities, but they're pointless unless you can > eventually derive *something* finite (or rather, finitely calculable) from There must be some conceptual confusion between us here. If I know that an infinite set has a member z, isn't that finite information about it? Why would it become useless by the fact that it doesn't define the infinite set completely? That is, even though no language-level finite entity can be derived from a language-level infinite entity in conser, sub-lagnuage-level finite entities can. For example, if the output surreal fraction happens to be infinite, but the implementation already knows that left has 1.001 and right has 1.01, it is then able to output two bits. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 16:59:08 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uDC0-0009sI-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:58:53 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:58:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uDBW-0009sC-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:58:22 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:58:16 +0300 (EEST) Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com ([192.108.102.143]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uDBO-0009s6-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:58:14 +0300 Received: from amir amirlb@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [62.219.233.82] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with Novell NIMS $Revision: 2.88 $ on Novell NetWare; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 07:57:57 -0600 Message-ID: <011f01c1de44$fb465f00$3900a8c0@amir> From: To: References: Subject: [lang] Re: Purpose of "+" in HQ9+ ? Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:00:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc > > and by the way, most actual > > implementations of "lines" are limited to 80 characters or some similar limit. > > This is news to me in the language world. Can you point me to a > language specification that says this? Stupid answer to a stupid question: look at Befunge-93 source files. > This is incorrect, though, because you speak of "full I/O" in terms of > streams, and that's just fine for text. However, graphics aren't > linear. They can (and usually should) move in different directions, > back up, overlap each other, and so on. > > [snip] > > Well, let's see. An INTERCAL program to print digits of pi (see the > examples in the package) needs to print each digit (as a Roman numeral) > and move to the next line. > > That seems a bit more restrictive than what you describe as "Terminal > I/O," which would appear to put it in a different classification. These seem to be the main points of confusion and disagreement. From what I understand, the discussion is about what the _language_ provides. The specific implementation doesn't count. That creates a problem: everything can be emulated by a bit-stream that is sent from the program to the library, and interpreted in runtime (this is what happens in reality - you call a SYSCALL assembly command with some arguments). Therefore, all kinds of IO have the same theoretical power (except batch-IO, single or multiple, which is only read at program beginning and termination, but it can be extended using llaziness). The differences between character IO and all the kind of "full IO" is only in hte way that the environment handles them. All the Turing-complete languages with IO capability can access all the operations of your computer, if the implementation allows. So all the difference that you are talking about here is about how the implementation handles the IO stream(s), and therefore irrelevent to the discussion. -- Bad spellers of the world UNTIE! lightstep (Amir Livne) From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 07 20:41:24 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uGfE-000ATH-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:41:16 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:41:09 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uGeo-000ATB-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:40:50 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:40:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uGeb-000AT5-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:40:37 +0300 Received: (qmail 24190 invoked by uid 20150); 7 Apr 2002 17:39:55 -0000 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 13:39:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: Purpose of "+" in HQ9+ ? In-Reply-To: <011f01c1de44$fb465f00$3900a8c0@amir> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 amirlb@myrealbox.com wrote: > > > and by the way, most actual > > > implementations of "lines" are limited to 80 characters or some similar limit. > > This is news to me in the language world. Can you point me to a > > language specification that says this? > Stupid answer to a stupid question: look at Befunge-93 source files. Not surprisingly, Befunge-93 says nothing about the length of an input or output line, because it only appends characters to input and output streams. In fact, it technically doesn't say anything about "lines of code," either, but rather constrains the source to a grid with width equal to 80. That's very different. > > This is incorrect, though, because you speak of "full I/O" in terms of > > streams, and that's just fine for text. However, graphics aren't > > linear. They can (and usually should) move in different directions, > > back up, overlap each other, and so on. > > [snip] > > Well, let's see. An INTERCAL program to print digits of pi (see the > > examples in the package) needs to print each digit (as a Roman numeral) > > and move to the next line. > > That seems a bit more restrictive than what you describe as "Terminal > > I/O," which would appear to put it in a different classification. > These seem to be the main points of confusion and disagreement. From what I > understand, the discussion is about what the _language_ provides. The > specific implementation doesn't count. Depends. A language can take on the traits of an implementation. Certainly a new language can take on established implementation traits, and has many times. Example: I can create a language where (like many esoteric languages define themselves) I/O is handled by printing the character with ASCII value equal to the operand. Because this is the specification, then printing (as a character) 65 had better print a capital 'A,' whether the underlying computer is ASCII, Unicode, PETSCII, EBCDIC, or something even more foreign. This, by the way, is why almost every "real" language that allows interchange between numbers and characters allows--and heavily recommends--use of character literals. > That creates a problem: everything > can be emulated by a bit-stream that is sent from the program to the > library, Assuming I/O is handled by a library. Note that this includes...C and C-likes. > and interpreted in runtime (this is what happens in reality - you > call a SYSCALL assembly command with some arguments). Sometimes. My reality is apparently wider in scope than yours, I guess. I haven't always had the luxury of an operating system. Also, you're making the assumption that describing an effect is the same as producing an effect. That's not always the case at the language level. For example, I can (in theory) write BrainF*** code that will produce a valid X Window command stream (whatever it looks like), but nobody in their right mind would claim that BrainF*** supports X; that'd be an application-level protocol. > Therefore, all kinds > of IO have the same theoretical power (except batch-IO, single or multiple, > which is only read at program beginning and termination, but it can be > extended using llaziness). I disagree. I don't find it an interesting topic, as I've mentioned, but I'd say that if there's an I/O effect that can be produced in one language (that is, from within the language, and without adding framework or external "helper" applications) but cannot in another, then the first language has "more powerful I/O." On this point, I agree with Milo. I disagree with Milo in that I don't believe this power description can be quantized in anything but an arbitrary, artificial manner. > The differences between character IO and all the > kind of "full IO" is only in hte way that the environment handles them. All > the Turing-complete languages with IO capability can access all the > operations of your computer, if the implementation allows. False. BrainF***, to pick an example consistent with others, cannot access files, cannot perform network access, and cannot generate screen graphics without adding additional software and producing a significantly more complex application. > So all the > difference that you are talking about here is about how the implementation > handles the IO stream(s), and therefore irrelevent to the discussion. See the above. Once you interact with something outside of the program, you can't handwave things away by talking about preprocessors. That just sidesteps the issue by communicating with a less flexible participant. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 08 17:10:36 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uZqO-000E8R-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:10:04 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:09:57 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uZqG-000E8L-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:09:56 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:09:55 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uZqD-000E8F-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:09:53 +0300 Received: from tauvo-6.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g38E9qr18280 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:09:52 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by tauvo-6.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g38E9pc17883 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:09:51 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: tauvo-6.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:09:51 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc I'm still trying to understand this. I'm not quite sure what is the property of reals that excludes infinitesimals from them. Or is it lack of a property that would include them? How are infinitesimals defined? (I notice I should also get a more rigorous definition of reals.) Now, I think what is important in the cut property is not that one of the halves has an end point, but that the other has not. With natural numbers, for example, if I divide them between 2 and 3, both halves have an end point. Now if I divide the real line by a number x, I get three pieces: reals x. Why could the infinitesimals not be parts of the x sets? I understand we can form x as a surreal number, and then make another surreal number which has x in its right set and a series of surreal numbers converging towards x in its left set - if I understand correctly, this is the infinitesimal. But how does this prove that this number is not part of the real line? Rather it would seem that this number _is_ a part of the real line, because it has realish properties: it is not x, and a number nearer x can be found (the next-order infinitesimal). If this number (let's call it x') was not part of the real line, then we would indeed have found a number that divides the real line in two: numbers x' (including x). This is compliant with the endpoint rule, but not compliant with the stronger property which I thought is a property of the real numbers, namely that if you have a number that divides the real numbers in two, that number is always a real number. But what use is the weaker cut property? It doesn't even make difference between reals and rationals: if I divide rationals to those <1 and those >=1, one part will not have an end point and the other part will? If the cut property is not the differentiating property between reals and rationals, then what is? This is why I always thought the stronger form of the cut property, as I stated it above, is the correct one. What, then, is the differentiating property between surreals and reals? On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Orjan Johansen wrote: > However, cuts are interpreted differently as surreal numbers. For surreal > numbers, the definition of equality says that the surreal number > represented by the cut above _is_ strictly between the left and right > part, and since all real numbers are either in the left or the right part, > it cannot be a real number. How can you argument that you can enumerate all real numbers in the left and right sets? This discussion is clarifying but it does not make a proof (maybe it wasn't intended to do so) because it actually begs the question by presupposing what it would be proving (that the real line is divided in two by the surreal number). > There is no real number squeezed in strictly between the set { x | x < 3.4 > } and the set { x | x >= 3.4 }. There are, however, many surreal numbers. Show me one such surreal number. Why does it not belong to {x | x<3.4}? > An infinitesimal is, by definition, a number that is >0.0 but smaller than > any _real_ number >0.0. Then, the question again turns into: how can you prove a surreal number is smaller than any real number >0.0? Enumerating a series of reals converging towards zero is just begging the question, because it does not show that the series contains reals small enough to ensure that there are no reals nearer 0.0. On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: > The property you are referring to -- that given any cut P|Q of the reals, > either P or Q contains an endpoint -- can certainly be interpreted as > meaning that the reals are "complete in and of themselves" in a certain > sense. However, this is not the same as saying that no more numbers can be > added in between them. For example, consider the set R' of ordered pairs > of reals, written as a+b\delta, with a total ordering defined by > a+b\delta < c+d\delta <=> a R' isn't very useful because there's no natural way to define a field > structure on it, but you can think of S as a better R': it has What does a "field structure" mean? Panu -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 08 17:40:51 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uaJz-000EFy-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:40:39 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:40:32 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uaJr-000EFs-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:40:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:40:30 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uaJo-000EFm-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:40:29 +0300 Received: (qmail 26726 invoked by uid 20150); 8 Apr 2002 14:39:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:39:50 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > I'm still trying to understand this. I'm not quite sure what is the > property of reals that excludes infinitesimals from them. Or is it lack of > a property that would include them? How are infinitesimals defined? (I > notice I should also get a more rigorous definition of reals.) I think your definitions are hitting the mark; it's just that you're accepting the reals as the totality of all numbers, kind of. As I understand the concept, an infinitessimal is a value x+e such that x is a real number and e is positive, yet smaller than the distance between any two real numbers. Obviously, this can't fit on the Real line (because it can't be zero, and it can't be the first--really, really tiny--real number greater than zero), but we use them when discussing limits and the like. For example, consider the calculus requirement of taking everything's limit as it approaches zero; if plugging in a near-zero real were enough, they'd just tell you to do that instead. That approach, however, fails if you try to take the limit of, say, sin(x)/x, if I remember correctly. Yes. We were all told in junior high school that between every two real numbers, there's another real number. However, it falls short when you start dealing with calculus at the theoretical level. [...] > What, then, is the differentiating property between surreals and reals? Think about it like particle physics. No matter how close you smush two things together, there's always enough room for more particles in between. In fact, assuming gravitons and other force-carriers to be real, the closer you smush two particles, the *more* things you'll have between them. That seems a rather apt analogy, casting the force- carrying particles as the surreals. [...] From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 08 18:41:59 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ubGy-000EOF-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:41:36 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:41:29 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ubGq-000EO9-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:41:28 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:41:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ubGo-000EO3-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:41:26 +0300 Received: from tauvo-6.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g38FfJr10505 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:41:20 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by tauvo-6.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g38FfIr17927 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:41:18 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: tauvo-6.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:41:18 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, John Colagioia wrote: > I think your definitions are hitting the mark; it's just that you're > accepting the reals as the totality of all numbers, kind of. Well, I'm not accepting them as such, I'm asking for proves of why they wouldn't be. Also, my remarks only consider the totality (or completeness) of reals in the direction of infinitely-small differences, not infinitely-big ones. (Infinity, for example, is not part of the real line anyway.) > As I understand the concept, an infinitessimal is a value x+e such that > x is a real number and e is positive, yet smaller than the distance > between any two real numbers. Obviously, this can't fit on the Real > line (because it can't be zero, and it can't be the first--really, > really tiny--real number greater than zero), but we use them when > discussing limits and the like. What bugs me here is that, as already pointed out by Orjan, there is no "first" real number greater than zero. > limit as it approaches zero; if plugging in a near-zero real were > enough, they'd just tell you to do that instead. That approach, I'm not saying the infinitesimals are reals that can be written out. :) (they are not arbitrarily-near zero, they are infinitely-near zero.) I just think they could be reals. If it is a definition of an infinitesimal that it is between x and all reals >x, then we will need a proof of surreals defined converging sets of reals not being reals (which is, proof of them having _all_ reals >x in their right set, say.) > Yes. We were all told in junior high school that between every two > real numbers, there's another real number. However, it falls short > when you start dealing with calculus at the theoretical level. Especially, this falls short because it does not even tell rationals and reals apart. Searching the net, I came across many definitions of reals. Especially dedekind's cut seems to have been formulated in very many ways, not all of which seem equivalent to me. Maybe the most promising definition of reals is the one by converging sets of rationals. This way, surreal numbers really do exceed real numbers, because they include converging sets of converging sets of rationals, for example. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 08 19:40:29 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ucBn-000EY7-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:40:19 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:40:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ucBf-000EY1-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:40:11 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:40:09 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ucBc-000EXv-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:40:08 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:37814 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[yhzc/i5i7I3VGLj2PTtSyoWLIcmvnQAx]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:39:53 +0200 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:39:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > I'm still trying to understand this. I'm not quite sure what is the > property of reals that excludes infinitesimals from them. Or is it lack o= f > a property that would include them? How are infinitesimals defined? (I > notice I should also get a more rigorous definition of reals.) To define infinitesimals, you must first define your numbers. Since we are discussing surreals, real numbers and rationals, it seems natural to require your numbers to make up an ordered field, which each of those three types of numbers do. Definition of an ordered field. An ordered field is a collection of elements, together with two operations/operators, called addition (+) and multiplication (*), which take any two elements of your field and give another element back, a relation (<=3D) testing any two elements; and satisfying the following properties: 1) a + (b + c) =3D (a + b) + c for all a,b,c in the field. (Associativity= ) (This among other things allows you to omit parentheses.) 2) There exists an element 0 (necessarily unique) such that a + 0 =3D 0 + a for all a in the field. (1-2) says that addition is a monoid operation. 3) For every element a, there exists an element -a (necessarily unique) such that a + -a =3D 0 =3D -a + a. (1-3): group (We may now define a - b =3D a + -b.) 4) a + b =3D b + a for all a,b in the field. (Commutativity) (1-4): abelian group Now almost the same for multiplication (note (7)): 5) a * (b * c) =3D (a * b) * c for all a,b,c in the field. 6) There exists an element 1 (necessarily unique) such that a * 1 =3D 1 * a for all a in the field. 7) For every element a _except 0_, there exists an element 1/a (necessarily unique) such that a * 1/a =3D 1 =3D 1/a * a. (We may now define a/b =3D a * 1/b.) 8) a * b =3D b * a for all a,b in the field. And now putting them together: 9) a * (b + c) =3D (a * b) + (a * c) for all a,b,c in the field. (1-5+9): ring (1-9): field OK, now to the (total) order: 10) a <=3D a for every a in the field. (Reflexivity) 11) Whenever a <=3D b and b <=3D c, then a <=3D c. (Transitivity) 12) For every a,b in the field exactly one of a <=3D b, a =3D b or b <=3D a= holds. (We may now define a < b as (a <=3D b but a not =3D b) and similarly for > and >=3D.) Putting this together: 13) If a <=3D b and c <=3D d, then a + c <=3D b + d. 14) If a <=3D b and 0 <=3D c, then a * c <=3D b * c. (1-14): ordered field. It happens to be that the rationals are the smallest ordered field. That is, if you have an ordered field, then the rationals are essentially a subset. E.g. 2/3 =3D (1+1)/(1+1+1). Now while the rationals and the reals each form a set, the surreals don't, because the cardinality is too large. However I suspect (and probably Conway must have showed) that any ordered field which is a set can be embedded into the surreals. So they are in some sense the largest possible ordered field. Now what is the additional defining property of the reals? 15) Let S be any set of reals. If there exists an a such that a >=3D b for every b in S, then there exists a unique smallest one. (Completeness) (This is equivalent to the cut definition.) Any two mathematical structures satisfying (1-15) are essentially the same. There exists a unique one-to-one correspondence between them, preserving all the operations. One such structure (glossing over how to define the operations) is the set of (Dedekind) cuts of the rational numbers (for uniqueness of representation, you need to choose only one part which is allowed to contain end points). Another one can be defined with the usual representation as infinite decimal fractions. (Again for uniqueness you need to disallow either =2E..9999... or ...0000....) Another such structure is a certain set of surreal numbers (with the usual operations). Namely: i) All surreal numbers of finite generation, together with ii) Every surreal number which has a representation as a cut of the set (i) which has no end points. (The set (i) gives the binary numbers with finitely many bits after the decimal [sic] point.) Now what is an infinitesimal. We first need to fix our numbers to be an ordered field. Remember that this automatically includes all rationals. An infinitesimal is a number a > 0 such that a < r for every rational number r > 0. It happens to be that there are no such reals (see below). In fact if your numbers include the reals you can let r be any real number > 0. It is possible to simplify the definition down to natural numbers: (This is useful in other cases, when you don't have all the structure of an ordered field. E.g. the R' below.) An infinitesimal is a number a > 0 such that n * a < 1 for every natural number n. > Now, I think what is important in the cut property is not that one of the > halves has an end point, but that the other has not. With natural numbers= , > for example, if I divide them between 2 and 3, both halves have an end > point. Now if I divide the real line by a number x, I get three pieces: > reals x. Why could the infinitesimals not be parts of > the x sets? Because there are no infinitesimal reals. > I understand we can form x as a surreal number, and then make another > surreal number which has x in its right set and a series of surreal > numbers converging towards x in its left set - if I understand correctly, > this is the infinitesimal. But how does this prove that this number is no= t > part of the real line? Rather it would seem that this number _is_ a part > of the real line, because it has realish properties: it is not x, and a > number nearer x can be found (the next-order infinitesimal). Well, you can prove it but it is easier if you don't use a series. Just ma= ke every real number be part of the cut! That is, if x is a real number (represented as a surreal): A =3D { y | y <=3D x, y real } B =3D { y | y > x, y real } The cut is: (A , B). Then by the definition of surreal numbers, (A , B) is strictly larger than every element of A, and strictly smaller than every element of B. But A and B include all reals! (See axiom (12) above.) > If this number (let's call it x') was not part of the real line, then we > would indeed have found a number that divides the real line in two: > numbers x' (including x). This is compliant with the > endpoint rule, but not compliant with the stronger property which I > thought is a property of the real numbers, namely that if you have a > number that divides the real numbers in two, that number is always a real > number. Alas this is not true if you have more numbers than the reals. > But what use is the weaker cut property? It doesn't even make difference > between reals and rationals: if I divide rationals to those <1 and those > >=3D1, one part will not have an end point and the other part will? If th= e > cut property is not the differentiating property between reals and > rationals, then what is? This is why I always thought the stronger form o= f > the cut property, as I stated it above, is the correct one. You just chose a bad example by cutting at a rational number. Instead divi= de the rationals into: A =3D { r | r < 0 or r*r <=3D 2 } B =3D { r | r >=3D 0 and r*r > 2 }. Now this has no rational endpoints. It has a real one, the square root of 2. > What, then, is the differentiating property between surreals and reals? > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Orjan Johansen wrote: > > However, cuts are interpreted differently as surreal numbers. For surr= eal > > numbers, the definition of equality says that the surreal number > > represented by the cut above _is_ strictly between the left and right > > part, and since all real numbers are either in the left or the right pa= rt, > > it cannot be a real number. > > How can you argument that you can enumerate all real numbers in the left > and right sets? This discussion is clarifying but it does not make a proo= f > (maybe it wasn't intended to do so) because it actually begs the question > by presupposing what it would be proving (that the real line is divided i= n > two by the surreal number). You can't enumerate all reals, they are uncountable by Cantor's diagonalization proof. You just pick a dividing property, and define the left part as all reals fulfilling the property and the right part as all reals not fulfilling it. (You need all the reals fulfilling the property to be less than all those not fulfilling it.) > > There is no real number squeezed in strictly between the set { x | x < = 3.4 > > } and the set { x | x >=3D 3.4 }. There are, however, many surreal num= bers. > > Show me one such surreal number. Why does it not belong to {x | x<3.4}? ( { x | x < 3.4, x real } , { x | x >=3D 3.4, x real } ). It is indeed < 3.4 (by definition, since 3.4 is in the right part) but it i= s not real, since all reals are in one of the parts. > > An infinitesimal is, by definition, a number that is >0.0 but smaller t= han > > any _real_ number >0.0. > > Then, the question again turns into: how can you prove a surreal number i= s > smaller than any real number >0.0? Enumerating a series of reals > converging towards zero is just begging the question, because it does not > show that the series contains reals small enough to ensure that there are > no reals nearer 0.0. Although you don't need a sequence (just a set), let me prove (well, sketch the proof, since I won't prove everything from (1-15).) that such a sequence exists. Let S =3D { 1/n | n a natural number > 0 }. Put a =3D 0. Note that a <=3D b for every element in S. By (15) (but you = need to change signs to switch upper and lower bounds) there is a largest such a= =2E Note that since 0 has the same property, a >=3D 0. Now let's look at 2 * a. Since a <=3D 1/n for every natural number n, it follows that 2 * a <=3D 2/m for every natural number m. Now put m =3D 2= * n. Voila, 2 * a <=3D 1/n for every natural number n. But a was the largest nu= mber with that property. So 2 * a <=3D a, while a >=3D 0. This is only possibl= e if a =3D 0. So, 0 is the largest real number less than all 1/n. > On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: > > The property you are referring to -- that given any cut P|Q of the real= s, > > either P or Q contains an endpoint -- can certainly be interpreted as > > meaning that the reals are "complete in and of themselves" in a certain > > sense. However, this is not the same as saying that no more numbers can= be > > added in between them. For example, consider the set R' of ordered pair= s > > of reals, written as a+b\delta, with a total ordering defined by > > a+b\delta < c+d\delta <=3D> a > I'm not totally convinced about this. Say we would represent these pairs > of real numbers by real numbers such that a+b\delta is represented by a > real that has all the decimals of a, followed by all the decimals of b. > Does the fact that either of the sets of decimals might be infinite make > this impossible? Indeed, since every digit must have a finite position, but you cannot guara= ntee that for the b part. > I always thought the cut property is the differentiating property > between rationals and reals. If it is not, what is? > > > R' isn't very useful because there's no natural way to define a field > > structure on it, but you can think of S as a better R': it has > > What does a "field structure" mean? See above. R' doesn't have multiplication as defined, since there are no \delta^2 terms or higher. You could get one (and so a ring structure) by defining \delta * \delta =3D 0, but then you don't get division (axiom (7) breaks, e.g. for \delta.) Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 08 20:31:09 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ucyg-000Eld-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:30:50 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:30:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ucyY-000ElX-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:30:42 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:30:30 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ucyG-000ElN-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:30:24 +0300 Received: (qmail 27545 invoked by uid 20150); 8 Apr 2002 17:29:45 -0000 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:29:45 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, John Colagioia wrote: > > I think your definitions are hitting the mark; it's just that you're > > accepting the reals as the totality of all numbers, kind of. > Well, I'm not accepting them as such, I'm asking for proves of why they > wouldn't be. Well, you have imaginaries, for one thing, which illustrates that there are things that aren't reals. That's sidestepping your question, though, rather than helping to answer it. Ergo, to the bookshelf, Robin! I know I've got something...where is it...Ah. Harry Gonshor's "An Introduction to the Theory of Surreal Numbers" (ISBN#0-521-31205). One might imagine that this could be useful.=20 He defines a surreal number as "a function from an initial segment of the ordinals into the set {+,-}, i.e., informally, an ordinal sequence consisting of plusses and minuses which terminate. The empty sequence is included as a possibility." While this doesn't sound anything like what we're discussing (though, admittedly, I didn't bother to follow the early parts of the discussion, so this might be exactly what we're discussing), it at least bears some relationship, because chapter four "subclasses" surreals into more common types:=20 - Integers are homogenous sequences (all plusses or all minuses) with the length of the number being equal to the integer. Ordinals work the way you'd expect, based on positive integers. - Dyadic fractions are formed by counting a plus as 1 and a minus as -1 until a change in sign occurs, at which point the sequence of plusses and minuses is treated like a binary decimal (with 1/-1 rather than 1/0). The example given is (+++-+-) =3D 3 - 1/2 + 1/4 - 1/8 =3D 2 5/8. - Nonrational Reals are formed based on a process not unlike a dedekind cut (which I won't go into here, because it's a really long discussion and I'm having more than a bit of trouble following it, myself). But, the text swears that cofinality is preserved, and all that jazz, which is good enough for me... Since all of these number forms (up to Reals) are represented within the set of surreals, and since there are other surreal values not represented above (an infinite variety of them, in fact), then the surreal numbers (which I can only assume to be related to the surreals that are the topic of discussion) form a far richer set of values than do the reals. Gonshor (oddly enough) refers readers in the Preface to what he considers better-written books on the subject: Knuth's "Surreal Numbers" (a novel, believe it or not) and J.H. Conway's "On Numbers and Games," where he develops surreals and apparently goes pretty deep into the theory. Knuth's book, at least, is available at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201038129/qid=3D1018286180/sr=3D1-1= /ref=3Dsr_1_1/103-3980471-1611801 Gonshor's book is mentioned if you search for "surreal numbers," though it's what I like to refer to as "way out of print" (i.e., published by the London Mathematical Society for their Lecture Note Series back in 1986, which means it'll probably never see a printing press again...). > Also, my remarks only consider the totality (or completeness) =20 > of reals in the direction of infinitely-small differences, not > infinitely-big ones. (Infinity, for example, is not part of the real line > anyway.) True. Sticking to the set of complex numbers, infinity is an external concept, and not a value. > > As I understand the concept, an infinitessimal is a value x+e such that > > x is a real number and e is positive, yet smaller than the distance > > between any two real numbers. Obviously, this can't fit on the Real > > line (because it can't be zero, and it can't be the first--really, > > really tiny--real number greater than zero), but we use them when > > discussing limits and the like. > What bugs me here is that, as already pointed out by Orjan, there is no= =20 > "first" real number greater than zero. True, but it seemed more expedient to go with the metaphor than to try looking at it this way: The rational numbers have a certain maximum "shrinkage rate" (they're countable, so you can only cut them so quickly). The reals have a faster shrinkage rate, but still limited to some theoretical maximum. Surreals are simply faster still.=20 > > limit as it approaches zero; if plugging in a near-zero real were > > enough, they'd just tell you to do that instead. That approach, > I'm not saying the infinitesimals are reals that can be written out. :) = =20 > (they are not arbitrarily-near zero, they are infinitely-near zero.) I > just think they could be reals. Well, let's put it this way: If an infinitessimal were a real number, then the "one closest to zero" would have a fancy name like "epsilon sub zero" or something, because it's a really useful number to give a name to. Instead, infinitessimals are defined by a *variable* named epsilon whose value changes based on a limit. More of a cultural proof than a mathematical proof, I realize, but still fairly natural, I think. > If it is a definition of an infinitesimal=20 > that it is between x and all reals >x, then we will need a proof of=20 > surreals defined converging sets of reals not being reals (which is, proo= f=20 > of them having _all_ reals >x in their right set, say.) Does the above do it for you? I could put some time in to study Gonshor's text a bit more carefully (after I finish "Finnegan's Wake," though), if it'd be useful. I'll probably give it a thorough read sometime over the summer, anyway. > > Yes. We were all told in junior high school that between every two > > real numbers, there's another real number. However, it falls short > > when you start dealing with calculus at the theoretical level. > Especially, this falls short because it does not even tell rationals and= =20 > reals apart. Very true. Usually, reals are distinguished by using a G=F6del-esque proof, showing that there are more reals than rationals can possibly account for. > Searching the net, I came across many definitions of reals. Especially > dedekind's cut seems to have been formulated in very many ways, not all o= f > which seem equivalent to me. Maybe the most promising definition of reals > is the one by converging sets of rationals. This way, surreal numbers > really do exceed real numbers, because they include converging sets of > converging sets of rationals, for example. I think that's about equivalent to what Gonshor goes through, though this is one of the fields where my mathematical expertise could use some polishing, I admit. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 09 18:11:32 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uxFL-000IPE-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:09:23 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:09:16 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uxFD-000IP8-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:09:15 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:09:14 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16uxFA-000IP2-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:09:12 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g39F8mr20452 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:09:07 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g39F8aZ24845 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:08:36 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:08:36 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Thank you a lot for the clarifications. Apparently the cut property (or completeness, whatever) does not hold for surreals, which alone is reason enough for the set of reals not being equal to reals. Much of the discussion here is caused by the fact that that there is a mapping from reals to surreals which leaves some surreals outside doesn't yet prove that there are more surreals than reals. Another reason is that the reals are quite well defined WRT what they at least include, but not always WRT what they at most include. Especially I'd like to thank Orjan who was patient enough to give me the rigorous definitions I would otherwise have had to seek somewhere. On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Orjan Johansen wrote: > Now while the rationals and the reals each form a set, the surreals > don't, because the cardinality is too large. However I suspect (and That's interesting (surreals not being a set because of cardinality). What is that based on? > An infinitesimal is a number a > 0 such that a < r for every rational > number r > 0. > It happens to be that there are no such reals (see below). In fact if your I didn't notice any point "below" that proves there are no such reals... > Well, you can prove it but it is easier if you don't use a series. Just make > every real number be part of the cut! That is, if x is a real number > (represented as a surreal): > A = { y | y <= x, y real } > B = { y | y > x, y real } Again, this goes begging the question - maybe I'm not telling clearly enough what I'm asking for. I mean, to be able to prove that one can form such a surreal, one has to prove to be able to construct the surreal representations of all real numbers. To depend on an axiom that the reals form a set means that you have to prove that the surreals do not, or to show that the surreals have a strictly bigger cardinality. Please try to see things as I do (or actually did). For me, it was not clear that the set of surreals is strictly bigger than that of reals. Then such a cut as you define above is not possible, because you'd have a surreal number that is not equal to any surreal number (all surreals are either bigger or smaller than it). > > If this number (let's call it x') was not part of the real line, then we > > would indeed have found a number that divides the real line in two: > > numbers x' (including x). This is compliant with the > > endpoint rule, but not compliant with the stronger property which I > > thought is a property of the real numbers, namely that if you have a > > number that divides the real numbers in two, that number is always a real > > number. > Alas this is not true if you have more numbers than the reals. Exactly. So what it comes down to (and should have come from the beginning, if only I had expressed myself better) is a proof that there are more numbers than reals. > A = { r | r < 0 or r*r <= 2 } > B = { r | r >= 0 and r*r > 2 }. > Now this has no rational endpoints. It has a real one, the square root > of 2. Doesn't the amount of reals then depend on what formulae are allowed in the cut condition? > > > There is no real number squeezed in strictly between the set { x | x < 3.4 > > > } and the set { x | x >= 3.4 }. There are, however, many surreal numbers. > > Show me one such surreal number. Why does it not belong to {x | x<3.4}? > ( { x | x < 3.4, x real } , { x | x >= 3.4, x real } ). Ah! There it goes again, using the condition "x is real", when the original question was, "what numbers are reals?" If surreals turned out to be equal to reals, it would just be the case that there cannot be such a number as described above. > Let S = { 1/n | n a natural number > 0 }. > Put a = 0. Note that a <= b for every element in S. By (15) (but you need > to change signs to switch upper and lower bounds) there is a largest such a. > Note that since 0 has the same property, a >= 0. > Now let's look at 2 * a. Since a <= 1/n for every natural number n, > it follows that 2 * a <= 2/m for every natural number m. Now put m = 2 * n. > Voila, 2 * a <= 1/n for every natural number n. But a was the largest number > with that property. So 2 * a <= a, while a >= 0. This is only possible > if a = 0. This is actually the proof (well, kind of) I've been looking for. Though, noting that what we're proving is that the infinitesimal is not part of the reals, we could argue that a could be such an infinitesimal. But this would violate completeness, so the proof does show that the infinitesimals cannot be part of the real line. On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, John Colagioia wrote: > Since all of these number forms (up to Reals) are represented within > the set of surreals, and since there are other surreal values not > represented above (an infinite variety of them, in fact), then the > surreal numbers (which I can only assume to be related to the surreals > that are the topic of discussion) form a far richer set of values than > do the reals. Greater cardinality is not proved by there being a mapping from set A to set B which leaves some values unmapped. The mapping (n->2*n) from N to N leaves odd numbers unmapped, but it does not show that the cardinality of N is greater than that of N. However, a proof that there is an element in the other set for which no corresponding element can be found in the other set is conclusive. I think Orjan's infinitesimal proof (that 0 is the greatest real smaller than all 1/N) is such a proof. Panu -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 09 21:30:33 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16v0Nj-000Ivu-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:30:15 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:30:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16v0Lx-000Ivi-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:28:25 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:28:19 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web21406.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.232.76]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16v0Lp-000Ivc-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:28:17 +0300 Message-ID: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.120.209.42] by web21406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:28:14 PDT Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Quowong Liu Subject: [lang] Re: Laziness in conser: will it work? To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Ben Rudiak-Gould writes, >Infinite sets seem nice at first, but on reflection I don't think it's >actually possible to write a program which uses an infinite set in a >non-trivial way. So the extent of useful laziness when calculating sets appears to be: a completely undetermined set a set that is determined to be nonempty, with undetermined members So fully lazy sets will only buy the possible termination of (@ & S) and (S ! @), neither of which are of much interest. >All of these problems might be solvable in an implementation smart enough >to prove higher-level properties of the program, but this is a much >stronger requirement than mere laziness. I've been considering what inlining might make possible. The natural depth of inlining is up to the first recursive call. The notation I'll use for inlined calls is ("inline [args ...]" expr). Here are some possible transformations: ("inline" a) = a ("inline a" a) = a ("inline a _" a) = ("inline _" a) ("inline () _" _) = () ("inline _" ()) = () ("inline _" a b) = (("inline _" a) ("inline _" b)) (a ("inline _" a)) = a (a ! ("inline _" a _)) = (a ! ("inline _" a)) (("inline _" a b) ! a) = (("inline _" b) ! a) (a _ & ("inline _" a)) = (a & ("inline _" a)) (a ! ("inline a _" _)) = (a ! ("inline _" _)) (a & ("inline a _" _)) = (a & ("inline _" _)) I also think CSE, given the lack of let bindings, and especially after inlining, could be pretty significant for actual calculations, though not relevant to infinite sets. >As long as we're abandoning surreal numbers, here's another possibility: > > - If the car is nonempty and the cdr is empty, the first bit is 0 and > the remaining bits are in the car. > > - If the car is empty and the cdr is nonempty, the first bit is 1 and > the remaining bits are in the cdr. > > - If both the car and cdr are empty, there are no more bits. I like that idea. It doesn't have the wastage that bit lists have. Nonnegative rational numbers could be represented by using a pair of these nested pair structures, with the car being the integral part and the cdr being the fractional part. Converting to and from surreal rationals is pretty straightforward. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 10 02:08:54 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16v4j8-000JaP-00; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:08:38 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:08:31 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16v4j0-000JaJ-00; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:08:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:08:29 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16v4iy-000JaD-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:08:28 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:39365 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[jzqD5/VOUH1gBhgMlZ88qi49Md4aVyOq]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:08:14 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:08:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [surreals] infinitesimals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > Thank you a lot for the clarifications. Apparently the cut property (or > completeness, whatever) does not hold for surreals, which alone is reason > enough for the set of reals not being equal to reals. Much of the > discussion here is caused by the fact that that there is a mapping from > reals to surreals which leaves some surreals outside doesn't yet prove > that there are more surreals than reals. Another reason is that the reals > are quite well defined WRT what they at least include, but not always WRT > what they at most include. Any ambiguity in what the reals include will be because of differing models of the underlying set theory (Zermelo-Frankel). Within a single "universe", all models of the real numbers are isomorphic. > Especially I'd like to thank Orjan who was patient enough to give me the > rigorous definitions I would otherwise have had to seek somewhere. > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Orjan Johansen wrote: > > Now while the rationals and the reals each form a set, the surreals > > don't, because the cardinality is too large. However I suspect (and > > That's interesting (surreals not being a set because of cardinality). Wha= t > is that based on? Well, cardinality may be just a side issue, from the theorem that a class (i.e. property of sets) defines a set if and only if it is small enough for a set to be mapped onto it. This follows from the slightly stronger axiom of replacement for set theory. For the surreals, first, the (transfinite) ordinals can be embedded into them, and ordinals do not form a set. More directly a proof that the surreals are not a set: Assume they were a set S. Then by the definition of surreals as cuts of any set of surreals, the pair ( { x | x <=3D 0, x in S } , { x | x > 0, x in S } ) would itself represent a surreal. But it cannot be, because all surreals are in either the left or right part by definition. Someone wrote down a definition of surreals with plusses and minuses, which is not what conser uses. I think I should write down the definition of surreals by cuts. First, a Conway game is a pair of sets, all elements of which are Conway games. These pairs must be founded, that is there must be no infinite sequence a_1, a_2, ... of Conway games such that each a_(i+1) is a left or right element of a_i. This lets you use a form of induction on Conway games, even if they are infinite. (Usually set theory includes an axiom that sets should be founded, in which case games are so automatically.) (I should mention generations. Define inductively the generation of a Conway game as the least ordinal larger than the generations of all left and right elements.) Next, define comparison inductively as follows: g1 <=3D g2 if no left element of g1 is larger than g2 and no right element of g2 is smaller than g1. g1 < g2 if g1 <=3D g2 but not g2 <=3D g1. g1 =3D=3D g2 if g1 <=3D g2 and g2 <=3D g1. (Equivalence.) Now, a surreal number is represented by a Conway game such that each left element is strictly less than each right element, and all the elements are surreal numbers. Equivalent games are considered the same surreal number. Surreal numbers are always comparable, although general Conway games need not be. The generation of a surreal number is defined as the smallest generation of a Conway game representing it. It follows from the above that _every_ cut of a set of surreal numbers represents a surreal number, and one which is not in the original set. It turns out that it represents the unique surreal number of smallest generation which is between the parts. > > An infinitesimal is a number a > 0 such that a < r for every rational > > number r > 0. > > It happens to be that there are no such reals (see below). In fact if = your > > I didn't notice any point "below" that proves there are no such reals... The 1/N sequence proof implies that. > > Well, you can prove it but it is easier if you don't use a series. Jus= t make > > every real number be part of the cut! That is, if x is a real number > > (represented as a surreal): > > A =3D { y | y <=3D x, y real } > > B =3D { y | y > x, y real } > > Again, this goes begging the question - maybe I'm not telling clearly > enough what I'm asking for. I mean, to be able to prove that one can form > such a surreal, one has to prove to be able to construct the surreal > representations of all real numbers. To depend on an axiom that the reals > form a set means that you have to prove that the surreals do not, or to > show that the surreals have a strictly bigger cardinality. Showing that the reals imbed in the surreals is a bit too long for this space, and requires the definition of addition and multiplication as well as proving their ordered field properties, most of which is probably in the part of On Numbers and Games which I haven't read yet. However the result I already mentioned: The reals are represented by the set of surreal numbers of finite generation, plus all cuts of that set which have no end points. > Please try to see things as I do (or actually did). For me, it was not > clear that the set of surreals is strictly bigger than that of reals. The= n > such a cut as you define above is not possible, because you'd have a > surreal number that is not equal to any surreal number (all surreals are > either bigger or smaller than it). > > > > If this number (let's call it x') was not part of the real line, then= we > > > would indeed have found a number that divides the real line in two: > > > numbers x' (including x). This is compliant with the > > > endpoint rule, but not compliant with the stronger property which I > > > thought is a property of the real numbers, namely that if you have a > > > number that divides the real numbers in two, that number is always a = real > > > number. > > Alas this is not true if you have more numbers than the reals. > > Exactly. So what it comes down to (and should have come from the > beginning, if only I had expressed myself better) is a proof that there > are more numbers than reals. > > > A =3D { r | r < 0 or r*r <=3D 2 } > > B =3D { r | r >=3D 0 and r*r > 2 }. > > Now this has no rational endpoints. It has a real one, the square root > > of 2. > > Doesn't the amount of reals then depend on what formulae are allowed in > the cut condition? In set theory, all formulas are allowed when you take subsets of a set. In this case we also need all real numbers that fulfill the formula to be smaller than those that don't. However this also gets close to a very foundational issue: what sets exist? In principle one doesn't even require a formula that can be written down, just an abstract set. I think it is the Skolem paradox which is based on using only formulas that can be written down to create a model of set theory (or whatever) which is countable. The paradox is that this model then contains reals, and that set theory proves reals uncountable. The paradox is resolved by the fact that the sequence function which counts the reals in the model is not itself in the model, or if it is it cannot be proven to give all the reals. Another important case is G=F6del's proof that the Axiom of Choice is consistent. He restricted the sets to those that could be uniquely given by formulas, and showed that the Axiom held in that model. > > > > There is no real number squeezed in strictly between the set { x | = x < 3.4 > > > > } and the set { x | x >=3D 3.4 }. There are, however, many surreal= numbers. > > > Show me one such surreal number. Why does it not belong to {x | x<3.4= }? > > ( { x | x < 3.4, x real } , { x | x >=3D 3.4, x real } ). > > Ah! There it goes again, using the condition "x is real", when the > original question was, "what numbers are reals?" If surreals turned out t= o > be equal to reals, it would just be the case that there cannot be such a > number as described above. As I mentioned above, every cut of surreals is a new surreal. So all you need is for all reals to be surreals, then the above works. > > Let S =3D { 1/n | n a natural number > 0 }. > > Put a =3D 0. Note that a <=3D b for every element in S. By (15) (but = you need > > to change signs to switch upper and lower bounds) there is a largest su= ch a. > > Note that since 0 has the same property, a >=3D 0. > > Now let's look at 2 * a. Since a <=3D 1/n for every natural number n, > > it follows that 2 * a <=3D 2/m for every natural number m. Now put m = =3D 2 * n. > > Voila, 2 * a <=3D 1/n for every natural number n. But a was the larges= t number > > with that property. So 2 * a <=3D a, while a >=3D 0. This is only pos= sible > > if a =3D 0. > > This is actually the proof (well, kind of) I've been looking for. Though, > noting that what we're proving is that the infinitesimal is not part of > the reals, we could argue that a could be such an infinitesimal. But this > would violate completeness, so the proof does show that the infinitesimal= s > cannot be part of the real line. > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, John Colagioia wrote: > > Since all of these number forms (up to Reals) are represented within > > the set of surreals, and since there are other surreal values not > > represented above (an infinite variety of them, in fact), then the > > surreal numbers (which I can only assume to be related to the surreals > > that are the topic of discussion) form a far richer set of values than > > do the reals. > > Greater cardinality is not proved by there being a mapping from set A to > set B which leaves some values unmapped. The mapping (n->2*n) from N to N > leaves odd numbers unmapped, but it does not show that the cardinality of > N is greater than that of N. However, a proof that there is an element in > the other set for which no corresponding element can be found in the othe= r > set is conclusive. I think Orjan's infinitesimal proof (that 0 is the > greatest real smaller than all 1/N) is such a proof. Alas, that proof does not say much about the cardinality. One can find a countable ordered field which contains infinitesimals. Here is one which improves on the R' posted previously: all (reduced) fractions of polynomials in one variable delta with rational coefficients. Addition and multiplication is the usual one for expressions. Comparison is the clue. Hm. If r1 and r2 are such fractions, you can compare them with the following algorithm: 0) If they are the same reduced fraction, there is nothing to do. 1) Evaluate them at delta=3D0. 2) If at least one is infinite at 0, multiply both by delta, reduce, and go to step 1. 3) If both are equal at 0, subtract their common value there from both, multiply both by delta, reduce, then go to step 1. 4) Otherwise, they are different and finite at 0, compare them by their value there. This I think should work to make this an ordered field with delta an infinitesimal. Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 13 05:13:36 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wD19-0007mY-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:11:55 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:11:48 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wD11-0007mS-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:11:47 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:11:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.85]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wD0y-0007mM-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:11:44 +0300 Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16wD0w-00037K-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:11:42 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.88.112.185]) by fwd05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16wD0k-227fmKC; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:11:30 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3D2H2gw038320 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:17:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3D2H1JC038319 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:17:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:17:01 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils Message-ID: <20020413041701.A38069@esoteric> References: <20020330033909.A1988@esoteric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Panu A Kalliokoski [020330 10:11]: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > > gcc has traditionally been the worst offender, IMHO; > > > it rather bothers me that Linux is heavily dependent > > > on GNU C language extensions, for example. > > http://www.open-mag.com/754088105111.htm > > if Linux wouldn't depend on gcc, vendors could be distributing 47% > > faster linux kernels (in theory) :-) > > This sounds a lot like one's regular software technology fud. It's > basically Intel's attempt to show that MMX / streams is of some use. It's > totally Intel-dependent, because the speedup is based on the compiler > producing code fthat uses features of Intel chips the other compilers > don't use. For code that is not doing heavy calculations, I wonder whether > there is any benefit at all. In addition, the Linux kernel already has the > Intel code for some calculation-heavy stuff (such as checksums) written by > hand in assembler for MMX. The '(in theory) :-)' was supposed to indicate that that comment wasn't to be taken too seriously. For example, as you say, many of the improvements that arise from usage of icc are related to instructions of newer x86 processors, and vendors can't distribute binaries that will only run on a Pentium 4. (Another annoying thing... I suppose most vendors compile with '-m486' (or GCC 3.0 style '-march=i486' or something like that) and recompiling with '-m686' or could probably have a noticable impact on speed (I don't know enough about GCC), but vendors usually don't support self-compiled kernels/programs.. - note though that this is all speculation :-) I suppose letting the compiler use non-backwards-compatible instructions is only used with some in-house development, and not much otherwise. > > > Nice article. I also liked your 'why rms is a crackpot'... there's > > an article by him about his fight against Symbolics that started the > > whole FSF and GNU stuff here: > > I tried to explain why every geek evangelista (RMS, ESR, Larry _Wall, > TDR, ...) seems to have little or any thought on what they're saying. I > came to the conclusion that because they are prophets, not people, they > see spreading of the faith as their primary responsibility, and by > actually making compromises they could only amake things worse. So they > kind-of become non-living statues to stand for their ideology. RMS, etc. suffer from having become so fascinated with their ideologies that they confuse something being right with everything else being wrong. They also become so involved in defining everything to fit their perfect world, sort of losing track of reality. It is an interesting problem, though - in particular in the bureaucratic societies we live in. Realizing something is Wrong is the first stip; fixing it is the second. Now how do you convince bureaucrats that something is Wrong? I've come to the conclusion that it's near impossible: their first argument will be something like 'but we have it like this way right now, and it works, right?' - so you respond with something like 'but it would work much better this way' and that leads you directly into step 2. Once you're in step 2 without having convinced the opposing side that something is Wrong, nothing will work anymore; they will start arguing the specifics of your suggestion of improvement, rather than seeing in general that something is Wrong. At this point it is very hard to get anywhere, and all you can do is start believing in your suggestion and keeping on perfecting it and becoming convinced that it is indeed the only true solution, and the bureaucrats will stay stubborn and reject everything you say because you haven't gotten them past step 1. I ought to write all my experiences and the things I've learnt down sometime :-) > > > 'ignorant americans' or 'stuffed full of propaganda americans', but > > hey, that's probably just the European liberal propaganda in me. Maybe > > I'm a little bit worried about this. I know almost no people who really > like the US, and those who do, are big idiots by my standards (for other > reasons). It's almost an intellectual requirement that you hate US - but > the few times I get to speak to "average" americans, they seem to be so > clueless that you can't even be angry at them... I sometimes think, could > we be living in the same kind of soap bubble, making hypocrite judgements > on other people's deeds - and however, we never thought we were the ones > who did everything right. Is the European's sole justification for > disrespecting Americans that we have bigger tradition at self-criticism? Most Americans I know are very reasonable people by my European standards, though there are, of course, some who will argue that 'American' is part of the definition of the word 'hero' and that America is the only "free country", etc. and I really get the feeling that generalizations over Americans aren't fair at all. But then, Bush did get close to 50 % of the votes and I suppose the patriotism is part of the general atmosphere you'd encounter in the US, but I can't say for sure. Also, on Richard Stallman's page (http://stallman.org), there's a big picture with a USA flag and the words 'America means Civil Liberties - Patriotism Means Defending Them'. Now, I'm sure Stallman doesn't mean standing up and worshipping a piece of cloth every morning, but such statements without strong definitions of each of the words and without context are easily misunderstood. (I've noted that, generally, idealists like to take such strongly debated sentences as 'Patriotism is good' and overload the term 'Patriotism' with all their weird definitions to somehow make it sound a little reasonable, thus causing general confusion about what they mean. Those people spend all their lives arguing that 'patriotism' means 'accepting the government voted by the majority of the people and not destructively acting against it' or something like that, but that's simply not what people mean when they talk about patriotism. In a way this is an evil trick to justify certain things; just take the debated term, redefine it as fit, so it seems justified, while the term still carries the old meaning in all the people's minds) > > > My conclusion: just go your own way and if it's Good, interested > > people will follow. Ok, now how did I get into this? Anyway, I'll be > > gone the next few days > > I quite much agree. Too bad that interested people will follow anything > interesting, whether it is good or not. Reading that sentence of mine just now confused me a little, as it was written in quite a different context of my mind then the rest of my response above. I'm not in that frame of mind anymore, so your response invokes no reaction in me. I can't say if I agree or not, nor do I have anything to add; weird sort of feeling, as somehow I feel obliged to respond to that :-) > > Panu > Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 13 16:45:18 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wNpT-000EJ7-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:44:36 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:44:29 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wNpM-000EJ1-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:44:28 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:44:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wNpE-000EIv-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:44:20 +0300 Received: (qmail 18834 invoked by uid 20150); 13 Apr 2002 13:43:40 -0000 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:43:40 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020413041701.A38069@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc I guess I'll be the "American scapegoat," here. On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: [...] > Most Americans I know are very reasonable people by my European > standards, though there are, of course, some who will argue that > 'American' is part of the definition of the word 'hero' and that > America is the only "free country", etc. They piss most of us (Americans) off, as well. However, the modern political climate (the Evil People(tm) will come and get us if we're not strong and together and stuff) makes it slightly more difficult to express that. Which is, of course, a fascinating definition of "free country," and one that I've warned against, before. NB: I'm exaggerating, but not nearly as much as I'd like to be. > and I really get the feeling > that generalizations over Americans aren't fair at all. They are valid for a more-sizeable-than-anyone-wants-to-think-about percentage of the population. That is, it's just as valid as the generalization that British people have crappy teeth, French people are stinky, frog-eating freaks who like Jerry Lewis, Australian people are obnoxious thrillseekers, and Asian people ('cause ya can't tell them apart anyway, of course) are good at math, but really sneaky. > But then, Bush > did get close to 50 % of the votes Ahem. I don't want to get into this, but I need to point out that Gore also got close to 50%. I believe we were in "coin flip" territory, this time around. "Hmmm...Guy who can't read his teleprompter against an activist who can't be bothered with that sciencey stuff." Nader doesn't count; the man was a ghost for thirty years, and lost his ability to communicate in that time. I look at it this way, though: With George, you get Laura, who's a well-spoken woman in favor of teaching kids (and, perhaps, her husband) to read. With Al, you get Tipper (and Lieberman, who looks suspiciously like Teller from Penn and Teller), who wants to destroy any media that might be deemed offensive to somebody (at least, somebody of the group she feels should be represented). Georgie-boy is also, to a very great extent, a symbol of what Americans want to respect. He's sort of a semi-educated guy who's "doing his best," and kind of acts like he understands his limitations. Contrast to the upper-crust, Yale-educated guy who keeps talking about all the amazing things he's worked on (which the typical American doesn't understand). Never forget that Americans have the strongest love-hate relationship with education that I've ever seen. Educated people are highly respected in matters where information is needed (heh...like game shows), but it also brings to mind incoherent, chalk-covered bumblers who lie about their results to get government grants. Uneducated people are, therefore, nicer and more trustworthy, because they're not smart enough to fabricate lies. I sometimes firmly believe that your numbers jump up in the polls if you consistently mispronounce the word "nuclear." > and I suppose the patriotism is > part of the general atmosphere you'd encounter in the US, but I can't > say for sure. It wasn't. At least not in the more cosmopolitan areas (anything near a city, for example). The media blitz making us out to be the last defense against Communi--I mean *terror*ism has taken hold at a rather frightening rate. On the bright side, this touchie-feelie crap seems to be wearing thin on most people, and New Yorkers are almost back to their crotchety "who gives a crap about the Middle East" selves. And gas prices are shooting back up (though not nearly to the point they've always been at *outside* the U.S.), which means that good old American idealism'll kick in by the end of the summer and the "war on terrorism" will likely get set aside in favor of "let's make nice with the people who sell us our oil." Heh. There are times I really do genuinely love this country... > Also, on Richard Stallman's page (http://stallman.org), there's a big > picture with a USA flag and the words 'America means Civil Liberties - > Patriotism Means Defending Them'. Now, I'm sure Stallman doesn't mean > standing up and worshipping a piece of cloth every morning, Depends. He's a fair bit older than me, as I understand it, which means he was brought up during the tail end of the last patriotic swell (back when we were itching to fight and kill the damned Commies, of course). School, even up through my first couple of years, was started with "The Pledge of Allegiance" to the funny piece of cloth. The oath is, interestingly, to the flag first, and country second. > but such > statements without strong definitions of each of the words and without > context are easily misunderstood. (I've noted that, generally, > idealists like to take such strongly debated sentences as 'Patriotism > is good' and overload the term 'Patriotism' with all their weird > definitions to somehow make it sound a little reasonable, thus causing > general confusion about what they mean. Not idealists. Self-styled revolutionaries, which is exactly what Stallman is. And his propaganda is no different from any other revolution's. Actually, that's not quite accurate. The "silhouette headshot superimposed on the flag" hasn't come out of the FSF, yet. That's a favorite of mine... > Those people spend all their > lives arguing that 'patriotism' means 'accepting the government voted > by the majority of the people and not destructively acting against it' > or something like that, but that's simply not what people mean when > they talk about patriotism. In a way this is an evil trick to justify > certain things; just take the debated term, redefine it as fit, so it > seems justified, while the term still carries the old meaning in all > the people's minds) Politics (I assume around the world, though I only know the American variety well) is all about appropriating terms and redefining them once enough people have agreed with you. There's a *reason* Mr. Clinton started asking for the strict definition of "is," after all. And, it's the same reason that Charlemagne led the "Holy Roman Empire," having no affiliation with a church or Rome, and not being arranged in a remotely imperial fashion. Politics, at the end of the day (and, to a similar extent, economics--and note how easy it is for me to toss this in here while you're getting ready to agree with me, even though economics hasn't been discussed), is really just the manipulation of symbols in the eyes of the masses. [...] From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 13 17:17:04 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wOKk-000ENq-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:16:54 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:16:47 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wOKc-000ENk-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:16:46 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:16:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10905.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.41]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wOKW-000ENe-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:16:40 +0300 Message-ID: <20020413141637.39177.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:16:37 PDT Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:16:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > I guess I'll be the "American scapegoat," here. > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > [...] > > Most Americans I know are very reasonable people > by my European > > standards, though there are, of course, some who > will argue that > > 'American' is part of the definition of the word > 'hero' and that > > America is the only "free country", etc. > > They piss most of us (Americans) off, as well. > However, the modern > political climate (the Evil People(tm) will come and > get us if we're > not strong and together and stuff) makes it slightly > more difficult to > express that. Which is, of course, a fascinating > definition of "free > country," and one that I've warned against, before. > > NB: I'm exaggerating, but not nearly as much as I'd > like to be. It is quite frightening how people miss the point of what it means to be American. We have these people who consider themselves patriots yet fail to understand that freedom of speech covers people you don't like. > > and I really get the feeling > > that generalizations over Americans aren't fair at > all. > > They are valid for a > more-sizeable-than-anyone-wants-to-think-about > percentage of the population. That is, it's just as > valid as the > generalization that British people have crappy > teeth, French people are > stinky, frog-eating freaks who like Jerry Lewis, > Australian people are > obnoxious thrillseekers, and Asian people ('cause ya > can't tell them > apart anyway, of course) are good at math, but > really sneaky. > > But then, Bush > > did get close to 50 % of the votes > > Ahem. I don't want to get into this, but I need to > point out that Gore > also got close to 50%. I believe we were in "coin > flip" territory, > this time around. "Hmmm...Guy who can't read his > teleprompter against > an activist who can't be bothered with that sciencey > stuff." Nader Uh... you've got me a bit confused. > doesn't count; the man was a ghost for thirty years, > and lost his > ability to communicate in that time. > > I look at it this way, though: With George, you get > Laura, who's a > well-spoken woman in favor of teaching kids (and, > perhaps, her husband) > to read. With Al, you get Tipper (and Lieberman, > who looks > suspiciously like Teller from Penn and Teller), who Damn, you're right about that... maybe Gore should have gained thirty pounds and grown a ponytail. > wants to destroy > any media that might be deemed offensive to somebody > (at least, > somebody of the group she feels should be > represented). > > Georgie-boy is also, to a very great extent, a > symbol of what Americans > want to respect. He's sort of a semi-educated guy > who's "doing his > best," and kind of acts like he understands his > limitations. Contrast > to the upper-crust, Yale-educated guy who keeps > talking about all the > amazing things he's worked on (which the typical > American doesn't > understand). Never forget that Americans have the > strongest love-hate > relationship with education that I've ever seen. > Educated people are > highly respected in matters where information is > needed (heh...like > game shows), but it also brings to mind incoherent, > chalk-covered > bumblers who lie about their results to get > government grants. > Uneducated people are, therefore, nicer and more > trustworthy, because > they're not smart enough to fabricate lies. That's the feeling, anyway. The problem Gore had is that he gave it straight to the people but didn't dumb it down As Per Requirements (tm) and the media raked him for being a snob. American culture has become anti-intellectual to the point where a politician can deliver a compliment to the American people by treating them as intelligent enough to understand the issues he's bringing up and yet lose an election to a candidate whose biggest accomplishments are raising money and "staying on message", the rhetorical maneuver of saying "yup, I agree with myself" no matter what the opponent says. > I sometimes firmly believe that your numbers jump up > in the polls if > you consistently mispronounce the word "nuclear." > > > and I suppose the patriotism is > > part of the general atmosphere you'd encounter in > the US, but I can't > > say for sure. > > It wasn't. At least not in the more cosmopolitan > areas (anything near > a city, for example). The media blitz making us out > to be the last > defense against Communi--I mean *terror*ism has > taken hold at a rather > frightening rate. Especially inasmuch as we have so little experience with it. > On the bright side, this touchie-feelie crap seems > to be wearing thin > on most people, and New Yorkers are almost back to > their crotchety "who > gives a crap about the Middle East" selves. And gas > prices are > shooting back up (though not nearly to the point > they've always been at > *outside* the U.S.), which means that good old > American idealism'll > kick in by the end of the summer and the "war on > terrorism" will likely > get set aside in favor of "let's make nice with the > people who sell us > our oil." I think come 2004 there's a lot of people who will be dogging the Bush reelection campaign with "Where's Osama" myself, that is if the people shouting "Remember Enron" don't pipe up first. > Heh. There are times I really do genuinely love > this country... > > > Also, on Richard Stallman's page > (http://stallman.org), there's a big > > picture with a USA flag and the words 'America > means Civil Liberties - > > Patriotism Means Defending Them'. Now, I'm sure > Stallman doesn't mean > > standing up and worshipping a piece of cloth every > morning, > > Depends. He's a fair bit older than me, as I > understand it, which > means he was brought up during the tail end of the > last patriotic swell > (back when we were itching to fight and kill the > damned Commies, of > course). School, even up through my first couple of > years, was started > with "The Pledge of Allegiance" to the funny piece > of cloth. The oath > is, interestingly, to the flag first, and country > second. That's what happens when you appeal to mob rule to hold up your regime. You wind up with people thinking that it's good to be sheep. Just ask Bill Maher. > > but such > > statements without strong definitions of each of > the words and without > > context are easily misunderstood. (I've noted > that, generally, > > idealists like to take such strongly debated > sentences as 'Patriotism > > is good' and overload the term 'Patriotism' with > all their weird > > definitions to somehow make it sound a little > reasonable, thus causing > > general confusion about what they mean. > > Not idealists. Self-styled revolutionaries, which > is exactly what > Stallman is. And his propaganda is no different > from any other > revolution's. Actually, that's not quite accurate. > The "silhouette > headshot superimposed on the flag" hasn't come out > of the FSF, yet. > That's a favorite of mine... Stallman is an extremist like any other. Extremists are good as a barometer of principle and not much else. > > Those people spend all their > > lives arguing that 'patriotism' means 'accepting > the government voted > > by the majority of the people and not > destructively acting against it' > > or something like that, but that's simply not what > people mean when > > they talk about patriotism. In a way this is an > evil trick to justify > > certain things; just take the debated term, > redefine it as fit, so it > > seems justified, while the term still carries the > old meaning in all > > the people's minds) > > Politics (I assume around the world, though I only > know the American > variety well) is all about appropriating terms and > redefining them once > enough people have agreed with you. There's a > *reason* Mr. Clinton > started asking for the strict definition of "is," > after all. And, it's > the same reason that Charlemagne led the "Holy Roman > Empire," having no > affiliation with a church or Rome, and not being > arranged in a remotely > imperial fashion. Politics, at the end of the day > (and, to a similar > extent, economics--and note how easy it is for me to > toss this in here > while you're getting ready to agree with me, even > though economics > hasn't been discussed), is really just the > manipulation of symbols in > the eyes of the masses. Isn't it, though. /brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 13 19:04:19 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wQ04-000Ezg-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:03:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:03:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wPzw-000Eza-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:03:32 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:03:31 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wPzp-000EzU-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:03:25 +0300 Received: (qmail 19002 invoked by uid 20150); 13 Apr 2002 16:02:44 -0000 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:02:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020413141637.39177.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: [...] > > "Hmmm...Guy who can't read his > > teleprompter against > > an activist who can't be bothered with that sciencey > > stuff." > Uh... you've got me a bit confused. The major players in the election were (a) a man who got 'C's throughout college and couldn't pronounce half the items he wanted to discuss and (b) a man who said things like, "Scientists are unsure about the existence of Global Warming, but that won't keep me from pushing legislation to reverse it in the meantime." To me, at least, those are both *extremely* scary people. I have serious problems with anyone wanting to expend effort and money to prevent a problem they're not sure exists. [...] > > With Al, you get Tipper (and Lieberman, > > who looks > > suspiciously like Teller from Penn and Teller), who > Damn, you're right about that... maybe Gore should > have gained thirty pounds and grown a ponytail. qv "BoTox injections." The weight has been added; the beard appears to be there to cover it slighly. [...] > That's the feeling, anyway. The problem Gore had is > that he gave it straight to the people Actually, he didn't, but that's a sidebar. He had his head as much in the sand as Bush did and his platform was (essentially) "I'm the Democratic nominee." Not that anyone else was an improvement. Incidentally, does anyone know how tall the two of them were? Was the tradition of voting for the tall guy broken? > but didn't dumb > it down As Per Requirements (tm) and the media raked > him for being a snob. I don't think his "superhero grin" helped him much, either. In interviews, he pretty much looked (and I mean that visually) full of himself. > American culture has become > anti-intellectual to the point where a politician can > deliver a compliment to the American people by > treating them as intelligent enough to understand the > issues he's bringing up Where the heck do you live? I've never seen a politician do that since the Carter administration. And I was entering kindergarten, back then, which means my view of being "spoken down to" would've been a bit more relaxed... > and yet lose an election to a > candidate whose biggest accomplishments are raising > money and "staying on message", the rhetorical > maneuver of saying "yup, I agree with myself" no > matter what the opponent says. Consistency is *very* important to humans. [...] > > The media blitz making us out > > to be the last > > defense against Communi--I mean *terror*ism has > > taken hold at a rather > > frightening rate. > Especially inasmuch as we have so little experience > with it. We used to, though. My *elementary* school teachers used to discuss propaganda ploys with us. It was important back then that "what the Commies were doing" (and what McCarthy managed to do in the '50s) "never happen here." [...] > I think come 2004 there's a lot of people who will be > dogging the Bush reelection campaign with "Where's > Osama" myself, Nah. It's in everybody's best interest (i.e., "war" has an obvious goal, which keeps industry running, which keeps people employed) that bin Laden continue to be "nearly caught," and I think the American people subconsciously know this, whether or not they'll admit it to themselves. > that is if the people shouting > "Remember Enron" don't pipe up first. Which, granted, is a bad thing. But with the entire economy hinging itself to a small fragment of the *stock market*, I just wish people would see it as a symptom of the much larger problem. [Quick sidebar: I remember reading, years ago, that in the summer of 1929, a multimillionaire (possibly one of the "big names," though I forget the details) pulled all his money out of the stock market, because his barber asked him about some stock tips. This guy reasoned that putting the uneducated, common man directly into the stock market (even mediated by a broker) would wreck the system. Note the nearness of Enron and other bad economic moves to the online "no broker and it's really cheap" stock trading.] [...] > > The oath > > is, interestingly, to the flag first, and country > > second. > That's what happens when you appeal to mob rule to > hold up your regime. You wind up with people thinking > that it's good to be sheep. Just ask Bill Maher. Heh...Well, sheep have it pretty good. All the grass they can eat (even those without glaucoma!), regularly-schedule haircuts, and no responsibilities to speak of... [...] From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 13 19:38:09 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wQXK-000F9r-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:38:02 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:37:55 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wQXC-000F9k-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:37:54 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:37:53 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10908.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.44]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wQX8-000F9e-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:37:50 +0300 Message-ID: <20020413163747.6148.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:37:47 PDT Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:37:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > --- John Colagioia wrote: > [...] > > > "Hmmm...Guy who can't read his > > > teleprompter against > > > an activist who can't be bothered with that > sciencey > > > stuff." > > Uh... you've got me a bit confused. > > The major players in the election were (a) a man who > got 'C's > throughout college and couldn't pronounce half the > items he wanted to > discuss and (b) a man who said things like, > "Scientists are unsure > about the existence of Global Warming, but that > won't keep me from > pushing legislation to reverse it in the meantime." > > To me, at least, those are both *extremely* scary > people. I have > serious problems with anyone wanting to expend > effort and money to > prevent a problem they're not sure exists. > > [...] > > > With Al, you get Tipper (and Lieberman, > > > who looks > > > suspiciously like Teller from Penn and Teller), > who > > Damn, you're right about that... maybe Gore should > > have gained thirty pounds and grown a ponytail. > > qv "BoTox injections." The weight has been added; > the beard appears to > be there to cover it slighly. > > [...] > > That's the feeling, anyway. The problem Gore had > is > > that he gave it straight to the people > > Actually, he didn't, but that's a sidebar. He had > his head as much in > the sand as Bush did and his platform was I guess I had a touch of amnesia there; you're right, he did exaggerate his record for no obvious reason, though the charges of him being an outright liar were badly blown out of proportion by the Republicans, who had pretty demonstrably had a jihad going against the Clinton White House (even if you don't believe what David Brock has to say). I was more referring to him essentially saying what he had to say and going on the assumption that the American people were going to keep up. It's the old problem: his position was trying to get a message across that wasn't amenable to being dumbed down. He didn't try and got abused for it. > (essentially) "I'm the > Democratic nominee." Not that anyone else was an > improvement. > Incidentally, does anyone know how tall the two of > them were? Was the > tradition of voting for the tall guy broken? > > > but didn't dumb > > it down As Per Requirements (tm) and the media > raked > > him for being a snob. > > I don't think his "superhero grin" helped him much, > either. In > interviews, he pretty much looked (and I mean that > visually) full of > himself. I suppose that's a subjective point. It's like Hillary Clinton: she's been a media target for years for not being a perfect First Lady droid like Laura "Empty Suit" Bush. You know, I didn't see that "look of disgust" on her face that everyone said she had; she just wasn't smiling. > > American culture has become > > anti-intellectual to the point where a politician > can > > deliver a compliment to the American people by > > treating them as intelligent enough to understand > the > > issues he's bringing up > > Where the heck do you live? I've never seen a > politician do that since > the Carter administration. And I was entering > kindergarten, back then, > which means my view of being "spoken down to" > would've been a bit more > relaxed... The question is how the American people can be convinced that being spoon-fed politics is a good thing. > > and yet lose an election to a > > candidate whose biggest accomplishments are > raising > > money and "staying on message", the rhetorical > > maneuver of saying "yup, I agree with myself" no > > matter what the opponent says. > > Consistency is *very* important to humans. Must be a hardwired thing. I won't disagree with you, incidentally, because inconsistency and I don't get along all that well. > [...] > > > The media blitz making us out > > > to be the last > > > defense against Communi--I mean *terror*ism has > > > taken hold at a rather > > > frightening rate. > > Especially inasmuch as we have so little > experience > > with it. > > We used to, though. My *elementary* school teachers > used to discuss > propaganda ploys with us. It was important back > then that "what the > Commies were doing" (and what McCarthy managed to do > in the '50s) > "never happen here." With terrorism specifically, though. We're drowning in propaganda even now. I do think the Reagan administration was the pinnacle of that (though Pretzelboy isn't far behind) -- having us all convinced the Russkies might drop the bomb at any minute, when the truth was the only way the Soviets would shoot was if we shot first. This time it's a similar fear, except W is doing all the saber rattling and the Russians (and the Chinese for that matter) have had very little to say about the matter at all. Since 9/11, I've acquired only one piece of flaggishness. It's a flag sticker I've got stuck to my backpack. I carry that in the memory of the people who died because in some sense they were all Americans. My loyalty is to my fellow Americans -- those who were born here, those who became citizens, even those who just live here for a short time because they want to be here. That doesn't mean I have to be loyal to a saber-rattling sped like our President. > [...] > > I think come 2004 there's a lot of people who will > be > > dogging the Bush reelection campaign with "Where's > > Osama" myself, > > Nah. It's in everybody's best interest (i.e., "war" > has an obvious > goal, which keeps industry running, which keeps > people employed) that > bin Laden continue to be "nearly caught," and I > think the American > people subconsciously know this, whether or not > they'll admit it to > themselves. That's true if anyone actually believes he's nearly caught. I don't have that faith, though I can't say how much of the country does. > > that is if the people shouting > > "Remember Enron" don't pipe up first. > > Which, granted, is a bad thing. But with the entire > economy hinging > itself to a small fragment of the *stock market*, I > just wish people > would see it as a symptom of the much larger > problem. > > [Quick sidebar: I remember reading, years ago, that > in the summer of > 1929, a multimillionaire (possibly one of the "big > names," though I > forget the details) pulled all his money out of the > stock market, > because his barber asked him about some stock tips. > This guy reasoned > that putting the uneducated, common man directly > into the stock market > (even mediated by a broker) would wreck the system. > Note the nearness > of Enron and other bad economic moves to the online > "no broker and it's > really cheap" stock trading.] Eh, maybe, maybe not. I don't know enough about stock market mechanics to comment, though I am of the uneducated opinion that you're talking about proximity that does not necessarily imply cause/effect. > [...] > > > The oath > > > is, interestingly, to the flag first, and > country > > > second. > > That's what happens when you appeal to mob rule to > > hold up your regime. You wind up with people > thinking > > that it's good to be sheep. Just ask Bill Maher. > > Heh...Well, sheep have it pretty good. All the > grass they can eat > (even those without glaucoma!), regularly-schedule > haircuts, and no > responsibilities to speak of... The flip side: mint jelly. I prefer a red wine vinegar/olive oil/garlic marinade on lamb myself. /brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 04:37:16 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wYwk-000Gm9-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:36:50 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:36:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wYwb-000Gm0-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:36:41 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:36:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from glisan.hevanet.com ([198.5.254.5]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wYwY-000Glt-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:36:38 +0300 Received: from [130.94.161.238] (130-94-161-238-dsl.hevanet.com [130.94.161.238]) by glisan.hevanet.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3E1aUV04100 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:36:31 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:36:37 -0700 Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils From: Daniel To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cristofd@hevanet.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cristofd@hevanet.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc > The major players in the election were (a) a man who got 'C's > throughout college and couldn't pronounce half the items he wanted to > discuss and (b) a man who said things like, "Scientists are unsure > about the existence of Global Warming, but that won't keep me from > pushing legislation to reverse it in the meantime." > > To me, at least, those are both *extremely* scary people. I have > serious problems with anyone wanting to expend effort and money to > prevent a problem they're not sure exists. Would you bother to step off a train track if there were a 50% chance a train were coming? 20%? How have you lived this long? -Daniel. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 05:44:38 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wZzn-000Gwh-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:44:03 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:43:56 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wZzf-000Gwb-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:43:55 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:43:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.21]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wZzd-000GvW-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:43:53 +0300 Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout10.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16wZzb-0006u5-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:43:51 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.88.112.42]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16wZzS-0X8OO0C; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:43:42 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3E2nJgw043325 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:49:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3E2nJXp043324 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:49:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:49:19 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils Message-ID: <20020414044919.A43180@esoteric> References: <20020413041701.A38069@esoteric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * John Colagioia [020413 16:45]: > I guess I'll be the "American scapegoat," here. Heh. I really didn't intend this to be yet another USA sucks debate. I'm more questioning my own generalizations and where they come from. I have found that on encountering individual Americans, those 'ignorant Americans' thoughts haven't crossed my mind, but rather when watching news, and in particular Bush. I think I've more often encountered Brits that think the deaths of Lady Diana/Queen Mum/... were huge tragedies than Americans that consider Bush the strong leader of a proud nation. > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > [...] > > Most Americans I know are very reasonable people by my European > > standards, though there are, of course, some who will argue that > > 'American' is part of the definition of the word 'hero' and that > > America is the only "free country", etc. > > They piss most of us (Americans) off, as well. However, the modern > political climate (the Evil People(tm) will come and get us if we're > not strong and together and stuff) makes it slightly more difficult to > express that. Which is, of course, a fascinating definition of "free > country," and one that I've warned against, before. > > NB: I'm exaggerating, but not nearly as much as I'd like to be. > > > and I really get the feeling > > that generalizations over Americans aren't fair at all. > > They are valid for a more-sizeable-than-anyone-wants-to-think-about > percentage of the population. That is, it's just as valid as the > generalization that British people have crappy teeth, French people are > stinky, frog-eating freaks who like Jerry Lewis, Australian people are > obnoxious thrillseekers, and Asian people ('cause ya can't tell them > apart anyway, of course) are good at math, but really sneaky. > > > But then, Bush > > did get close to 50 % of the votes > > Ahem. I don't want to get into this, but I need to point out that Gore > also got close to 50%. I believe we were in "coin flip" territory, > this time around. "Hmmm...Guy who can't read his teleprompter against > an activist who can't be bothered with that sciencey stuff." Nader > doesn't count; the man was a ghost for thirty years, and lost his > ability to communicate in that time. My point was rather that I haven't encountered a single person who was against Bush (not necessarily pro Gore, but in any case against Bush). It is my impression that this was the general European (or outside-US, even) opinion. So if 50% do vote Bush, then I think a generalization in terms of 'Americans' isn't too inappropriate, as it is a very different atmosphere than that found in Europe. > > I look at it this way, though: With George, you get Laura, who's a > well-spoken woman in favor of teaching kids (and, perhaps, her husband) > to read. With Al, you get Tipper (and Lieberman, who looks > suspiciously like Teller from Penn and Teller), who wants to destroy > any media that might be deemed offensive to somebody (at least, > somebody of the group she feels should be represented). > > Georgie-boy is also, to a very great extent, a symbol of what Americans > want to respect. He's sort of a semi-educated guy who's "doing his > best," and kind of acts like he understands his limitations. Contrast > to the upper-crust, Yale-educated guy who keeps talking about all the > amazing things he's worked on (which the typical American doesn't > understand). Never forget that Americans have the strongest love-hate > relationship with education that I've ever seen. Educated people are > highly respected in matters where information is needed (heh...like > game shows), but it also brings to mind incoherent, chalk-covered > bumblers who lie about their results to get government grants. > Uneducated people are, therefore, nicer and more trustworthy, because > they're not smart enough to fabricate lies. > I think this is a huge difference in the way politics are viewed in the US and in Europe (though it didn't seem nearly as strong with Clinton as with Bush, now). In the US, the president is more of an icon - the person that represents the nation, and thus, essentially, what the mob looks up to. Bush will make speeches in little foreign countries, standing up as the proud American person/president he is, and promise to help those poor little foreign countries who need the help of the Land of the Brave, and include in his speeches, how other evil little foreign countries are a threat to the beautiful American society and how the world nation will fight the "axis of evil"... what I mean is: the speeches are all made from a standpoint of 'Glorious America', which resolves conflicts in foreign nations - either because it is so great, or because there are potential threats to 'Glorious America'. European politicians are expected to do politics and resolve international conflicts by talking with the politicians involved in the conflict and working out solutions. They aren't supposed to do that in the name of their country or make speeches about how terribble whatever it is is. They are there to negotiate and to see what their country can do to help solve the problem. (Note: I used European above, but I can't really say for anything but Germany) I'm not saying that American politicians don't do what German politicians do. My point is merely in the way politics is viewed in the particular society. (Another example that comes to mind is in the press, where all of the US politics and decisions made therein are portrayed with "Bush" as the only one responsible, e.g. 'Bushs Nahostpolitik' - I can't think of how such things are referred to in relation to German politics, but it's certainly not 'Schroeders ...') > > Also, on Richard Stallman's page (http://stallman.org), there's a big > > picture with a USA flag and the words 'America means Civil Liberties - > > Patriotism Means Defending Them'. Now, I'm sure Stallman doesn't mean > > standing up and worshipping a piece of cloth every morning, > > Depends. He's a fair bit older than me, as I understand it, which > means he was brought up during the tail end of the last patriotic swell > (back when we were itching to fight and kill the damned Commies, of > course). School, even up through my first couple of years, was started > with "The Pledge of Allegiance" to the funny piece of cloth. The oath > is, interestingly, to the flag first, and country second. > Yeah, the 'Pledge of Allegiance' is what I meant with 'worshipping a piece of cloth' - I just couldn't think of the name :-) IIRC, besides flag and country there's also a phrase 'one nation under God' or similar. Oh well, one of the two major German political parties is called CDU/CSU, where the C stands for "Christlich" - christian. As to RMS, he seems an interesting case of years of stuffing 'America, free, freedom of speech, proud, brave' into the brain of an extremist idealist, who can't help but take his concepts of 'civil liberties' to an extreme and redefine 'patriotism' - which is, as ingrained in his brain from childhood on, a good thing - to fit his idealistic views. > > but such > > statements without strong definitions of each of the words and without > > context are easily misunderstood. (I've noted that, generally, > > idealists like to take such strongly debated sentences as 'Patriotism > > is good' and overload the term 'Patriotism' with all their weird > > definitions to somehow make it sound a little reasonable, thus causing > > general confusion about what they mean. > > Not idealists. Self-styled revolutionaries, which is exactly what > Stallman is. And his propaganda is no different from any other > revolution's. Actually, that's not quite accurate. The "silhouette > headshot superimposed on the flag" hasn't come out of the FSF, yet. > That's a favorite of mine... > I don't know; it seems the three terms used to describe Stallman are idealist, extremist, and revolutionary. An idealist to me (and of course I'm defining terms now :-) is one who develops strong views on the world and has strong self-imposed principles. These people tend to lose track of other Truths. Extremist is IMHO a very general terms and extremistic views are more of a property of idealists or revolutionaries. The word 'revolution' has many different meanings depending on context, but in this one, I'd say, revolutionaries are people who take on idealistic views and set about forcing the ideas of those onto other people. I also like the distinction idealistic/pragmatic - the distinction between the "perfect" and the "realizable". Pragmaticians will make compromises to achieve their goals and stay in touch with reality. So, how do I define Stallman now? Hmm, this is hard Maybe as an extremist idealist, who was quite pragmatic in his revolutionary practices (by using the weapons of the enemy) :-) > > Those people spend all their > > lives arguing that 'patriotism' means 'accepting the government voted > > by the majority of the people and not destructively acting against it' > > or something like that, but that's simply not what people mean when > > they talk about patriotism. In a way this is an evil trick to justify > > certain things; just take the debated term, redefine it as fit, so it > > seems justified, while the term still carries the old meaning in all > > the people's minds) > > Politics (I assume around the world, though I only know the American > variety well) is all about appropriating terms and redefining them once > enough people have agreed with you. There's a *reason* Mr. Clinton > started asking for the strict definition of "is," after all. And, it's > the same reason that Charlemagne led the "Holy Roman Empire," having no > affiliation with a church or Rome, and not being arranged in a remotely > imperial fashion. Politics, at the end of the day (and, to a similar > extent, economics--and note how easy it is for me to toss this in here > while you're getting ready to agree with me, even though economics > hasn't been discussed), is really just the manipulation of symbols in > the eyes of the masses. > I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What I mean is sort of staring with a term that carries connotations and is commonly used to refer to things you don't at all agree with, though you are convinced (for whatever reason) that whatever is referred to by the term is Good. To take the example of 'patriotism' - patriotism is Good, you think, but praising flags is plain stupid - so somehow you arrive at 'love of your country' and eventually at 'protecting your civil liberties'. 'protecting your civil liberties' is good and patriotism is good - you have now justified (most of all to yourself) your patriotism, including, though you didn't mean to, all the connotations and practices you don't agree with. So, to conclude: I don't think RMS means that by praising flags he protects his civil liberties; rather he means that by being patriotic he protects his civil liberties - the problem here is that, what is missing, is WTH it is to be patriotic in his mind. Such statements as 'Patriotism is protecting your civil liberties' thus, while sounding like a profound, well thought-out easily-argued statement, indeed, and - if you think about it deeply - is a point of view you had never thought of and in a way true... are completely pointless and actually harmful. That's what I meant. Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 15:07:54 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16win2-000I3g-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:07:28 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:07:21 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wimu-000I3Z-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:07:20 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:07:18 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wimn-000I3T-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:07:13 +0300 Received: (qmail 20632 invoked by uid 20150); 14 Apr 2002 12:06:30 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:06:29 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020413163747.6148.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: [...] > > > That's the feeling, anyway. The problem Gore had is > > > that he gave it straight to the people > > Actually, he didn't, but that's a sidebar. He had > > his head as much in > > the sand as Bush did and his platform was > I guess I had a touch of amnesia there; you're right, > he did exaggerate his record for no obvious reason, > though the charges of him being an outright liar were > badly blown out of proportion by the Republicans, With good reason (and not the one you cite, which I'll get to in a moment. Gore *had* a platform, as did Nader. Neither was very compelling or interesting, but it's a platform. Bush *might* have had a platform, but Republican claptrap is a lot less politically correct than is Democratic claptrap. And, if you can't voice *your* opinion (either because you don't have one or you're afraid to speak up), the "logical alternative" is to attack the messenger rather than the message. > who > had pretty demonstrably had a jihad going against the > Clinton White House (even if you don't believe what > David Brock has to say). I'm not so sure about that. I mean, Clinton did bunches of things in office which were demonstrably in violation of his oath of office and the parameters of the position, none of which had anything to do with real estate or sex with ugly people. If they *really* wanted he and his crowd out, the impeachment thing wouldn't have been allowed to turn into an afternoon talk show with your host, Ken Starr. > I was more referring to him essentially saying what he > had to say and going on the assumption that the > American people were going to keep up. Ah. Since I was able to follow him, I kind of assumed he was trying to lose people, but I admit that's a very personal interpretation. [...] > > I don't think his "superhero grin" helped him much, > > either. In > > interviews, he pretty much looked (and I mean that > > visually) full of > > himself. > I suppose that's a subjective point. Oh, definitely. But it's border-line enough that I'd be willing to bet that it impacted his numbers. > It's like Hillary > Clinton: she's been a media target for years for not > being a perfect First Lady droid like Laura "Empty > Suit" Bush. You know, I didn't see that "look of > disgust" on her face that everyone said she had; she > just wasn't smiling. I never saw anything approaching a "look of disgust," to be honest. She's not "media attractive," though, and as you say, she does not smile often (and, she being my current Senator, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there's a reason for this--she does not have an endearing smile). Her new thing, by the way, is trying to get federal funding to study "cancer clusters." Spots on the map where there's a higher concentration of cancer cases than nearby. Having seen the maps involved, the "clusters" look a heck of a lot like Normally-distributed statistical clusters. But, hey, I'm pretty sure the other lawmakers are far better trained in statistical analysis and epidemiology than I am... [...] > > > Especially inasmuch as we have so little > > > experience > > > with it. > > We used to, though. My *elementary* school teachers > > used to discuss > > propaganda ploys with us. It was important back > > then that "what the > > Commies were doing" (and what McCarthy managed to do > > in the '50s) > > "never happen here." > With terrorism specifically, though. Ah. Gotcha. I got lost in the pronouns. > We're drowning in > propaganda even now. Oh, definitely. I have to appreciate the audacity of the anti-drug commercials, though. There's a really nice dynamic to the whole thing, forcing the viewer to basically take the "terrorism is bad" stance at face value. I suppose I should take a brief second to make mention of the deplorable state of terrorism, here. To my mind, a terrorist is someone who does something visibly bad and then takes credit for it, explaining what motivated them to do it. See, they use *fear* as a political *tool* to motivate people to work with them. 1950's Lex Luthor qualifies as a terrorist. "My Death Ray will destroy Metropolis if seven billion dollars isn't wired to me in ten minutes," though he lacks political motivation. The PLO are terrorists. "We blew up that building, and then we wrote 'PLO' all over everything we could find. Get the hell out of Israel." The al-Qaeda are a bunch of vandals and murderers. > I do think the Reagan administration was the pinnacle > of that (though Pretzelboy isn't far behind) -- having > us all convinced the Russkies might drop the bomb at > any minute, when the truth was the only way the > Soviets would shoot was if we shot first. If they had the cash, at least. But, yes. He had many people rather firmly motivated. Enough so that I actually studied nuclear weaponry through most of junior high school, and had a pretty good idea of how the whole SDI system was going to work. > This time > it's a similar fear, except W is doing all the saber > rattling and the Russians (and the Chinese for that > matter) have had very little to say about the matter > at all. It's also very telling, in my opinion, that the recent list of "really, really dangerous folk that we might have to kill" included the Basques. Seems like the goal is to be able to march in wherever we like and take control. Although I don't know why anyone wants the Pyranees. There's a reason everybody in history has left the Basques alone, after all. > Since 9/11, I've acquired only one piece of > flaggishness. It's a flag sticker I've got stuck to my > backpack. I carry that in the memory of the people who > died because in some sense they were all Americans. My > loyalty is to my fellow Americans -- those who were > born here, those who became citizens, even those who > just live here for a short time because they want to > be here. That doesn't mean I have to be loyal to a > saber-rattling sped like our President. Well, I've always been an advocate of loyalty to people over any organization, myself. But--and this is a problem I've always had with "memorials of those past"--people do die. Sometimes, we're unfortunate enough to lose a large chunk of them at once, but it happens fairly regularly. I can't really bring myself to focus on this particular group, just because they were in my back yard, so to speak. And, yes, people I knew were in there, and many people I know lost close friends (one is the only survivor of his company). Maybe it *is* the proximity, in this case, but I find it a bit more important to comfort the survivors and help get their lives back together than to remember the event. Not that I think it's a necessarily bad idea; just that it's not something I, personally, can get myself behind. > > [...] > > > I think come 2004 there's a lot of people who will be > > > dogging the Bush reelection campaign with "Where's > > > Osama" myself, > > Nah. It's in everybody's best interest (i.e., "war" > > has an obvious > > goal, which keeps industry running, which keeps > > people employed) that > > bin Laden continue to be "nearly caught," and I > > think the American > > people subconsciously know this, whether or not > > they'll admit it to > > themselves. > That's true if anyone actually believes he's nearly > caught. I don't have that faith, though I can't say > how much of the country does. Oh, it's much easier than that, for the majority of the populace. Once convinced that the cat and mouse game is healthy for the economy, they'll buy into any fiction necessary to make it work. Mob psychology is really nifty stuff. A true cynic, however, might point out that bin Laden's CIA training was during the period that a certain other fellow named Bush would've been in charge of such operations. If he had ever been in the CIA before becoming Director, that is. And that never happened...so again, actually finding the guy would be very bad. [...] > > Heh...Well, sheep have it pretty good. All the > > grass they can eat > > (even those without glaucoma!), regularly-schedule > > haircuts, and no > > responsibilities to speak of... > The flip side: mint jelly. Ew, ew, ew. Err...Ewe, ewe, ewe. Sorry. But you just reminded me of one of the top reasons I don't go anywhere near my family during Easter time. > I prefer a red wine > vinegar/olive oil/garlic marinade on lamb myself. I'm sort of old-fashioned when it comes to red meat. Slow cook the sucker, and serve it "dry" with side dishes (though your marinade would probably make a really good base for a gravy; I'll have to try that, at some point). Anything more, and you've pretty much ruined the meat, in my opinion. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 15:37:26 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wjFt-000I83-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:37:17 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:37:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wjFl-000I7x-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:37:09 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:37:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wjFj-000I7r-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:37:07 +0300 Received: (qmail 20663 invoked by uid 20150); 14 Apr 2002 12:36:27 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:36:27 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Daniel wrote: [...] > > To me, at least, those are both *extremely* scary people. I have > > serious problems with anyone wanting to expend effort and money to > > prevent a problem they're not sure exists. > Would you bother to step off a train track if there were a 50% chance a > train were coming? 20%? How have you lived this long? You're assuming that Global Warming is something--if it's even relevant to talk about it as a problem--that we can just dodge (like moving off of train tracks). You're also assuming that trains are invisible, silent things, and that people are prone to standing on railroad tracks, but that's all irrelevant to your point, I suppose. Let me ask you a similar question: If you have a vague feeling that a building you're in might collapse, do you immediately jump out the nearest window? Do you insist that the building be immediately condemned and a new one built (even if you're not sure why or if this one's a problem)? Or, perhaps, you start replacing girders on your own (without the benefit of training), because, hell, at least you'll be doing something? Last I heard, even in non-scientific circles, problem-solving involves identifying the source of symptoms and, if the symptoms are identified as a genuine problem, treat the source. If that's offensive to you, I apologize, but the idea of tilting against windmills just for the sake of looking busy is simply not the way I was brought up, and no amount of activist screaming and science-bashing is going to change how these things need to happen. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 16:07:22 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wjix-000IDg-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:07:19 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:07:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wjip-000IDa-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:07:12 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:07:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wjim-000IDU-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:07:08 +0300 Received: (qmail 20723 invoked by uid 20150); 14 Apr 2002 13:06:29 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:06:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020414044919.A43180@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > * John Colagioia [020413 16:45]: [...] > I think this is a huge difference in the way politics are viewed in > the US and in Europe (though it didn't seem nearly as strong with > Clinton as with Bush, now). In the US, the president is more of an > icon - the person that represents the nation, and thus, essentially, > what the mob looks up to. Yes. The president's primary job is to stand up straight and not look like he left the oven turned on. If he looks like he knows what he's doing, the masses are happy, and happy masses (call them drones, if you like) make for a more productive country. God, how I wish I was being sarcastic, there... > Bush will make speeches in little foreign > countries, standing up as the proud American person/president he is, > and promise to help those poor little foreign countries who need the > help of the Land of the Brave, and include in his speeches, how other > evil little foreign countries are a threat to the beautiful American > society You know? I had *suspected* this, but I was starting to think that the news was just showing us highlights that Americans would find the most rousing. I had no idea that his non-U.S. speaking engagements were so focused on the States. Why hasn't anyone beaten the crap out of him? Any other president doing that would've had protesters lined up hundreds deep, no? Well, except in Holland, since you obviously can't moon people effectively if you've got more than a couple of rows of protesters... > and how the world nation will fight the "axis of evil"... > what I mean is: the speeches are all made from a standpoint > of 'Glorious America', which resolves conflicts in foreign nations - > either because it is so great, or because there are potential threats > to 'Glorious America'. It might be a numbers game. The NATO and UN forces, from what I know, are staffed primarily by US troops. I know *I* would want to be as inclusive as possible, though, personally. > European politicians are expected to do politics and resolve > international conflicts by talking with the politicians involved in > the conflict and working out solutions. They aren't supposed to do > that in the name of their country or make speeches about how terribble > whatever it is is. They are there to negotiate and to see what their > country can do to help solve the problem. (Note: I used European > above, but I can't really say for anything but Germany) > I'm not saying that American politicians don't do what German > politicians do. I will. They don't. American politicians try to be as local as they can manage without losing votes. Hillary Clinton makes an effort to describe her legislation as "New York" legislation, because that's where her constituents live. Well, until she gets outside of the state; then it's American, 'cause Henry Hyde and Strom Thurman would just as soon nuke New York as support it (over their own regions, that is), I suspect... > My point is merely in the way politics is viewed in > the particular society. (Another example that comes to mind is in the > press, where all of the US politics and decisions made therein are > portrayed with "Bush" as the only one responsible, e.g. 'Bushs > Nahostpolitik' - I can't think of how such things are referred to in > relation to German politics, but it's certainly not 'Schroeders ...') Yeah, that's weird beyond believe to me. Even to this day. > > > Also, on Richard Stallman's page (http://stallman.org), there's a big > > > picture with a USA flag and the words 'America means Civil Liberties - > > > Patriotism Means Defending Them'. Now, I'm sure Stallman doesn't mean > > > standing up and worshipping a piece of cloth every morning, > > Depends. He's a fair bit older than me, as I understand it, which > > means he was brought up during the tail end of the last patriotic swell > > (back when we were itching to fight and kill the damned Commies, of > > course). School, even up through my first couple of years, was started > > with "The Pledge of Allegiance" to the funny piece of cloth. The oath > > is, interestingly, to the flag first, and country second. > Yeah, the 'Pledge of Allegiance' is what I meant with 'worshipping a > piece of cloth' - I just couldn't think of the name :-) Heh. I had to put up with that every morning for quite some time... > IIRC, besides flag and country there's also a phrase 'one nation under > God' or similar. Kind of. It's buried at the end, and was deemed "optional" at some point, to keep the politically correct crusaders quiet. For some reason, I don't see the use of the word "God" as particularly religious, and certainly not beholden to any particular religion. > Oh well, one of the two major German political parties is called CDU/CSU, > where the C stands for "Christlich" - christian. But--and again, this might just be me--I don't really see that as a major problem. It gives you a fairly good idea of what they stand for, if nothing else. Or, at least their starting points. > As to RMS, he seems an interesting case of years of stuffing 'America, > free, freedom of speech, proud, brave' into the brain of an extremist > idealist, who can't help but take his concepts of 'civil liberties' to an > extreme and redefine 'patriotism' - which is, as ingrained in his > brain from childhood on, a good thing - to fit his idealistic views. Yep. That's about the size of it. > > > but such > > > statements without strong definitions of each of the words and without > > > context are easily misunderstood. (I've noted that, generally, > > > idealists like to take such strongly debated sentences as 'Patriotism > > > is good' and overload the term 'Patriotism' with all their weird > > > definitions to somehow make it sound a little reasonable, thus causing > > > general confusion about what they mean. > > Not idealists. Self-styled revolutionaries, which is exactly what > > Stallman is. And his propaganda is no different from any other > > revolution's. Actually, that's not quite accurate. The "silhouette > > headshot superimposed on the flag" hasn't come out of the FSF, yet. > > That's a favorite of mine... > I don't know; it seems the three terms used to describe Stallman are > idealist, extremist, and revolutionary. I still like "self-styled revolutionary." > An idealist to me (and of course I'm defining terms now :-) is one > who develops strong views on the world and has strong self-imposed > principles. These people tend to lose track of other Truths. Fair enough. > Extremist is IMHO a very general terms and extremistic views are more > of a property of idealists or revolutionaries. Certainly. I tend to consider extremists prone to action (since the ideals are "that important"), though, as well. > The word 'revolution' has many different meanings depending on > context, but in this one, I'd say, revolutionaries are people who take > on idealistic views and set about forcing the ideas of those onto > other people. As you say, it depends on the context. There are also those that are going to "change the system" to fit with their ideals, and they really don't care what other people think about it, because they'll all see how much better things are when the smoke clears. > I also like the distinction idealistic/pragmatic - the distinction > between the "perfect" and the "realizable". Pragmaticians will make > compromises to achieve their goals and stay in touch with reality. > So, how do I define Stallman now? Hmm, this is hard > Maybe as an extremist idealist, who was quite pragmatic in his > revolutionary practices (by using the weapons of the enemy) :-) Wise-ass. But, at the end of the day, like Bush, he's more of a symbol than anything else. Because if he weren't, the free software gnomes wouldn't have anyone to rally around, and SourceForge would have all sorts of silly projects that...oh. [...] > > Politics (I assume around the world, though I only know the American > > variety well) is all about appropriating terms and redefining them once > > enough people have agreed with you. There's a *reason* Mr. Clinton > > started asking for the strict definition of "is," after all. And, it's > > the same reason that Charlemagne led the "Holy Roman Empire," having no > > affiliation with a church or Rome, and not being arranged in a remotely > > imperial fashion. Politics, at the end of the day (and, to a similar > > extent, economics--and note how easy it is for me to toss this in here > > while you're getting ready to agree with me, even though economics > > hasn't been discussed), is really just the manipulation of symbols in > > the eyes of the masses. > I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What I mean is sort > of staring with a term that carries connotations and is commonly used > to refer to things you don't at all agree with, though you are > convinced (for whatever reason) that whatever is referred to by the > term is Good. We're on the same page. I'm just pointing out that this is far more general than what you're referring to. All of politics is juggling the right symbols in front of your known sheep. You do, however, always need a starting point (which is why Clinton got to look like a moron on global TV; he didn't put his linguistic juggling into context), and that's where ambiguous (but "obviously GOOD") symbols come in. Psychologists talk about "stacking realities." I start talking to you about the weather, and say things you can't fail to agree with ("mildly unseasonable temperatures are good," "pouring rain isn't much fun for outdoor activities," etc.). From there, I talk about other outside stuff that you probably won't agree with (with the understanding that you're now predisposed to agreement from the previous bit). I can now go further afield on topics, increasingly sure that you'll agree, simply because you've been doing so all along. Now, start this process from childhood, indoctrinating the kiddies with the absolute knowlege that "patriotism," "liberty," and all those nifty things are good. Keep them agreeing, and when you change the meaning of the terms later, the majority of them are stuck, and will follow along simply because that's what they've been doing. As I mentioned to Brian, humans are very fond of consistency. And for you hardcore computer people that are wondering if this political crap is ever going to end, I'll point out that this is starting to become known in user interface design. Too many "Yes" questions in a row causes the user to instinctively click "Yes," whether or not they've bothered to read the question. [...] From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 16:56:54 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wkUa-000IO3-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:56:32 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:56:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wkUS-000INx-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:56:24 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:56:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10908.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.44]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wkUL-000INq-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:56:17 +0300 Message-ID: <20020414135614.95423.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:56:14 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:56:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > --- John Colagioia wrote: > [...] > > > > That's the feeling, anyway. The problem Gore > had is > > > > that he gave it straight to the people > > > Actually, he didn't, but that's a sidebar. He > had > > > his head as much in > > > the sand as Bush did and his platform was > > I guess I had a touch of amnesia there; you're > right, > > he did exaggerate his record for no obvious > reason, > > though the charges of him being an outright liar > were > > badly blown out of proportion by the Republicans, > > With good reason (and not the one you cite, which > I'll get to in a > moment. Gore *had* a platform, as did Nader. > Neither was very > compelling or interesting, but it's a platform. > Bush *might* have had > a platform, but Republican claptrap is a lot less > politically correct > than is Democratic claptrap. Did Bush have a platform, at least one that he was able to talk about in public? I don't think that was ever firmly established. (Entirely understandable, btw, with the people he's put in the White House; Colin Powell and Condi Rice are the only ones I *might* trust. Even Powell's son who's heading the FCC is a scumbag...) > And, if you can't voice *your* opinion (either > because you don't have > one or you're afraid to speak up), the "logical Or because if you told people what you were about they'd run away. That's the Christian Coalition method. > I'm not so sure about that. I mean, Clinton did > bunches of things in > office which were demonstrably in violation of his > oath of office and > the parameters of the position, none of which had > anything to do with > real estate or sex with ugly people. If they The question is, by whose standards? The Right was on Clinton before he even got the Democratic nomination. The real problem is to look back on that morass of scandals and see which ones are legit. The "Clinton Body Count" should have raised the BS detectors on anyone who gave it a moment's thought, and I've read analyses of it that indicate that it's a total fantasy. > *really* wanted he and > his crowd out, the impeachment thing wouldn't have > been allowed to turn > into an afternoon talk show with your host, Ken > Starr. I've personally maintained that if there's a crook in the Clinton family it's Hillary. Compared to the cultishness of the Republican Right (which I see as a subset of the Republican party as a whole, albeit one that dominates it) Clinton was no worse than your average backwoods politician with an open zipper. (Incidentally, Gore's campaign finance 'irregularities' aside, I thought that China thing was far less suspicious than most did; typical political smear tactics.) > > I was more referring to him essentially saying > what he > > had to say and going on the assumption that the > > American people were going to keep up. > > Ah. Since I was able to follow him, I kind of > assumed he was trying to > lose people, but I admit that's a very personal > interpretation. Could be. I think Gore just lacks the talent for communication that Clinton has. He's working on it, but... > [...] > > > I don't think his "superhero grin" helped him > much, > > > either. In > > > interviews, he pretty much looked (and I mean > that > > > visually) full of > > > himself. > > I suppose that's a subjective point. > > Oh, definitely. But it's border-line enough that > I'd be willing to bet > that it impacted his numbers. I think the media made it worse than it was, though. Gore won those debates (two of them so decisively that even Chris Matthews started making sense) and the media (who I think were rooting for Bush so they could laugh at him for the next four years) spun it as snobbishness. > > It's like Hillary > > Clinton: she's been a media target for years for > not > > being a perfect First Lady droid like Laura "Empty > > Suit" Bush. You know, I didn't see that "look of > > disgust" on her face that everyone said she had; > she > > just wasn't smiling. > > I never saw anything approaching a "look of > disgust," to be honest. > She's not "media attractive," though, and as you > say, she does not > smile often (and, she being my current Senator, I'm > going to go out on > a limb and suggest that there's a reason for > this--she does not have an > endearing smile). Again, an example of what I'm talking about -- the GOP hates her even more than they did her husband, and since nobody was in much mood to argue with the Republicans people swallowed the "look of disgust". Mind you, this was after she was on the spot the next day with Chuck, George (Pataki), and Rudy. Our esteemed president? Hopping the country while Cheney was probably playing Al Haig. > Her new thing, by the way, is trying to get federal > funding to study > "cancer clusters." Spots on the map where there's a > higher > concentration of cancer cases than nearby. Having > seen the maps > involved, the "clusters" look a heck of a lot like > Normally-distributed > statistical clusters. But, hey, I'm pretty sure the > other lawmakers > are far better trained in statistical analysis and > epidemiology than I > am... Hey, your sarcasm is dripping onto my desk. You kn ow you're going to have to clean that up? That's the one thing about Democrats that bothers me more than anything else; I'd say my politics are probably a bit further to the left than I'd like to think (not that that's *necessarily* a bad thing) but it's clear that liberals do tend to ignore science when promoting what would seem to be a good cause. > [...] > > > > Especially inasmuch as we have so little > > > > experience > > > > with it. > > > We used to, though. My *elementary* school > teachers > > > used to discuss > > > propaganda ploys with us. It was important back > > > then that "what the > > > Commies were doing" (and what McCarthy managed > to do > > > in the '50s) > > > "never happen here." > > With terrorism specifically, though. > > Ah. Gotcha. I got lost in the pronouns. > > > We're drowning in > > propaganda even now. > > Oh, definitely. I have to appreciate the audacity > of the anti-drug > commercials, though. There's a really nice dynamic > to the whole thing, > forcing the viewer to basically take the "terrorism > is bad" stance at > face value. > > I suppose I should take a brief second to make > mention of the > deplorable state of terrorism, here. To my mind, a > terrorist is > someone who does something visibly bad and then > takes credit for it, > explaining what motivated them to do it. See, they > use *fear* as a > political *tool* to motivate people to work with > them. > > 1950's Lex Luthor qualifies as a terrorist. "My > Death Ray will destroy > Metropolis if seven billion dollars isn't wired to > me in ten minutes," > though he lacks political motivation. The PLO are > terrorists. "We > blew up that building, and then we wrote 'PLO' all > over everything we > could find. Get the hell out of Israel." The > al-Qaeda are a bunch of > vandals and murderers. I think you've got a gray area there. Al Qaeda has a political aim; it's about taking out the Saudi government, restoring the ancient Caliphate, and embarrassing the West in the process. Osama bin Laden: trust fund baby with guns. > > I do think the Reagan administration was the > pinnacle > > of that (though Pretzelboy isn't far behind) -- > having > > us all convinced the Russkies might drop the bomb > at > > any minute, when the truth was the only way the > > Soviets would shoot was if we shot first. > > If they had the cash, at least. But, yes. He had > many people rather > firmly motivated. Enough so that I actually studied > nuclear weaponry > through most of junior high school, and had a pretty > good idea of how > the whole SDI system was going to work. Which is to say, not very well... Let's see. Edward Teller: a prime example of how politics and money can cover up wasted talent and incompetence. The X-ray laser: a lot of sketchy theoretical work led to a single test with a disputed (and probably negative) outcome. Brilliant Pebbles, the space-mounted equivalent of a Stinger missile, which would have required advances in AI at least a century off just to function reliably. And of course the fact that not a single interceptor test has succeeded that wasn't rigged some way or another (and only about half of them at that). Better off spending that money on roads and schools in Afghanistan... > > This time > > it's a similar fear, except W is doing all the > saber > > rattling and the Russians (and the Chinese for > that > > matter) have had very little to say about the > matter > > at all. > > It's also very telling, in my opinion, that the > recent list of "really, > really dangerous folk that we might have to kill" > included the Basques. > Seems like the goal is to be able to march in > wherever we like and take > control. The Basques. Most of whom don't mind or just ignore the Spanish; it's only those few ETA whackos that are making trouble. > Although I don't know why anyone wants the Pyranees. > There's a reason > everybody in history has left the Basques alone, > after all. > > > Since 9/11, I've acquired only one piece of > > flaggishness. It's a flag sticker I've got stuck > to my > > backpack. I carry that in the memory of the people > who > > died because in some sense they were all > Americans. My > > loyalty is to my fellow Americans -- those who > were > > born here, those who became citizens, even those > who > > just live here for a short time because they want > to > > be here. That doesn't mean I have to be loyal to a > > saber-rattling sped like our President. > > Well, I've always been an advocate of loyalty to > people over any > organization, myself. Must... not... talk... about... Catholic... Church... > But--and this is a problem I've always had with > "memorials of those > past"--people do die. Sometimes, we're unfortunate > enough to lose a > large chunk of them at once, but it happens fairly > regularly. I can't > really bring myself to focus on this particular > group, just because > they were in my back yard, so to speak. > > And, yes, people I knew were in there, and many > people I know lost > close friends (one is the only survivor of his > company). Maybe it *is* Ouch. That sucks. > the proximity, in this case, but I find it a bit > more important to > comfort the survivors and help get their lives back > together than to > remember the event. Definitely. > Not that I think it's a necessarily bad idea; just > that it's not > something I, personally, can get myself behind. > > > > [...] > > > > I think come 2004 there's a lot of people who > will be > > > > dogging the Bush reelection campaign with > "Where's > > > > Osama" myself, > > > Nah. It's in everybody's best interest (i.e., > "war" > > > has an obvious > > > goal, which keeps industry running, which keeps > > > people employed) that > > > bin Laden continue to be "nearly caught," and I > > > think the American > > > people subconsciously know this, whether or not > > > they'll admit it to > > > themselves. > > That's true if anyone actually believes he's > nearly > > caught. I don't have that faith, though I can't > say > > how much of the country does. > > Oh, it's much easier than that, for the majority of > the populace. Once > convinced that the cat and mouse game is healthy for > the economy, > they'll buy into any fiction necessary to make it > work. > > Mob psychology is really nifty stuff. > > A true cynic, however, might point out that bin > Laden's CIA training > was during the period that a certain other fellow > named Bush would've > been in charge of such operations. If he had ever > been in the CIA > before becoming Director, that is. And that never > happened...so again, > actually finding the guy would be very bad. > > [...] > > > Heh...Well, sheep have it pretty good. All the > > > grass they can eat > > > (even those without glaucoma!), > regularly-schedule > > > haircuts, and no > > > responsibilities to speak of... > > The flip side: mint jelly. > > Ew, ew, ew. Err...Ewe, ewe, ewe. Sorry. But you > just reminded me of > one of the top reasons I don't go anywhere near my > family during Easter > time. > > > I prefer a red wine > > vinegar/olive oil/garlic marinade on lamb myself. > > I'm sort of old-fashioned when it comes to red meat. > Slow cook the > sucker, and serve it "dry" with side dishes (though > your marinade would > probably make a really good base for a gravy; I'll > have to try that, at > some point). Anything more, and you've pretty much > ruined the meat, in > my opinion. You do need a gravy sep, though. Lamb is greasy enough to begin with, and olive oil turns to slush in the fridge so you'll have a *ton* of grease to remove before you get to the gravy. /Brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 18:39:25 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wm5t-000Ict-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:39:09 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:39:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wm5l-000Icn-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:39:01 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:38:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.17]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wm5h-000Ich-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:38:58 +0300 Received: from fwd11.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16wm5f-0007Je-01; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:38:55 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.230.181.88]) by fwd11.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16wm5Z-0HWjHUC; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:38:49 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3EFiPgw044344 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:44:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3EFiPqx044343 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:44:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:44:25 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils Message-ID: <20020414174425.A44260@esoteric> References: <20020414044919.A43180@esoteric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * John Colagioia [020414 15:47]: > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > * John Colagioia [020413 16:45]: > [...] > > I think this is a huge difference in the way politics are viewed in > > the US and in Europe (though it didn't seem nearly as strong with > > Clinton as with Bush, now). In the US, the president is more of an > > icon - the person that represents the nation, and thus, essentially, > > what the mob looks up to. > > Yes. The president's primary job is to stand up straight and not look > like he left the oven turned on. If he looks like he knows what he's > doing, the masses are happy, and happy masses (call them drones, if you > like) make for a more productive country. > > God, how I wish I was being sarcastic, there... Heh, I don't think the president has an impact of that sort. I don't see how you arrive at happy masses making for a more productive country. What's the alternative to the happy masses and why might they not be happy masses and how might that affect their productivity? > > > Bush will make speeches in little foreign > > countries, standing up as the proud American person/president he is, > > and promise to help those poor little foreign countries who need the > > help of the Land of the Brave, and include in his speeches, how other > > evil little foreign countries are a threat to the beautiful American > > society > > You know? I had *suspected* this, but I was starting to think that the > news was just showing us highlights that Americans would find the most > rousing. I had no idea that his non-U.S. speaking engagements were so > focused on the States. Heh. It's probably those same highlights they show in Europe to feed the since Bush never ending US-criticism of the press and the people. It's just another of those things I can't remember Clinton having done. I just can't remember him making all sorts of such speeches when NATO bombed Iraq. [...] > > My point is merely in the way politics is viewed in > > the particular society. (Another example that comes to mind is in the > > press, where all of the US politics and decisions made therein are > > portrayed with "Bush" as the only one responsible, e.g. 'Bushs > > Nahostpolitik' - I can't think of how such things are referred to in > > relation to German politics, but it's certainly not 'Schroeders ...') > > Yeah, that's weird beyond believe to me. Even to this day. I'm realizing that a lot of my criticism above really only applies to Bush. I can't remember any of this with Clinton. Hmm [...] > > IIRC, besides flag and country there's also a phrase 'one nation under > > God' or similar. > > Kind of. It's buried at the end, and was deemed "optional" at some > point, to keep the politically correct crusaders quiet. For some > reason, I don't see the use of the word "God" as particularly > religious, and certainly not beholden to any particular religion. I'm sure there's some mention of religious freedom in the constitution; but then I guess that excludes atheists and polytheists. I guess atheists are just generally the type of people that couldn't care less about such things... indeed, I couldn't care less. I just find such things surprising (that it was deemed "optional" is new to me and clarifies some things) > > > Oh well, one of the two major German political parties is called CDU/CSU, > > where the C stands for "Christlich" - christian. > > But--and again, this might just be me--I don't really see that as a > major problem. It gives you a fairly good idea of what they stand for, > if nothing else. Or, at least their starting points. The things is, they don't stand for any such things. It's more of a historical artifact stuck in their name. A similar example is a prospect of TCU (Texas Christian University) I've seen - it took me quite a while to find out what TCU even stood for, as all they ever used was TCU. There was actually a page explaining how strongly they encouraged people of any religious group. Perhaps TCU isn't a good example, as I doubt many people associate anything with it, but people associate 'one of the two major German political parties' with the CDU, and not something like the Church. [...] > > Psychologists talk about "stacking realities." I start talking to you > about the weather, and say things you can't fail to agree with ("mildly > unseasonable temperatures are good," "pouring rain isn't much fun for > outdoor activities," etc.). From there, I talk about other outside > stuff that you probably won't agree with (with the understanding that > you're now predisposed to agreement from the previous bit). I can now > go further afield on topics, increasingly sure that you'll agree, > simply because you've been doing so all along. Does this really work in practice? Maybe you're just exaggerating, but somehow I can't imagine that being true. > > Now, start this process from childhood, indoctrinating the kiddies with > the absolute knowlege that "patriotism," "liberty," and all those nifty > things are good. Keep them agreeing, and when you change the meaning > of the terms later, the majority of them are stuck, and will follow > along simply because that's what they've been doing. A simple example is "fighting terrorism to protect our freedom". What makes more sense is "fighting terrorism to protect innocent people's lives". Here the catch-phrase is 'protect our freedom'. It's really a simple abuse of a phrase's connotations. > > As I mentioned to Brian, humans are very fond of consistency. Agreed. I don't, however, think this has that much to do with fondness of consistency. > > And for you hardcore computer people that are wondering if this > political crap is ever going to end, I'll point out that this is > starting to become known in user interface design. Too many "Yes" > questions in a row causes the user to instinctively click "Yes," > whether or not they've bothered to read the question. > The 'Do you agree to this license?' question before downloading something is usually the first - I think it's a matter of what people expect in the given context. If you're talking about the weather to someone, and then suddenly that person asks "How's your dog?", you'll probably not understand the question immediately, as you didn't anticipate a question of that sort, and then finally say "Oh, yes, uh, he's fine." I wouldn't say they press "Yes" because of some sort of consistency in always pressing "Yes" and never "No", but rather that what they expect is a superfluous question that they pose only so you can't blame them later ("I asked you, if you wanted to do that...") I guess your point is still valid in that sense :-) Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 22:08:22 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wpM1-000J8a-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:08:01 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:07:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wpLt-000J8U-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:07:53 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:07:52 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10902.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.38]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wpLo-000J8O-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:07:49 +0300 Message-ID: <20020414190746.24292.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:07:46 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:07:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: <20020414174425.A44260@esoteric> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- Markus Kliegl wrote: > * John Colagioia [020414 > 15:47]: > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > > * John Colagioia [020413 > 16:45]: > > [...] > > > I think this is a huge difference in the way > politics are viewed in > > > the US and in Europe (though it didn't seem > nearly as strong with > > > Clinton as with Bush, now). In the US, the > president is more of an > > > icon - the person that represents the nation, > and thus, essentially, > > > what the mob looks up to. > > > > Yes. The president's primary job is to stand up > straight and not look > > like he left the oven turned on. If he looks like > he knows what he's > > doing, the masses are happy, and happy masses > (call them drones, if you > > like) make for a more productive country. > > > > God, how I wish I was being sarcastic, there... > > Heh, I don't think the president has an impact of > that sort. I don't > see how you arrive at happy masses making for a more > productive > country. What's the alternative to the happy masses > and why might they > not be happy masses and how might that affect their > productivity? It's a management consideration -- you keep your people happy, they will give you their loyalty through tough times. You treat them like shit, they will turn on you in a second. > > > Bush will make speeches in little foreign > > > countries, standing up as the proud American > person/president he is, > > > and promise to help those poor little foreign > countries who need the > > > help of the Land of the Brave, and include in > his speeches, how other > > > evil little foreign countries are a threat to > the beautiful American > > > society > > > > You know? I had *suspected* this, but I was > starting to think that the > > news was just showing us highlights that Americans > would find the most > > rousing. I had no idea that his non-U.S. speaking > engagements were so > > focused on the States. > > Heh. It's probably those same highlights they show > in Europe to feed > the since Bush never ending US-criticism of the > press and the people. > It's just another of those things I can't remember > Clinton having > done. I just can't remember him making all sorts of > such speeches when > NATO bombed Iraq. No. One thing Clinton knew is that you don't have to be making a big deal out of every damn thing. Maybe it's W trying to compensate for being a lightweight like his dad did for being percieved as a wimp? > [...] > > > My point is merely in the way politics is viewed > in > > > the particular society. (Another example that > comes to mind is in the > > > press, where all of the US politics and > decisions made therein are > > > portrayed with "Bush" as the only one > responsible, e.g. 'Bushs > > > Nahostpolitik' - I can't think of how such > things are referred to in > > > relation to German politics, but it's certainly > not 'Schroeders ...') > > > > Yeah, that's weird beyond believe to me. Even to > this day. > > I'm realizing that a lot of my criticism above > really only applies to > Bush. I can't remember any of this with Clinton. Hmm Rather telling, I'd say. I suspect the rest of the world thinks there's something a little fishy about the Bush presidency. Apart from the blatant corruption, hamhanded spindoctoring, and barely concealed neo-fascist/neo-imperialist attitude, I can't possibly fathom why anyone might think this :-) > [...] > > > IIRC, besides flag and country there's also a > phrase 'one nation under > > > God' or similar. > > > > Kind of. It's buried at the end, and was deemed > "optional" at some > > point, to keep the politically correct crusaders > quiet. For some > > reason, I don't see the use of the word "God" as > particularly > > religious, and certainly not beholden to any > particular religion. > > I'm sure there's some mention of religious freedom > in the > constitution; but then I guess that excludes > atheists and polytheists. > I guess atheists are just generally the type of > people that couldn't > care less about such things... indeed, I couldn't > care less. I just > find such things surprising (that it was deemed > "optional" is new to > me and clarifies some things) Like the power the Religious Right has gained in this country in the last fifty years or so? There is an element in America -- most visibly represented by our much-beloved (ahem) Attorney General Ashcroft -- that makes more noise than anyone else. They're the ones holding the Bibles and the guns at the same time. They control the Republican agenda, and they *are* the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (or at least a few of their leaders are). It's the latest generation of the same bunch who created the Red Scares. They're also masters at manipulating public opinion; there's no other way to explain why poor people vote Republican except that they're being deluded by a mix of corrupt spiritual leaders and corporate interests who forget their own humanity. They've duped not only the Common People (a loaded term, IMHO) but more idealistic types like decent spiritual leaders (if there is such a thing anymore) and right-libertarians. And they don't like to reveal their agenda for fear that they won't be able to get the power to implement it (viz. Ralph Reed, describing himself as "the stealth candidate"). Deceit is a big part of politics, but to these people it isn't just a tool, it's business as usual. > > > > > Oh well, one of the two major German political > parties is called CDU/CSU, > > > where the C stands for "Christlich" - christian. > > > > But--and again, this might just be me--I don't > really see that as a > > major problem. It gives you a fairly good idea of > what they stand for, > > if nothing else. Or, at least their starting > points. > > The things is, they don't stand for any such things. > It's more of a > historical artifact stuck in their name. A similar > example is a > prospect of TCU (Texas Christian University) I've > seen - it took me > quite a while to find out what TCU even stood for, > as all they ever > used was TCU. There was actually a page explaining > how strongly they > encouraged people of any religious group. Perhaps > TCU isn't a good > example, as I doubt many people associate anything > with it, but people > associate 'one of the two major German political > parties' with the > CDU, and not something like the Church. It is however the case that a political party called the "Christian Democrats" would be largely ignored in this country just by the name alone. > [...] > > > > Psychologists talk about "stacking realities." I > start talking to you > > about the weather, and say things you can't fail > to agree with ("mildly > > unseasonable temperatures are good," "pouring rain > isn't much fun for > > outdoor activities," etc.). From there, I talk > about other outside > > stuff that you probably won't agree with (with the > understanding that > > you're now predisposed to agreement from the > previous bit). I can now > > go further afield on topics, increasingly sure > that you'll agree, > > simply because you've been doing so all along. > > Does this really work in practice? Maybe you're just > exaggerating, but > somehow I can't imagine that being true. I think it does, because that's just how conversations of this nature develop (I've never given it much thought, never mind wondered about a word for it, but it makes sense). The thing is that it can't be forced; anyone who tries to take advantage of such a thing too forcefully comes off like a car salesman or (even worse) an Amway rep. > > > > Now, start this process from childhood, > indoctrinating the kiddies with > > the absolute knowlege that "patriotism," > "liberty," and all those nifty > > things are good. Keep them agreeing, and when you > change the meaning > > of the terms later, the majority of them are > stuck, and will follow > > along simply because that's what they've been > doing. > > A simple example is "fighting terrorism to protect > our freedom". What > makes more sense is "fighting terrorism to protect > innocent people's > lives". Here the catch-phrase is 'protect our > freedom'. It's really a > simple abuse of a phrase's connotations. I was very uncomfortable with that concept. Our freedom doesn't really matter to these terrorists; the 9/11 hijackers were more than happy to take advantage of it. It's what we do with it and the arrogant way some Americans treat it that annoys them, and many others around the world. I find it ironic that anyone would get in trouble for questioning whether this is really about freedom... > > > > As I mentioned to Brian, humans are very fond of > consistency. > > Agreed. I don't, however, think this has that much > to do with fondness > of consistency. > > > > > And for you hardcore computer people that are > wondering if this > > political crap is ever going to end, I'll point > out that this is > > starting to become known in user interface design. > Too many "Yes" > > questions in a row causes the user to > instinctively click "Yes," > > whether or not they've bothered to read the > question. > > > > The 'Do you agree to this license?' question before > downloading > something is usually the first - I think it's a > matter of what people > expect in the given context. If you're talking about > the weather to > someone, and then suddenly that person asks "How's > your dog?", you'll > probably not understand the question immediately, as > you didn't > anticipate a question of that sort, and then finally > say "Oh, yes, uh, > he's fine." I wouldn't say they press "Yes" because > of some sort of > consistency in always pressing "Yes" and never "No", > but rather that > what they expect is a superfluous question that they > pose only so you > can't blame them later ("I asked you, if you wanted > to do that...") I > guess your point is still valid in that sense :-) Inertia: it's not just for breakfast anymore... ObEsoLang: this would be a perfect time for someone to come up with an obfuscated dataflow language... /Brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 22:55:43 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wq5y-000JHC-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:55:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:55:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wq5q-000JH6-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:55:22 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:55:21 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10905.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.41]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wq5o-000JH0-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:55:20 +0300 Message-ID: <20020414195517.68573.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:55:17 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:55:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] lamb To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: <20020414135614.95423.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc > > > The flip side: mint jelly. > > > > Ew, ew, ew. Err...Ewe, ewe, ewe. Sorry. But you > > just reminded me of > > one of the top reasons I don't go anywhere near my > > family during Easter > > time. > > > > > I prefer a red wine > > > vinegar/olive oil/garlic marinade on lamb > myself. > > > > I'm sort of old-fashioned when it comes to red > meat. > > Slow cook the > > sucker, and serve it "dry" with side dishes > (though > > your marinade would > > probably make a really good base for a gravy; I'll > > have to try that, at > > some point). Anything more, and you've pretty > much > > ruined the meat, in > > my opinion. > > You do need a gravy sep, though. Lamb is greasy > enough > to begin with, and olive oil turns to slush in the > fridge so you'll have a *ton* of grease to remove > before you get to the gravy. One other thing: I did this for Christmas dinner a few years back. Meat-and-two-veg kinda deal, nothing fancy. It was a great meal and I managed to pull it off by myself (the greasy gravy problem, though, was learning the hard way, and I burned the roasted garlic I was making for the bread). I honestly don't know if cooking qualifies as esoteric (though some Ming Tsai/Stan Frankenthaler/Masaharu Morimoto Asian Fusion recipes would definitely be on topic :-) ), but I do have to say that if anyone here ever winds up doing a huge meal like that, it's actually possible to do something that big all by yourself if you organize well. I should write a cookbook... no wait, in a sense I am (ObPlug: http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/food). Actually... esoteric food in general. Anyone have any commentaries, apart from deconstructing episodes of Iron Chef? /Brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 23:00:51 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqB5-000JHp-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:00:47 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:00:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqAx-000JHj-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:00:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:00:38 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqAr-000JHc-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:00:33 +0300 Received: (qmail 21260 invoked by uid 20150); 14 Apr 2002 19:59:53 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:59:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020414135614.95423.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: [...] > Did Bush have a platform, at least one that he was > able to talk about in public? Nothing other than "whatever it is that Republicans believe in." Usual schtick of anti-abortion, laissez-faire economics (for major corporations), and the like. > I don't think that was > ever firmly established. (Entirely understandable, > btw, with the people he's put in the White House; > Colin Powell and Condi Rice are the only ones I > *might* trust. Even Powell's son who's heading the FCC > is a scumbag...) Powell I liked in the military. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, now, only because "they" tend to not let him speak in an unmonitored situation, making me think that he's still speaking his mind against whatever comes up. > > And, if you can't voice *your* opinion (either > > because you don't have > > one or you're afraid to speak up), the "logical > Or because if you told people what you were about > they'd run away. That's the Christian Coalition > method. That would be the thing motivating the fear. No politician is afraid to speak up; he's afraid of the reaction to his comments. > > I'm not so sure about that. I mean, Clinton did > > bunches of things in > > office which were demonstrably in violation of his > > oath of office and > > the parameters of the position, none of which had > > anything to do with > > real estate or sex with ugly people. If they > The question is, by whose standards? Well, from what I gather, he was responsible for "defanging" the INS to the point where known terrorists and (a local problem where I am) H1B people (foreign technical workers, mostly) could get visas without a second glance. He also signed everybody's favorite act into law, the DCMA, and made sure the muscle was there to enforce it. > The Right was on > Clinton before he even got the Democratic nomination. Hell, the New York Times (hardly "The Right" by a long shot) called him a "Gary Hart wannabe." Another reference to him suggested that "any Republican who doesn't drool on himself in public" should be able to win the election. > The real problem is to look back on that morass of > scandals and see which ones are legit. The "Clinton > Body Count" should have raised the BS detectors on > anyone who gave it a moment's thought, and I've read > analyses of it that indicate that it's a total > fantasy. I actually thought that was a no-brainer, until I mentioned it to someone who went completely ballistic. At which point, I defaulted to my usual stance: "Of course he's evil. He's a *politician.* It's part of the job description." People don't quite know how to handle that. It's like they're sure they want to agree, but a big part of them is desperate to find any reason to disagree... > > *really* wanted he and > > his crowd out, the impeachment thing wouldn't have > > been allowed to turn > > into an afternoon talk show with your host, Ken > > Starr. > I've personally maintained that if there's a crook in > the Clinton family it's Hillary. Could be. I just find her to be yet another lackluster politician, currently (or recently, depending on how you scale things) riding on a "poor, neglected wife" image. > Compared to the > cultishness of the Republican Right (which I see as a > subset of the Republican party as a whole, albeit one > that dominates it) Clinton was no worse than your > average backwoods politician with an open zipper. With the exception of what I consider dangerous policy manipulation (some of which I mention above), I agree. Although I certainly have to fault him on his lousy taste in women. One would think that "the most powerful man in the free world" could find *someone* who's decent looking and has a good head on her shoulders. > (Incidentally, Gore's campaign finance > 'irregularities' aside, I thought that China thing was > far less suspicious than most did; typical political > smear tactics.) Well, yeah. But I have my suspicions that Gore wanted to be the "taking a stand against Communism" guy, once he was elected (which explains the rather bizarre stance the government took with Elian Gonzalez and the jet incident in China). That is, the issue wasn't that he was doing anything strange, per se, but rather that *he* was making such a big deal about it being normal. Any time a politician says nothing is wrong, his opponents are almost obligated to attack it... [...] > Mind you, this was after she was on the spot the next > day with Chuck, George (Pataki), and Rudy. Our > esteemed president? Hopping the country while Cheney > was probably playing Al Haig. I really have to mention, since you brought the fellow up, that Pataki *really* needed an image consultant during the WTC fiasco. The entire time, he had this look on his face that just kind of screamed, "I'm so glad I don't have to be in charge of this. I want to go home..." Not that I can blame him, of course. I just found it a glimmer of amusement in the whole situation. [...] > > But, hey, I'm pretty sure the > > other lawmakers > > are far better trained in statistical analysis and > > epidemiology than I > > am... > Hey, your sarcasm is dripping onto my desk. You kn ow > you're going to have to clean that up? Heh...Now we all know why I usually avoid talking about politics, right? > That's the one thing about Democrats that bothers me > more than anything else; I'd say my politics are > probably a bit further to the left than I'd like to > think (not that that's *necessarily* a bad thing) but > it's clear that liberals do tend to ignore science > when promoting what would seem to be a good cause. It's the way of the political world, though. The Republicans bought the incoherent DDT evidence, because it wasn't in their best interests for mosquitoes in Africa to die (hint: at the time, the birth rate in Africa was almost precisely offset by the death rate from malaria). As a culture (possibly as a species, though I'm not familiar enough with the global political climate), we do not value scientific research unless it gives us something we can purchase. [...] > I think you've got a gray area there. Al Qaeda has a > political aim; it's about taking out the Saudi > government, restoring the ancient Caliphate, Oh, I understand that. Kind of. But do they announce this? Not really. You've got to be a "long-time fan" to know what they're about, because they're not out there ranting, and their targets are...well... unrelated. > and > embarrassing the West in the process. Well, that's not really a political motivation. That's kind of a hobby, I suppose. > Osama bin Laden: trust fund baby with guns. And CIA training. After all, we needed him to get rid of...who was it? I seem to remember the ruling party in Afghanistan giving us some trouble... [...] > > good idea of how > > the whole SDI system was going to work. > Which is to say, not very well... I meant in theory. In practice, it was fairly obvious none of it was going to work without a really impressive jump in technology. I can only imagine that Teller was expecting the pyramid-building aliens to drop by or something... [...] > > It's also very telling, in my opinion, that the > > recent list of "really, > > really dangerous folk that we might have to kill" > > included the Basques. > > Seems like the goal is to be able to march in > > wherever we like and take > > control. > The Basques. Most of whom don't mind or just ignore > the Spanish; it's only those few ETA whackos that are > making trouble. And, last I've heard, they've pretty much quieted down. That may have changed, but news was that the EEC, effectively breaking down most of the annoying borders anyway, was pretty much good enough for the ETA. [...] > > I'm sort of old-fashioned when it comes to red meat. > > Slow cook the > > sucker, and serve it "dry" with side dishes (though > > your marinade would > > probably make a really good base for a gravy; I'll > > have to try that, at > > some point). Anything more, and you've pretty much > > ruined the meat, in > > my opinion. > You do need a gravy sep, though. Lamb is greasy enough > to begin with, and olive oil turns to slush in the > fridge so you'll have a *ton* of grease to remove > before you get to the gravy. My first impulse was to use the lamb fat as part of a roux, replacing the butter. I'm guessing that a bit of egg yolk (the rest of which'll obviously make it into some dessert or other) can keep it emulsified enough that a little oil could be added without a catastrophe arising. Of course, I still need to find a real butcher, since the idea of buying my meat on a styrofoam plate, wrapped in plastic is still a bit unnerving to me... From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 23:30:19 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqdR-000JNR-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:30:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:29:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqdJ-000JNL-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:29:57 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:29:56 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqdC-000JNC-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:29:50 +0300 Received: (qmail 21308 invoked by uid 20150); 14 Apr 2002 20:29:11 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:29:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020414174425.A44260@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > * John Colagioia [020414 15:47]: > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > > * John Colagioia [020413 16:45]: > > [...] > > > I think this is a huge difference in the way politics are viewed in > > > the US and in Europe (though it didn't seem nearly as strong with > > > Clinton as with Bush, now). In the US, the president is more of an > > > icon - the person that represents the nation, and thus, essentially, > > > what the mob looks up to. > > Yes. The president's primary job is to stand up straight and not look > > like he left the oven turned on. If he looks like he knows what he's > > doing, the masses are happy, and happy masses (call them drones, if you > > like) make for a more productive country. > > God, how I wish I was being sarcastic, there... > Heh, I don't think the president has an impact of that sort. I don't > see how you arrive at happy masses making for a more productive > country. What's the alternative to the happy masses and why might they > not be happy masses and how might that affect their productivity? Happy people buy more things (it's called "the Consumer Confidence Index"), which puts more money into the economy, which gets the money to the people who feel like being productive (or exploitative, if you like that term better...). > > > Bush will make speeches in little foreign > > > countries, standing up as the proud American person/president he is, > > > and promise to help those poor little foreign countries who need the > > > help of the Land of the Brave, and include in his speeches, how other > > > evil little foreign countries are a threat to the beautiful American > > > society > > You know? I had *suspected* this, but I was starting to think that the > > news was just showing us highlights that Americans would find the most > > rousing. I had no idea that his non-U.S. speaking engagements were so > > focused on the States. > Heh. It's probably those same highlights they show in Europe to feed > the since Bush never ending US-criticism of the press and the people. > It's just another of those things I can't remember Clinton having > done. I just can't remember him making all sorts of such speeches when > NATO bombed Iraq. That's what I mean. It never happened to Clinton. OK, I can buy that, since Clinton knew enough to (usually) keep his trap shut. Big Bush? No. He just made a stink about Iraq, locally, and barfed on the Japanese PM. Reagan? No, even with all his mystique, he was quite firm about the distinction between "America" and "The Free World." [...] > I'm realizing that a lot of my criticism above really only applies to > Bush. I can't remember any of this with Clinton. Hmm Oh, it's definitely a US thing. Clinton had "his" packages, laws, and stuff. It's always struck me as odd, and I'm surprised it made it outside the borders. > [...] > > > IIRC, besides flag and country there's also a phrase 'one nation under > > > God' or similar. > > Kind of. It's buried at the end, and was deemed "optional" at some > > point, to keep the politically correct crusaders quiet. For some > > reason, I don't see the use of the word "God" as particularly > > religious, and certainly not beholden to any particular religion. > I'm sure there's some mention of religious freedom in the > constitution; Specifically in the original ten amendments to the constitution (a/k/a the "Bill of Rights"). > but then I guess that excludes atheists and polytheists. And, technically, most Asian religions, as well as most pagan belief systems. > I guess atheists are just generally the type of people that couldn't > care less about such things... indeed, I couldn't care less. Well, as long as you don't capitalize the term (which, I'll grant you, they do in texts, but it's hard to capitalize in speech), you're OK. > I just > find such things surprising (that it was deemed "optional" is new to > me and clarifies some things) It's a recent development, though. No earlier than 1970, certainly. > > > Oh well, one of the two major German political parties is called CDU/CSU, > > > where the C stands for "Christlich" - christian. > > But--and again, this might just be me--I don't really see that as a > > major problem. It gives you a fairly good idea of what they stand for, > > if nothing else. Or, at least their starting points. > The things is, they don't stand for any such things. Ah, OK. That's fair, too. I mean, over here, Democrats certainly aren't looking for a pure democracy, and Republicans aren't looking for a pure republic. I've also met Right-to-Life party members who were for the death penalty. [...] > > Psychologists talk about "stacking realities." I start talking to you > > about the weather, and say things you can't fail to agree with ("mildly > > unseasonable temperatures are good," "pouring rain isn't much fun for > > outdoor activities," etc.). From there, I talk about other outside > > stuff that you probably won't agree with (with the understanding that > > you're now predisposed to agreement from the previous bit). I can now > > go further afield on topics, increasingly sure that you'll agree, > > simply because you've been doing so all along. > Does this really work in practice? Maybe you're just exaggerating, but > somehow I can't imagine that being true. As far as I know, it's a known phenomenon (I don't have any direct experience, myself). It's usually attached to hypnosis, with the idea being that you effectively "overload" the conscious mind with increasingly difficult (though morphologically similar) questions until the more pliant subconscious is accessible. It's essentially what they teach in training courses for salesmen, from what I understand, though they don't refer to it by name, and most salesmen are very, very bad at it, and it comes off forced. It's partly getting the "target" into a rut (and pacing the conversation so that he stays there), but there's also a large chunk of it which is standard Pavlovian response: Agreement brings acceptance. So, if I say, "nice weather we're having," I can almost guarantee an affirmative response, because we like to agree--no matter what the weather actually is. Give some nice positive feedback, and it continues from there. I'm trying to think of a really good advertising campaign that does this well, but most advertisers are really, really bad at their jobs (ever wonder about the fact that it's hardest to identify the product in the best commercials?). > > Now, start this process from childhood, indoctrinating the kiddies with > > the absolute knowlege that "patriotism," "liberty," and all those nifty > > things are good. Keep them agreeing, and when you change the meaning > > of the terms later, the majority of them are stuck, and will follow > > along simply because that's what they've been doing. > A simple example is "fighting terrorism to protect our freedom". What > makes more sense is "fighting terrorism to protect innocent people's > lives". Here the catch-phrase is 'protect our freedom'. It's really a > simple abuse of a phrase's connotations. Ah, yes. But, you see, it's hard to "sell" saving lives, even if that's your actual goal. They're *so* far away, and hey, didn't we hate them last year? So we talk about domino effects and impending curtailment of freedom. Of course, here in the States, we then give the cops special powers when investigating "suspected associates of terrorists" and sanction wiretapping and racial profiling. In the name of freedom. [...] > I wouldn't say they press "Yes" because of some sort of > consistency in always pressing "Yes" and never "No", but rather that > what they expect is a superfluous question that they pose only so you > can't blame them later ("I asked you, if you wanted to do that...") I > guess your point is still valid in that sense :-) That is a strong part of it. Part of asking consecutive questions with the same answer is the fact that it brings out the inclination to "blurt out the answer." I find myself doing it, from time to time. "No, you silly thing; why would I want to save *these* changes, when I didn't want to save the other twenty things..." From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 23:51:21 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqxw-000JTc-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:51:17 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:51:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqxp-000JTV-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:51:09 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:51:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqxm-000JTP-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:51:06 +0300 Received: (qmail 21332 invoked by uid 20150); 14 Apr 2002 20:50:27 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:50:27 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: lamb In-Reply-To: <20020414195517.68573.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: [...] > I honestly don't know if cooking qualifies as esoteric > (though some Ming Tsai/Stan Frankenthaler/Masaharu > Morimoto Asian Fusion recipes would definitely be on > topic :-) ), but I do have to say that if anyone here > ever winds up doing a huge meal like that, it's > actually possible to do something that big all by > yourself if you organize well. Most holidays I do turkey, stuffing, gravy, a handful of vegetables, and biscuits all from scratch. If I arrange it right, it comes to just about six hours (plus another hour or two for the bread machine to make the bread for the stuffing). The really nice thing about it is that the only things you have to know are: - How big the turkey is (to get the cooking time) - Make the gravy from a roux - Adding Cream of Wheat to a biscuit recipe gives it a nicer texture - You must own a ricer to make mashed potatoes; bake them, shove them through the ricer, add milk, and reheat Other than that, you're free to wing the entire deal, and you really can't go too far wrong (although apples in the stuffing weren't a big hit; I liked it, though). > I should write a cookbook... no wait, in a sense I am > (ObPlug: http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/food). > Actually... esoteric food in general. Anyone have any > commentaries, apart from deconstructing episodes of > Iron Chef? Depends on your definitions. I was on an "African Fusion" kick for a while (for example, stir-fried spinach and peanuts with garlic, feta cheese, and corn bread); that went well. Corn pudding with grilled tempeh has also figured in rather nicely. Most things that I fry (chicken, mozzerella sticks, and the like), I make my own "bread" crumbs out of corn meal, ground Bac-Os (one of the few times I demand a name brand), oat and wheat bran, and ground nuts (usually peanuts). I also frequently make what could be construed as a "meatless potato stew," which basically means I start a pot of water boiling, pare a few potatoes, and throw in bits of whatever is about to go bad... Oh, and I make my own pasta. None of that machine crap for me. A cup of flour, an egg, some olive oil, a rolling pin, and a knife. Takes about fifteen minutes to get dinner (including cleanup), which is about how long it takes me to make boxed pasta... My upcoming batch of experiments (aside from building a better apple pie, which I don't think I can do more than once a month without having to buy bigger pants) involves (wheat-) flourless bread, since I'd like a change of pace sometimes. Powdered almond looks like it might be just about right for flour, though it'll need gluten. So, that's where I'm starting... Heh. Some of that may be esoteric, depending on what you're used to. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 14 23:52:36 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqz9-000JUO-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:52:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:52:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqz1-000JUG-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:52:23 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:52:22 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10902.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.38]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wqyv-000JU3-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:52:17 +0300 Message-ID: <20020414205215.39299.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:52:15 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > --- John Colagioia wrote: > [...] > > Did Bush have a platform, at least one that he was > > able to talk about in public? > > Nothing other than "whatever it is that Republicans > believe in." Usual > schtick of anti-abortion, laissez-faire economics > (for major > corporations), and the like. Further supporting my belief that the Right is a cult. Independent thinkers wind up like John McCain -- they may become powerful, they may not, but they're on their own either way. > > I don't think that was > > ever firmly established. (Entirely understandable, > > btw, with the people he's put in the White House; > > Colin Powell and Condi Rice are the only ones I > > *might* trust. Even Powell's son who's heading the > FCC > > is a scumbag...) > > Powell I liked in the military. I'm willing to give > him the benefit of > the doubt, now, only because "they" tend to not let > him speak in an > unmonitored situation, making me think that he's > still speaking his > mind against whatever comes up. Powell was a political choice, plain and simple. The Bush administration probably took him because they wanted to keep him close. > > > And, if you can't voice *your* opinion (either > > > because you don't have > > > one or you're afraid to speak up), the "logical > > Or because if you told people what you were about > > they'd run away. That's the Christian Coalition > > method. > > That would be the thing motivating the fear. No > politician is afraid > to speak up; he's afraid of the reaction to his > comments. That's rather why Clinton was accused of "governing by poll", which I never quite understood as the whole point of democracy is to do what your constituents want you in there to do. > > > I'm not so sure about that. I mean, Clinton did > > > bunches of things in > > > office which were demonstrably in violation of > his > > > oath of office and > > > the parameters of the position, none of which > had > > > anything to do with > > > real estate or sex with ugly people. If they > > The question is, by whose standards? > > Well, from what I gather, he was responsible for > "defanging" the INS to > the point where known terrorists and (a local > problem where I am) H1B > people (foreign technical workers, mostly) could get > visas without a > second glance. I tend to be inherently suspicious of any arguments involving the INS. It's a dicey topic, subject to hijacking by hardcore isolationists like Pat Buchanan, and I simply don't know enough of the issues involved to get into discussing it except to say that it's irresponsible to simply attack immigration in general. > He also signed everybody's favorite act into law, > the DCMA, and made > sure the muscle was there to enforce it. Another point conceded, I suppose; unlike his VP Clinton wasn't the most plugged in of people when it came to technology. > > The Right was on > > Clinton before he even got the Democratic > nomination. > > Hell, the New York Times (hardly "The Right" by a > long shot) called him > a "Gary Hart wannabe." Another reference to him > suggested that "any > Republican who doesn't drool on himself in public" > should be able to > win the election. That would be irony, John :-) > > The real problem is to look back on that morass of > > scandals and see which ones are legit. The > "Clinton > > Body Count" should have raised the BS detectors on > > anyone who gave it a moment's thought, and I've > read > > analyses of it that indicate that it's a total > > fantasy. > > I actually thought that was a no-brainer, until I > mentioned it to > someone who went completely ballistic. At which > point, I defaulted to > my usual stance: "Of course he's evil. He's a > *politician.* It's > part of the job description." That will warp someone's mind, a comeback like that. > People don't quite know how to handle that. It's > like they're sure > they want to agree, but a big part of them is > desperate to find any > reason to disagree... The problem is that it acknowledges truth in their point without conceding it. > > > *really* wanted he and > > > his crowd out, the impeachment thing wouldn't > have > > > been allowed to turn > > > into an afternoon talk show with your host, Ken > > > Starr. > > I've personally maintained that if there's a crook > in > > the Clinton family it's Hillary. > > Could be. I just find her to be yet another > lackluster politician, > currently (or recently, depending on how you scale > things) riding on a > "poor, neglected wife" image. Maybe, maybe not. Though I find it interesting that nothing ever even got pinned on her, and she should have been right in the heart of the mess if she was doing what she was accused of. > > Compared to the > > cultishness of the Republican Right (which I see > as a > > subset of the Republican party as a whole, albeit > one > > that dominates it) Clinton was no worse than your > > average backwoods politician with an open zipper. > > With the exception of what I consider dangerous > policy manipulation > (some of which I mention above), I agree. Although > I certainly have to > fault him on his lousy taste in women. One would > think that "the most > powerful man in the free world" could find *someone* > who's decent > looking and has a good head on her shoulders. I personally find Monica to be rather attractive. Not a ten by any stretch, but not ugly. (Hell, Linda Tripp isn't even that bad looking, since the surgery...) > > (Incidentally, Gore's campaign finance > > 'irregularities' aside, I thought that China thing > was > > far less suspicious than most did; typical > political > > smear tactics.) > > Well, yeah. But I have my suspicions that Gore > wanted to be the > "taking a stand against Communism" guy, once he was > elected (which > explains the rather bizarre stance the government > took with Elian > Gonzalez and the jet incident in China). That is, > the issue wasn't > that he was doing anything strange, per se, but > rather that *he* was > making such a big deal about it being normal. "Taking a stand against Communism"... lovely. Embracing an anachronism to win a vote that he'd never get anyway (the Cuban-American branch of the Right). > Any time a politician says nothing is wrong, his > opponents are almost > obligated to attack it... A political reflex, I suppose. Not a good one. > [...] > > Mind you, this was after she was on the spot the > next > > day with Chuck, George (Pataki), and Rudy. Our > > esteemed president? Hopping the country while > Cheney > > was probably playing Al Haig. > > I really have to mention, since you brought the > fellow up, that Pataki > *really* needed an image consultant during the WTC > fiasco. The entire > time, he had this look on his face that just kind of > screamed, "I'm so > glad I don't have to be in charge of this. I want > to go home..." > > Not that I can blame him, of course. I just found > it a glimmer of > amusement in the whole situation. What is his image in New York state anyway? Is it anything like that guy from Minnesota or Massachusetts' own esteemed lame duck hatchet queen? > [...] > > > But, hey, I'm pretty sure the > > > other lawmakers > > > are far better trained in statistical analysis > and > > > epidemiology than I > > > am... > > Hey, your sarcasm is dripping onto my desk. You kn > ow > > you're going to have to clean that up? > > Heh...Now we all know why I usually avoid talking > about politics, > right? mumble mumble club soda... > > That's the one thing about Democrats that bothers > me > > more than anything else; I'd say my politics are > > probably a bit further to the left than I'd like > to > > think (not that that's *necessarily* a bad thing) > but > > it's clear that liberals do tend to ignore science > > when promoting what would seem to be a good cause. > > It's the way of the political world, though. The > Republicans bought > the incoherent DDT evidence, because it wasn't in > their best interests > for mosquitoes in Africa to die (hint: at the time, > the birth rate in > Africa was almost precisely offset by the death rate > from malaria). Explain. All I know about DDT is that it's Not Terribly Good For You, and that it's still made and sold in countries that don't care that it's illegal here. > As a culture (possibly as a species, though I'm not > familiar enough > with the global political climate), we do not value > scientific research > unless it gives us something we can purchase. How true. You might try asking a particle physicist about the Superconducting Supercollider some time; you might want to put the asbestos longjohns on before you do... > [...] > > I think you've got a gray area there. Al Qaeda has > a > > political aim; it's about taking out the Saudi > > government, restoring the ancient Caliphate, > > Oh, I understand that. Kind of. But do they > announce this? Not > really. You've got to be a "long-time fan" to know > what they're about, > because they're not out there ranting, and their > targets are...well... > unrelated. Not even a long-time fan -- you just have to be willing to read the entire story in Time or Newsweek (or a paper like the Boston Phoenix, which is something like 1/6 commentary in any given week). > > and > > embarrassing the West in the process. > > Well, that's not really a political motivation. > That's kind of a > hobby, I suppose. Could be. > > Osama bin Laden: trust fund baby with guns. > > And CIA training. After all, we needed him to get > rid of...who was it? > I seem to remember the ruling party in Afghanistan > giving us some > trouble... > > [...] > > > good idea of how > > > the whole SDI system was going to work. > > Which is to say, not very well... > > I meant in theory. In practice, it was fairly > obvious none of it was > going to work without a really impressive jump in > technology. I can > only imagine that Teller was expecting the > pyramid-building aliens to > drop by or something... I sorta figured out it wouldn't work by the age of thirteen (I fancied myself a bit of a wonk as a child -- how's that for arrested development?). When I got older and actually read a bit about Teller's career, it pretty much confirmed that the guy had been surgically declued years ago. (Apparently there is still bitterness in some circles for selling out Robert Oppenheimer because of a grudge -- Oppenheimer was an antisocial weirdo, but he was a good scientist and loyal American; the problem was that Teller had the ear of the hawks and Oppenheimer didn't.) > [...] > > > It's also very telling, in my opinion, that the > > > recent list of "really, > > > really dangerous folk that we might have to > kill" > > > included the Basques. > > > Seems like the goal is to be able to march in > > > wherever we like and take > > > control. > > The Basques. Most of whom don't mind or just > ignore > > the Spanish; it's only those few ETA whackos that > are > > making trouble. > > And, last I've heard, they've pretty much quieted > down. That may have > changed, but news was that the EEC, effectively > breaking down most of > the annoying borders anyway, was pretty much good > enough for the ETA. That's a relief. > [...] > > > I'm sort of old-fashioned when it comes to red > meat. > > > Slow cook the > > > sucker, and serve it "dry" with side dishes > (though > > > your marinade would > > > probably make a really good base for a gravy; > I'll > > > have to try that, at > > > some point). Anything more, and you've pretty > much > > > ruined the meat, in > > > my opinion. > > You do need a gravy sep, though. Lamb is greasy > enough > > to begin with, and olive oil turns to slush in the > > fridge so you'll have a *ton* of grease to remove > > before you get to the gravy. > > My first impulse was to use the lamb fat as part of > a roux, replacing > the butter. I'm guessing that a bit of egg yolk > (the rest of which'll > obviously make it into some dessert or other) can > keep it emulsified > enough that a little oil could be added without a > catastrophe arising. I don't do a lot with eggs in my cooking, so I couldn't say. However, the roux idea is an interesting one; I did it a few weeks ago with pan drippings from a pot roast. The main downside is that a roux made with beef fat is pretty vile, but that goes away when you mix it with something. > Of course, I still need to find a real butcher, > since the idea of > buying my meat on a styrofoam plate, wrapped in > plastic is still a bit > unnerving to me... You could always try Whole Foods, if there's one near you and you don't mind their prices. Much of what's left of the A&P chain is down here on Cape Cod (there's one less than a mile from my house), and they have a sorta butcher shop as well as the regular meat cases. /Brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 00:15:00 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wrKe-000Jak-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:14:44 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:14:38 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wrKX-000Jae-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:14:37 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:14:35 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10901.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.37]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16wrKS-000JaX-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:14:33 +0300 Message-ID: <20020414211430.62766.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:14:30 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: lamb To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > [...] > > I honestly don't know if cooking qualifies as > esoteric > > (though some Ming Tsai/Stan Frankenthaler/Masaharu > > Morimoto Asian Fusion recipes would definitely be > on > > topic :-) ), but I do have to say that if anyone > here > > ever winds up doing a huge meal like that, it's > > actually possible to do something that big all by > > yourself if you organize well. > > Most holidays I do turkey, stuffing, gravy, a > handful of vegetables, > and biscuits all from scratch. If I arrange it > right, it comes to just > about six hours (plus another hour or two for the > bread machine to make > the bread for the stuffing). Do you do anything different from basic white? I haven't used my bread machine since we moved, but it sounds like a pretty good idea. You want some real fun, use commercial bread flour; it's practically useless for regular baking but it works just fine if you have a bread machine or mixer. King Arthur sells it; I don't know if anyone else does. > The really nice thing about it is that the only > things you have to know > are: > - How big the turkey is (to get the cooking time) > - Make the gravy from a roux I seldom make traditional gravy; I've never really learned how and a deglace with a simple flour thickener is more fun anyway. I remember the first time my sister saw me dumping Sutter Home Merlot into a roast beef pan... she couldn't believe it. Now that she's been waitressing for a few years, she understands a bit better, I think. > - Adding Cream of Wheat to a biscuit recipe gives it > a nicer texture Hmm... I wonder if cornmeal would work as well. Might try something like that next time I whip out the Bisquick. > - You must own a ricer to make mashed potatoes; bake > them, shove them > through the ricer, add milk, and reheat I don't use a ricer, just a wire masher. Does the job just fine. (Besides, I use red potatoes and leave the skins on -- I sincerely doubt you can do that without fouling the ricer.) A couple of cloves of fresh garlic, some sour cream, and a ton of butter are always nice too. Incidentally, I know a lot of pro chefs out there hate garlic presses, but if you're not going to go through the trouble of roasting your garlic for garlic smashed, a nice Zyliss press is always a good idea. (I use mine all the time, or at least did until it was packed away when we moved.) > Other than that, you're free to wing the entire > deal, and you really > can't go too far wrong (although apples in the > stuffing weren't a big > hit; I liked it, though). I once used apples and walnuts in a chicken stir fry. The end result was pretty good, but the entire dish turned purple. I think it was a walnut side effect. > > I should write a cookbook... no wait, in a sense I > am > > (ObPlug: http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/food). > > Actually... esoteric food in general. Anyone have > any > > commentaries, apart from deconstructing episodes > of > > Iron Chef? > > Depends on your definitions. I was on an "African > Fusion" kick for a > while (for example, stir-fried spinach and peanuts > with garlic, feta > cheese, and corn bread); that went well. Corn That sounds pretty good. I might try that some time. > pudding with grilled > tempeh has also figured in rather nicely. Most Ugh.. I *hate* tempeh... > things that I fry > (chicken, mozzerella sticks, and the like), I make > my own "bread" > crumbs out of corn meal, ground Bac-Os (one of the > few times I demand a > name brand), oat and wheat bran, and ground nuts Well, with something like that a brand name is important. It's like soy milk: if you use Westsoy in your coffee bar and switch to some other brand, your soy-swilling customers will notice. > (usually peanuts). That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure about the bran... > I also frequently make what could be construed as a > "meatless potato > stew," which basically means I start a pot of water > boiling, pare a few > potatoes, and throw in bits of whatever is about to > go bad... Cream of Last Wednesday, basically. > Oh, and I make my own pasta. None of that machine > crap for me. A cup > of flour, an egg, some olive oil, a rolling pin, and Olive oil? I bet it probably tastes good, but I would think that makes a very delicate pasta. Fat and gluten development don't get along so well; can I presume that overcooking it even a little is a risky proposition? > a knife. Takes > about fifteen minutes to get dinner (including > cleanup), which is about > how long it takes me to make boxed pasta... I just don't like fresh pasta as much as I like dry pasta. Not necessarily that one is better than the other; they're pretty much held on the same level in Italy. That said, I have yet to be treated to the delights of maccheroni alla chitarra. > My upcoming batch of experiments (aside from > building a better apple > pie, which I don't think I can do more than once a > month without having > to buy bigger pants) involves (wheat-) flourless > bread, since I'd like > a change of pace sometimes. Powdered almond looks > like it might be > just about right for flour, though it'll need > gluten. So, that's where > I'm starting... Now *that's* esoteric! I see the fat problem popping up again, though -- try it, but don't be too surprised if you just get gooey marzipan out of the deal. > Heh. Some of that may be esoteric, depending on > what you're used to. I guess I'm a bit more into the food science end of it right now (Shirley Corriher is my hero, or at least number three behind Claudia Roden and Julia), but I do like to just have fun with food. Most of the time it works (though please don't ask me about the time I tried to throw the book out on tuna salad; it was a disaster). The web page I mentioned above has a recipe called "Neither French Nor Toast; Discuss" which was a very well recieved Asianized version of American breakfast; that I think is where fusion is the most fun, when you transpose whole styles to completely different ingredients. (I've made chicken marengo as a stirfry, and my potroast attempt was almost Boeuf Bourgignon in disguise.) Get the America's Test Kitchen cookbook; there's some interesting esoterica in there, like the Coke-glazed ham and the buttermilk brine they used on fried chicken. /Brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 13:05:31 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x3Kp-000MJV-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:43 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:36 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x3Kh-000MJP-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:35 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x3Ke-000MJI-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:32 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3FA3SX30270 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:30 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3FA3O704784 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:24 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:03:24 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Heh. May I join in? Forget I'm "non-US". There is well enough US politics in Finnish newspapers to form opinions about Clinton, Bush and companions... On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, John Colagioia wrote: > > Did Bush have a platform, at least one that he was > > able to talk about in public? > Nothing other than "whatever it is that Republicans believe in." Usual > schtick of anti-abortion, laissez-faire economics (for major > corporations), and the like. What I find very interesting is that the republicans do not actually embrace laissez-faire economics, at least not in the passive sense. For example, when the American air operators had difficulties after 11/9 (or whichever order you write dates in:) the government didn't let them die away. This is worrying because I deem the hegemony of big companies the biggest _problem_ of capitalism. I do respect the Americans for doing as much by themselves as possible - I'm trying to teach people here in Finland what massive influence small companies have for the society. I think the best economical situation is that of as many companies as possible founded to handle some previously-known need, for example providing a service for the employees themselves. When the companies become big, some serious problems arise: it becomes easier to acquire customers by open advertising than aimed information, there is the possibility of a company having its fingers in much everything and being that way able to affect the media etc., and the company is better off making people need things than asking what needs they already have and fulfilling those. The only well working solution to this that I've seen is to progressively set more restrictions to companies as they become bigger. It is difficult, but essential, to balance between company progress not being profitable at all and companies having so much power that they can effectively set their own rules. And maybe it's just my point of view, but it does seem that the US is deep in the latter extreme. As an example (and an aside), it seems Bush (or actually the Bushes) get profit of the terrorist attack in at least three ways: Bush gets better publicity; the family clearly has common interests with the weapon industry; and the US goverment gets an Afghanistan government which will negotiate economic affairs, unlike the Taliban. All in all, it seems again just one reason to force poor countries to drop their protectionism when the rich countries continue to keep their markets relatively closed. It all comes down to whom you trust. With this much economical and political interest in the war, it would probably have been started anyway, with the slightest excuse. Why would there then be any reason to suppose that the war did get started because Osama was behind the attack? It is extremely easy to spread oversimplistic attitudes in a country where half the population hits you in the face if you say you think the president is a liar... What I find worrisome in the American attitude is that there seems to be some kind of generally accepted moral code in the US: there's always a culprit and a hero; you are expected to weep when some pretty animal gets hurt; freedom is the best thing there is; "originality" means that you don't agree about everything with your neighborhood; and so on. Then all you need to do to convince people that someone is bad is to say that s/he acts against freedom; all you need to do to convince people that someone is not to be taken seriously is to say s/he's "weird"; and all you have to do to get the right to kill / harm someone is to tell s/he is bad. > > > I'm not so sure about that. I mean, Clinton did bunches of things > > > in office which were demonstrably in violation of his oath of office > > > and the parameters of the position, none of which had anything to do > > > with real estate or sex with ugly people. If they > > The question is, by whose standards? > Well, from what I gather, he was responsible for "defanging" the INS to > the point where known terrorists and (a local problem where I am) H1B > people (foreign technical workers, mostly) could get visas without a > second glance. Do you really think all terrorists come "from the outside"? That terrorist attacks can really be prevented by stricter immigration policy? I know that if the US used looser immigration policy than it does, it would probably drown in immigrants (as it does now, but that's a different matter) - but, frankly, I don't think the authorities have any chance to spot potential terrorists from those who want to come into the US. Even now the US government seems to be throwing enormous sums of money down the drain to keep up "safety"; it is as if Americans really believed that you can make safety just by building up protection. Most of the world's safety, I think, comes from social laws: there are, in my view, two hazards: people losing will of cooperativity because they have too much power, and people losing it because they have lost hope. As long as people value their own living over ideologies and hedonism, they stay rather harmless to their fellow people. However, the US seems to be full of people that take their rights by force; those that have lost hope; and those that seem to be willing to take yet more people's hope in the Islamic world. It will be a long way to safety... by supporting big companies, Bush effectively is making the US a third-world country... Back to the original issue, I think the question remains valid: by whose standards are Clinton's actions against his oath of office? Bush does also a lot of things which are not only in principle destructive but also illegal (nominating Osama bin Laden for head-hunting, for example), but the Americans see nothing wrong in that. Why? Is it that so many American have dropped back into the dream of "this is what we have to do". As of making the terrorists' work easier, that's an activity where Bush has also done tremendous work - for example by making nameless money transfers easier (before the attack, or course), by letting big companies sale weapons to whomever, and so on... [what arabs are up to] > > and embarrassing the West in the process. > Well, that's not really a political motivation. That's kind of a > hobby, I suppose. Well, they do have a totally different community structure. They've been taught the right way to live, as have we. Too bad the right ways are not similar. So I think they aim at building a big, working society - and the western economical powers really do harm them in all ways possible. The US won't spend a second thought to start a war (maybe in Iran, next time?) to ensure their supply of cheap oil. Maybe it would be a bit embarrassing for the west to have a united middle east that is not dependent on western money and technology. Too bad they're even more conservative than the majority of the Americans. So maybe they will lose in the long run. > > The Basques. Most of whom don't mind or just ignore the Spanish; it's > > only those few ETA whackos that are making trouble. > And, last I've heard, they've pretty much quieted down. That may have > changed, but news was that the EEC, effectively breaking down most of > the annoying borders anyway, was pretty much good enough for the ETA. The anti-terrorist laws are in any case a great way to gag minorities. Just label them terrorists. I hear RTS (reclaim the streets) has also been declared terrorists in the US. This means, if the anti-terrorist laws are passed here in Europe, we end up being imprisoned for unbounded time for standing on the street. Panu -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 15:48:11 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x5tQ-000NGo-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:47:36 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:47:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x5tF-000NGh-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:47:25 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:47:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x5t7-000NGS-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:47:17 +0300 Received: (qmail 22757 invoked by uid 20150); 15 Apr 2002 12:46:25 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:46:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020414205215.39299.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: [...] > > That would be the thing motivating the fear. No > > politician is afraid > > to speak up; he's afraid of the reaction to his > > comments. > That's rather why Clinton was accused of "governing by > poll", which I never quite understood as the whole > point of democracy is to do what your constituents > want you in there to do. Well, we don't *have* a democracy. Even the Democrats don't believe that we do. We have a (more or less) democratically-elected republic. But, no, I don't see anything wrong (philosophically) with letting the public guide your decision-making. It looks bad in the eyes of the media, though, because you're not doing your own work... [...] > I tend to be inherently suspicious of any arguments > involving the INS. It's a dicey topic, subject to > hijacking by hardcore isolationists like Pat Buchanan, > and I simply don't know enough of the issues involved > to get into discussing it except to say that it's > irresponsible to simply attack immigration in general. Oh, absolutely. I've heard details of what's going on, but I honestly can't quite remember them all. The H1B issue is a major one for my area (having many technology companies and technical schools, people get bent out of shape when major companies are staffed almost entirely by non-locals who don't have to pay taxes), and that's gotten to the point where even I almost consider it "out of hand." > > He also signed everybody's favorite act into law, > > the DCMA, and made > > sure the muscle was there to enforce it. > Another point conceded, I suppose; unlike his VP > Clinton wasn't the most plugged in of people when it > came to technology. While true, one would think that the carte blanche given to copyright holders would set off *somebody*'s alarm bells, whether or not you've worked with computers. Especially if you've gone to law school and had to write large papers that pretty much rely on "fair use." > > > The Right was on > > > Clinton before he even got the Democratic > > nomination. > > Hell, the New York Times (hardly "The Right" by a > > long shot) called him > > a "Gary Hart wannabe." Another reference to him > > suggested that "any > > Republican who doesn't drool on himself in public" > > should be able to > > win the election. > That would be irony, John :-) And, I'll grant you, while Bush didn't *drool* on himself, there was the incident in Japan. [...] > > One would > > think that "the most > > powerful man in the free world" could find *someone* > > who's decent > > looking and has a good head on her shoulders. > I personally find Monica to be rather attractive. Not > a ten by any stretch, but not ugly. (Hell, Linda Tripp > isn't even that bad looking, since the surgery...) OK, not *hideous*, and they've gotten better since they've dropped out of the public eye, but we're talking about the President! I mean, I've got friends that should be collecting tolls from billy goats who have had more attractive girlfriends... [...] > > Well, yeah. But I have my suspicions that Gore > > wanted to be the > > "taking a stand against Communism" guy, once he was > > elected (which > > explains the rather bizarre stance the government > > took with Elian > > Gonzalez and the jet incident in China). That is, > > the issue wasn't > > that he was doing anything strange, per se, but > > rather that *he* was > > making such a big deal about it being normal. > "Taking a stand against Communism"... lovely. > Embracing an anachronism to win a vote that he'd never > get anyway (the Cuban-American branch of the Right). True, but like Bushie-poo figured out, America thrives when there are enemies pounding at the door. If you have to prop up an old enemy and provoke it into doing something you disklike, well, then so be it... [...George Pataki...] > What is his image in New York state anyway? Is it > anything like that guy from Minnesota or > Massachusetts' own esteemed lame duck hatchet queen? He...uhm... Well, he... He doesn't really *have* an image. At least down on Long Island (the little spit of sand sticking out to the right of New York City), he's pretty much some pleasant-enough fellow that wanders through from time to time. I don't dislike him, but I'm unconvinced that he participates in the governing process. But, then, once you've seen Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani (former mayors of NYC, for those who don't already know) in action, it's pretty hard not to get jaded... [...] > Explain. All I know about DDT is that it's Not > Terribly Good For You, and that it's still made and > sold in countries that don't care that it's illegal > here. Basically, the studies, while not actively fraudulent, were misrepresented and overblown by Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring." Her major strike was the "significant" reduction in hatching eggs in quail that were fed DDT (a whopping 20% of dead eggs, rather than the 16% in control groups...). Carson apparently jumped from there to "liver carcinogen." At about the same time, the WHO took a close look at overpopulation, and concluded that the simplest ("only") solution was to allow about 40% of the third world population to die of malaria. (Favorite quote, from a now-nameless AID official: "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.") Basically, the eggshell thinning appears to have been a sham, and the cancer thing appears to be a case of ignoring the contradictory evidence. But it does keep the world population manageable... Actually, there turns out to be one real problem with DDT that I've noticed in the literature: Overuse accelerates the refinement, in successive generations of mosquitoes, of (chemically-induced) DDT avoidance behavior. > > As a culture (possibly as a species, though I'm not > > familiar enough > > with the global political climate), we do not value > > scientific research > > unless it gives us something we can purchase. > How true. You might try asking a particle physicist > about the Superconducting Supercollider some time; you > might want to put the asbestos longjohns on before you > do... Heh. Yes, that's true. 'Cept around here. Right now, we've got either the biggest or second-biggest collider on the planet, out at Brookhaven National Labs (it is, in fact, the one that Leon Lederman always talks about, because he was the administrator out there during the '60s). [...] > > My first impulse was to use the lamb fat as part of > > a roux, replacing > > the butter. I'm guessing that a bit of egg yolk > > (the rest of which'll > > obviously make it into some dessert or other) can > > keep it emulsified > > enough that a little oil could be added without a > > catastrophe arising. > I don't do a lot with eggs in my cooking, so I > couldn't say. I bake a lot, so eggs are always on-hand. The fact that they make good emulsifiers is a handy side-benefit. > However, the roux idea is an interesting > one; I did it a few weeks ago with pan drippings from > a pot roast. The main downside is that a roux made > with beef fat is pretty vile, but that goes away when > you mix it with something. Yeah, I could imagine having to doctor that. Sounds like my early experiments with soy milk (which were utter failures). > > Of course, I still need to find a real butcher, > > since the idea of > > buying my meat on a styrofoam plate, wrapped in > > plastic is still a bit > > unnerving to me... > You could always try Whole Foods, if there's one near > you and you don't mind their prices. Much of what's > left of the A&P chain is down here on Cape Cod > (there's one less than a mile from my house), and they > have a sorta butcher shop as well as the regular meat > cases. No such thing, around here. Plus, I'm really looking for a "walk into the shop, chat with the butcher, find out what's fresh, and get the good cuts" kind of place. I've already found an organic farm where I get vegetables, eggs, and poultry (don't give a crap about "organic" food, but I can guarantee the food is fresh), but they (obviously, since the climate's not good for them, down here) don't do cows and stuff. And if I can find someplace with water buffalo milk, I can readapt my mozzerella recipe and get it right...but that, at least, is an obvious pipe dream... From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 16:28:24 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x6UT-000NXk-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:25:53 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:25:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x6UL-000NXd-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:25:45 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:25:44 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x6UE-000NXG-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:25:39 +0300 Received: (qmail 22928 invoked by uid 20150); 15 Apr 2002 13:24:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:24:35 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: lamb In-Reply-To: <20020414211430.62766.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > [...] > > > I honestly don't know if cooking qualifies as > > esoteric > > > (though some Ming Tsai/Stan Frankenthaler/Masaharu > > > Morimoto Asian Fusion recipes would definitely be on > > > topic :-) ), but I do have to say that if anyone here > > > ever winds up doing a huge meal like that, it's > > > actually possible to do something that big all by > > > yourself if you organize well. > > Most holidays I do turkey, stuffing, gravy, a > > handful of vegetables, > > and biscuits all from scratch. If I arrange it > > right, it comes to just > > about six hours (plus another hour or two for the > > bread machine to make > > the bread for the stuffing). > Do you do anything different from basic white? I'm not a fan of white bread. I'll usually go for whole wheat and oat as a base, and then add whatever might match the vegetables, like corn meal and/or walnuts. > I haven't used my bread machine since we moved, but it > sounds like a pretty good idea. You want some real > fun, use commercial bread flour; it's practically > useless for regular baking but it works just fine if > you have a bread machine or mixer. King Arthur sells > it; I don't know if anyone else does. You mean as opposed to the "normal" bread flour? I'll have to look into that. > > The really nice thing about it is that the only > > things you have to know > > are: > > - How big the turkey is (to get the cooking time) > > - Make the gravy from a roux > I seldom make traditional gravy; I've never really > learned how Heh. Make a roux. Add drippings. Whisk and let it sit. > and a deglace with a simple flour > thickener is more fun anyway. I remember the first > time my sister saw me dumping Sutter Home Merlot into > a roast beef pan... she couldn't believe it. Now that > she's been waitressing for a few years, she > understands a bit better, I think. I'd probably do that, but since I don't drink, I don't usually have wine sitting around the kitchen (and I can't really bring myself to buy a bottle just to play with). And cooking wine is thoroughly vile. > > - Adding Cream of Wheat to a biscuit recipe gives it > > a nicer texture > Hmm... I wonder if cornmeal would work as well. Cornmeal changes the texture in a slightly different (also good) way. Basically, the Cream of Wheat sort of replaces gluten development, giving you a...not quite "flaky," but it's light and soft. Corn meal supplements this neatly, and makes it slightly crispy at points, but not consistently (which I like). > Might > try something like that next time I whip out the > Bisquick. Ack! That's nasty...Try this: 2c flour (or, rather, at least 1c flour, and the other cup "dry stuff" that you want to play with, like corn meal) 1T baking powder 1/2t salt 1/3c butter 3/4c milk Preheat the oven to 450, and stir the dry ingredients. Cut in the butter (until it looks like coarse cornmeal), and stir in milk. The recipe talks about kneading it and cutting it into biscuits, but I usually just roll it into balls. Either way, bake 'em for about 12min. > > - You must own a ricer to make mashed potatoes; bake > > them, shove them > > through the ricer, add milk, and reheat > I don't use a ricer, just a wire masher. Does the job > just fine. The advantage I find to the ricer is that once you shove them through, you're essentially done. Very little fluid is actually necessary to turn it into food. > (Besides, I use red potatoes and leave the > skins on -- I sincerely doubt you can do that without > fouling the ricer.) True, but I'll usually either toss the skins in while the potatoes are reheating or use them as garnish or something (depending on how cute I'm looking to be). > A couple of cloves of fresh garlic, some sour cream, > and a ton of butter are always nice too. Incidentally, > I know a lot of pro chefs out there hate garlic > presses, but if you're not going to go through the > trouble of roasting your garlic for garlic smashed, a > nice Zyliss press is always a good idea. (I use mine > all the time, or at least did until it was packed away > when we moved.) I watched too much Graham Kerr growing up. There is One, True Way(tm) to prepare garlic, and that's to smash it with a solid object (those flat pastry-scooper things work great), and run a knife through the remains. Unless you're cooking for someone who doesn't like heavy garlic. Then you slice it thinly. Oh, and keep a lemon handy, so you don't smell like this is what you've done... > > Other than that, you're free to wing the entire > > deal, and you really > > can't go too far wrong (although apples in the > > stuffing weren't a big > > hit; I liked it, though). > I once used apples and walnuts in a chicken stir fry. > The end result was pretty good, but the entire dish > turned purple. I think it was a walnut side effect. Very possibly. Actually, I'd guess that the acids from the apple didn't help, either. But it sounds like a decent idea, maybe with some brie or something (and fresh apple bits) dropped in at serving time. > > > I should write a cookbook... no wait, in a sense I am > > > (ObPlug: http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/food). > > > Actually... esoteric food in general. Anyone have any > > > commentaries, apart from deconstructing episodes of > > > Iron Chef? > > Depends on your definitions. I was on an "African > > Fusion" kick for a > > while (for example, stir-fried spinach and peanuts > > with garlic, feta > > cheese, and corn bread); that went well. Corn > That sounds pretty good. I might try that some time. Works very well. Specifically, I used a real frying pan, and some butter. I dropped in some diced onion and crushed garlic, dumped in some crushed peanuts, and then added the spinach. Drop some uncooked peanuts (whole) on top, and you're done. > > pudding with grilled > > tempeh has also figured in rather nicely. Most > Ugh.. I *hate* tempeh... Depends what you do with it. Actually, that's what I made last night, but instead of the tempeh (which I seem to be out of), I tossed walnuts and goat cheese into the recipe. Once I realized that it had to be cooked a bit longer, it came out almost fine. There's a kink or two that needs to be worked out, as I ended up with a "corn layer," and a brownish "pudding layer." Obviously, the base needs to be thicker. > > things that I fry > > (chicken, mozzerella sticks, and the like), I make > > my own "bread" > > crumbs out of corn meal, ground Bac-Os (one of the > > few times I demand a > > name brand), oat and wheat bran, and ground nuts > Well, with something like that a brand name is > important. It's like soy milk: if you use Westsoy in > your coffee bar and switch to some other brand, your > soy-swilling customers will notice. Well, it's more than that. Being, essentially, fried soy flakes (and kosher, too, which scared the heck out of some Jewish friends in college), they grind into a nifty powder. > > (usually peanuts). > That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure about the > bran... It's partly for bulk, partly for texture, and partly to bring back some of the wheat taste. I happen to like it, but my sister finds it kind of repulsive (she actually doesn't really care for the nuts, either). The amusing thing, though, is that it *smells* like a full meal when they're frying. > > I also frequently make what could be construed as a > > "meatless potato > > stew," which basically means I start a pot of water > > boiling, pare a few > > potatoes, and throw in bits of whatever is about to > > go bad... > Cream of Last Wednesday, basically. More or less. > > Oh, and I make my own pasta. None of that machine > > crap for me. A cup > > of flour, an egg, some olive oil, a rolling pin, and > Olive oil? I bet it probably tastes good, but I would > think that makes a very delicate pasta. Oh, not too much. A drop or two, maximum (depending on humidity). You ever make pie crust? You know that point where you drip in cold water to get it to form a ball? That's what the oil does. > Fat and gluten > development don't get along so well; can I presume > that overcooking it even a little is a risky > proposition? I actually wouldn't know. I generally undercook my pasta, and let it sort of self-cook in the sauce (generally alfredo or vague vegetable, for me, since I'm not a big tomato fan). > > a knife. Takes > > about fifteen minutes to get dinner (including > > cleanup), which is about > > how long it takes me to make boxed pasta... > I just don't like fresh pasta as much as I like dry > pasta. Not necessarily that one is better than the > other; they're pretty much held on the same level in > Italy. Yeah, I can see that there could be a preference. I don't notice a big difference (other than the lack of semolina flour in mine), personally, but I know people with strong preferences in each direction. I also have to point out that it's a really bad idea (which I figured intuitively, before testing it) to try to make anything resembling macaroni and cheese with fresh pasta (since the cheese really doesn't have anywhere to cling). > That said, I have yet to be treated to the delights of > maccheroni alla chitarra. > > > My upcoming batch of experiments (aside from > > building a better apple > > pie, which I don't think I can do more than once a > > month without having > > to buy bigger pants) involves (wheat-) flourless > > bread, since I'd like > > a change of pace sometimes. Powdered almond looks > > like it might be > > just about right for flour, though it'll need > > gluten. So, that's where > > I'm starting... > Now *that's* esoteric! Kind of, I guess. Part of it is that I have a few friends who have various problems with digesting bread products. I'd like to find a general enough "fix" that, while I don't expect it to be "bread" at the end, will at least be servicible and tasty. > I see the fat problem popping up again, though -- try > it, but don't be too surprised if you just get gooey > marzipan out of the deal. Well, I figure cutting the other fats will definitely help. And, I seem to remember there being ways of "binding" the excess lipids in food. That's just a matter of research, though. > > Heh. Some of that may be esoteric, depending on > > what you're used to. > I guess I'm a bit more into the food science end of it > right now (Shirley Corriher is my hero, or at least > number three behind Claudia Roden and Julia), I actually find Hillman's books to be slightly more adept and...well, entertaining. And, I'm a fairly big fan (as mentioned) of Graham Kerr. He's currently on a super-health kick, which leads to rather disgusting food choices, but when it comes to preparation ideas, the man is an absolute genius. > but I do > like to just have fun with food. Most of the time it > works (though please don't ask me about the time I > tried to throw the book out on tuna salad; it was a > disaster). Heh. I have a few incidents like that. Only one was in the presence of company, leading to the, "you know? Let's go out," solution. > The web page I mentioned above has a recipe > called "Neither French Nor Toast; Discuss" which was a > very well recieved Asianized version of American > breakfast; that I think is where fusion is the most > fun, when you transpose whole styles to completely > different ingredients. A fairly neat idea, by the way. I'll have to try that, next time I make bread. I would actually imagine that, as long as you're not overly concerned about solid pieces of bread, that even weird things like biscuits could work out, here. > (I've made chicken marengo as a > stirfry, and my potroast attempt was almost Boeuf > Bourgignon in disguise.) I suppose that would make a certain amount of sense. > Get the America's Test Kitchen cookbook; there's some > interesting esoterica in there, like the Coke-glazed > ham and the buttermilk brine they used on fried > chicken. I think that was on my list, somewhere. But, darn it, I finally corralled all the cookbooks onto one set of shelves (in the kitchen), though... From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 16:49:03 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x6qh-000Nfq-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:48:52 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:48:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x6qZ-000Nfj-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:48:44 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:48:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from glisan.hevanet.com ([198.5.254.5]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x6qX-000Nfd-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:48:41 +0300 Received: from [130.94.161.238] (130-94-161-238-dsl.hevanet.com [130.94.161.238]) by glisan.hevanet.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FDmbk23175 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:48:38 -0700 Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils From: Daniel To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cristofd@hevanet.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cristofd@hevanet.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc >>> To me, at least, those are both *extremely* scary people. I have >>> serious problems with anyone wanting to expend effort and money to >>> prevent a problem they're not sure exists. >> Would you bother to step off a train track if there were a 50% chance a >> train were coming? 20%? How have you lived this long? > > You're assuming that Global Warming is something--if it's even relevant > to talk about it as a problem--that we can just dodge (like moving off > of train tracks). That it is something we could prevent or at least mitigate with a certain amount of work, yes. > You're also assuming that trains are invisible, > silent things, and that people are prone to standing on railroad > tracks, but that's all irrelevant to your point, I suppose. Correct: the analogy is faulty in these respects, making it probably a rhetorical failure, but they shouldn't affect the sense. My point was that precautionary action is justified not only when one is certain that a disaster is coming, but also when there is a significant likelihood that a disaster is coming. A person who doesn't take precautions on a probabilistic basis doesn't usually live long. > Let me ask you a similar question: If you have a vague feeling that a > building you're in might collapse, do you immediately jump out the > nearest window? Do you insist that the building be immediately > condemned and a new one built (even if you're not sure why or if this > one's a problem)? Or, perhaps, you start replacing girders on your own > (without the benefit of training), because, hell, at least you'll be > doing something? There is an important distinction between "not sure" and "possessing a vague feeling". "Not sure" includes the case where there's no evidence, but it also includes cases where there's a lot of good evidence but scientists are being somewhat tentative in their pronouncements the way good scientists are; it includes the case where (as usual) there is some dispute about the details or about the magnitude of an effect; and it includes (or is in practice used to describe) the case where some scientists are paid by interested parties to be vocally unsure and to denigrate the reliability of research unfavorable to the interests of those parties. Here, anyway, is the webpage of the panel the UN formed to study and synthesize the scientific literature bearing on the issue. http://www.ipcc.ch/ The panel's Third Assessment Report, published last year, contains many findings that seem to merit concern and precautionary action, while noting many uncertainties of detail. So much for "vague feeling". The other flaw in the building analogy is that almost nobody is proposing really drastic measures (e.g. banning all use of fossil fuels starting next year), which is what "jump out the window" and "condemn the building immediately" seem to suggest. Nor is anyone suggesting that people who know nothing about the matter decide unaided what to do about it, as your third option suggests. (Though that is what seems to be happening in the US.) A true story about what I consider a reasonable way to leave a building: a year ago I lived in an apartment building from around 1915, a crummy unreinforced-masonry job. There'd been two small earthquakes in the last decade or so, various ones previous to that, and repeated warnings from seismologists that a far larger one was a continuous possibility. (No predictions about what year, of course.) After a third small earthquake I went down to the university and heard from some geologist there who was talking about the quake that there was something like a 10% likelihood of a larger quake in the next couple days. I stayed elsewhere for a few days to avoid that immediate danger, then returned to my apartment. Soon after, I started looking casually for somewhere else to live and some months later I moved out. > Last I heard, even in non-scientific circles, problem-solving involves > identifying the source of symptoms and, if the symptoms are identified > as a genuine problem, treat the source. If and when there is time for that, that's plainly the right way to go about it. In many real situations, perfect knowledge is not available when one needs it, and so one has to weigh likelihoods, risks, and benefits. Perfect consensus is probably never going to be forthcoming. (Anyone who went on smoking on the basis that the Tobacco Institute scientists said it was harmless, and that therefore there wasn't consensus that there was any danger involved, would have been severely misguided. Even though quitting is a difficult and painful step.) > If that's offensive to you, I > apologize, but the idea of tilting against windmills just for the sake > of looking busy is simply not the way I was brought up, and no amount > of activist screaming and science-bashing is going to change how these > things need to happen. -It's not the way I was brought up either; -Nor does it now appear appealing, which is a separate issue; -Few things would delight me more than to be honestly able to believe humanity was safe and that we had another ten thousand years in which to solve all our problems by gradual "evolutionary" changes; -Neither activist nor inactivist ("passivist"? "quietist"?) screaming, or talking for that matter, will change what needs to be done. Nor, I suspect, will either change what WILL be done. -I have not said anything that could reasonably be construed as anti-science, mostly because I am in fact strongly in favor of science. -Daniel. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 17:32:12 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x7WK-000NqJ-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:52 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x7WC-000NqD-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:44 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16x7WA-000Nq7-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:42 +0300 Received: (qmail 23354 invoked by uid 20150); 15 Apr 2002 14:31:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:31:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > Heh. May I join in? No. It's a closed li--oh, no, wait. What the heck are you asking for? Hey, weren't you originally involved in the conversation!? > Forget I'm "non-US". There is well enough US politics > in Finnish newspapers to form opinions about Clinton, Bush and > companions... I'm actually frequently interested in seeing what things look like, particularly across Eurasia. > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, John Colagioia wrote: > > > Did Bush have a platform, at least one that he was > > > able to talk about in public? > > Nothing other than "whatever it is that Republicans believe in." Usual > > schtick of anti-abortion, laissez-faire economics (for major > > corporations), and the like. > What I find very interesting is that the republicans do not actually > embrace laissez-faire economics, at least not in the passive sense. They do, but (a) only for big companies, and (b) only when things are going well. > For > example, when the American air operators had difficulties after 11/9 (or > whichever order you write dates in:) Technically, I choose not to use dates for events, since dates have this pesky problem of being cyclical. I also like using words for my months, rather than numbers, but I guess that's just the Luddite in me... > the government didn't let them die > away. Even when--quite frankly--they deserved their fate. It was fairly well-known (to everyone except the media, as far as I can tell) that the airlines were in deep trouble, last summer/fall. American Airlines had publically admitted that they were seriously considering bankruptcy. Then the attack came along, and they had an excuse, and the government also had an excuse to bail them out. While I disagree with the policy, I understand it in this case: Without the airlines, a good chunk of circulating money (even if you don't include taxes) stays out of the economy, which is an unhealthy thing for a country. > This is worrying because I deem the hegemony of big companies the > biggest _problem_ of capitalism. Oh, I don't know. "Unfair competitive practices" (whatever those are) aside, I tend to see it as an annoyance, rather than a hindrance. The startup company *should* have obstacles, if it's planning to directly compete with established entities. I mean, people tend not to get rich by doing what everyone else has already been doing for years, right? > I do respect the Americans for doing as much by themselves as possible - That's probably another "media-colored misconception," but I'll let it slide, since I may be too close to the source... > I'm trying to teach people here in Finland what massive influence small > companies have for the society. I think the best economical situation is > that of as many companies as possible founded to handle some > previously-known need, for example providing a service for the employees > themselves. When the companies become big, some serious problems arise: > it becomes easier to acquire customers by open advertising than aimed > information, there is the possibility of a company having its fingers in > much everything and being that way able to affect the media etc., and the > company is better off making people need things than asking what needs > they already have and fulfilling those. Yes. In my ideal socioeconomic climate, starting a company is a trivial process, so just this sort of thing is feasible. As it stands, though, the fact that paperwork has to be filed, here, is probably an insurmountable obstacle for many people...not to mention the change in taxation and other weirdness. > The only well working solution to this that I've seen is to progressively > set more restrictions to companies as they become bigger. It is difficult, > but essential, to balance between company progress not being profitable at > all and companies having so much power that they can effectively set their > own rules. And maybe it's just my point of view, but it does seem that the > US is deep in the latter extreme. It is, and--let's face it--with good (though not healthy) reason: The people who make the laws own, run, or own large parts of, major companies. Oh, but they can't get *too* big, or we go after them for violating antitrust laws. Oh, except if it's a *utility* sucking out your money. Then they're essential, and the government won't touch them. Or, if they do, they'll dismantle the company and put the same people back in charge (which happened here a few years ago). > As an example (and an aside), it seems Bush (or actually the Bushes) > get profit of the terrorist attack in at least three ways: Bush gets > better publicity; the family clearly has common interests with the weapon > industry; and the US goverment gets an Afghanistan government which will > negotiate economic affairs, unlike the Taliban. There's also the ever-important "surge of patriotism." People are joining the military (meaning the military can ask for more funding, again), and they'll support whatever the government does, because it wouldn't be nice to attack from within when we have "blatant enemies" without. > All in all, it seems again > just one reason to force poor countries to drop their protectionism when > the rich countries continue to keep their markets relatively closed. Pretty much, yes. > It all comes down to whom you trust. With this much economical and > political interest in the war, it would probably have been started anyway, > with the slightest excuse. As I mentioned elsewhere, China and Cuba were probably our alternatives, had this not come our way. > Why would there then be any reason to suppose > that the war did get started because Osama was behind the attack? Nope. To my knowledge, he has yet to announce his involvement. Yes, he's praised the attackers. That's a far cry from being in charge, though. > It is > extremely easy to spread oversimplistic attitudes in a country where half > the population hits you in the face if you say you think the president is > a liar... Ah, you noticed that, as well, eh...? > What I find worrisome in the American attitude is that there seems to be > some kind of generally accepted moral code in the US: there's always a > culprit and a hero; Yes. And the hero is *always* identifiable by his lack of "a good start" and his dedication. > you are expected to weep when some pretty animal gets > hurt; Nah. Just the ones that you might keep as pets. > freedom is the best thing there is; I have to admit a certain bias, here. I'd much rather everyone fall on their faces doing their own thing than thrive by following the party line. > "originality" means that you > don't agree about everything with your neighborhood; and so on. Yep. Contrast this with "freedom," incidentally, and you get the source of much humor. > Then all > you need to do to convince people that someone is bad is to say that s/he > acts against freedom; all you need to do to convince people that someone > is not to be taken seriously is to say s/he's "weird"; and all you have to > do to get the right to kill / harm someone is to tell s/he is bad. And, from what I've seen, most people are really like that. You just need to find the current values of the culture, and find a reliable scapegoat. > > > > I'm not so sure about that. I mean, Clinton did bunches of things > > > > in office which were demonstrably in violation of his oath of office > > > > and the parameters of the position, none of which had anything to do > > > > with real estate or sex with ugly people. If they > > > The question is, by whose standards? > > Well, from what I gather, he was responsible for "defanging" the INS to > > the point where known terrorists and (a local problem where I am) H1B > > people (foreign technical workers, mostly) could get visas without a > > second glance. > Do you really think all terrorists come "from the outside"? Certainly not (The Animal Liberation Front scares me far more than al-Qaeda, to be blunt). However, records (which *could* have been falsified in a cross-agency attack or just to make the story "better," I'll grant you) indicate that almost all the WTC terrorists were recent visa-holders with known histories of terrorist involvement. > That terrorist > attacks can really be prevented by stricter immigration policy? Again, no, because terrorism is effectively impossible to *prevent*. But a certain, relevant subset of attacks can be hampered with a stricter policy without needing to harass those people who already live and work here. > I know > that if the US used looser immigration policy than it does, it would > probably drown in immigrants (as it does now, but that's a different > matter) - but, frankly, I don't think the authorities have any chance to > spot potential terrorists from those who want to come into the US. Even > now the US government seems to be throwing enormous sums of money down the > drain to keep up "safety"; it is as if Americans really believed that you > can make safety just by building up protection. Quite a few do believe exactly that. We're trained to believe (like most computer people are in a slightly different respect) that security and freedom are antagonistic concepts, and you only get one at the expense of the other. Therefore, if you want safety, we need to spend money on searching everyone who comes near an airport. [...] > It will be a long way to safety... by supporting big > companies, Bush effectively is making the US a third-world country... Heh...We prefer the term "developing nation," if you please... More seriously, though, support of business is actually more a symptom than a cause. The real "problem" (if you even want to call it that; I'm not sure I do, quite yet) is the fact that the United States no longer has an existence, beyond a few lines on a map and a bunch of laws. Our economy is built around multinational corporations that, of course, aren't beholden to the government (meaning they can up and move someplace cheaper, if anything happens that they don't like). Even the Federal Reserve Board is a non-governmental organization made up of international bank personnel. The United States government has, effectively, spent the last sixty or so years turning themselves into a banana republic (no, not the clothing store). There's a certain irony and elegance to it all, but those things just never really end well... > Back to the original issue, I think the question remains valid: by whose > standards are Clinton's actions against his oath of office? The standards under which a president can be impeached (and removed from office) by Congress. > Bush does > also a lot of things which are not only in principle destructive but also > illegal (nominating Osama bin Laden for head-hunting, for example), Actually, that's only illegal if he re-signed the ban on government- sanctioned assassination which, as I'm sure you recall, he neglected to do... > but > the Americans see nothing wrong in that. Why? Is it that so many American > have dropped back into the dream of "this is what we have to do". It's the only way this country has been known to work, honestly. It took WWII to pull us out of the Depression, for example, and the Cold War caused the biggest economic boom the country has seen. > As of making the terrorists' work easier, that's an activity where Bush > has also done tremendous work - for example by making nameless money > transfers easier (before the attack, or course), by letting big companies > sale weapons to whomever, and so on... I'm not sure if those are necessarily a major step. I mean, they can be exploited, yes, but the more rigorous systems could also be exploited, and the people exploiting them were very good at it. [...] > > > The Basques. Most of whom don't mind or just ignore the Spanish; it's > > > only those few ETA whackos that are making trouble. > > And, last I've heard, they've pretty much quieted down. That may have > > changed, but news was that the EEC, effectively breaking down most of > > the annoying borders anyway, was pretty much good enough for the ETA. > The anti-terrorist laws are in any case a great way to gag minorities. They always have been, and always will be. > Just label them terrorists. I hear RTS (reclaim the streets) has also been > declared terrorists in the US. I must have missed that one on the list. Not surprising, since it was a pretty long list. > This means, if the anti-terrorist laws are > passed here in Europe, we end up being imprisoned for unbounded time for > standing on the street. Ooh. Don't you feel much safer, now...? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 15 22:38:47 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xCIs-000OiI-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:38:18 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:38:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xCIf-000OiC-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:38:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:38:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xCIX-000Oi5-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:37:58 +0300 Received: (qmail 26161 invoked by uid 20150); 15 Apr 2002 19:37:12 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:37:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Daniel wrote: [...] > Here, anyway, is the webpage of the panel the UN formed to study and > synthesize the scientific literature bearing on the issue. > http://www.ipcc.ch/ Hee, hee. I love these guys. First, to get the usual barely-relevant crap out of the way, the IPCC is a part of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change--the group whose primary purpose is to push Kyoto. Their top science guy is Sir John Houghton, who is well-known for pretty much delivering his verdict on Global Warming long before evidence arrived. And, my personal favorite, a primary financier of their work is the US Global Change Research Program--a government organization whose sole objective is Global Warming research. Therefore, their "findings" are about as unbiased as, oh, I don't know, those that General Motors might publish. As I've said over and over again, though, the fact that messengers have an agenda does not, a priori, negate their message. So, we'll look at their evidence. I bring it up only because any data I bring to the table will undoubtedly be decried as being produced by the vast Right- Wing Conspiracy(tm) that wants to steal your bodily fluids, and I feel we should be on even footing, here. Figure 2 of their "Scientific Basis" report (p26) shows the "global climate deviation." This is a fascinating piece of evidence, to be honest. First, it's amazing how most of the years are significantly *below* average (making me wonder how the "average value" was chosen). Ignoring that for the moment, though, note the obvious peak around WWII (a time when, yes, greenhouse gases would've suddenly been produced heavily, so that much does track) followed by an immediate drop thereafter, which lasts for a good thirty years (and, during which, one assumes we produced equal amounts of gases). The drop is lamely covered by the IPCC as the result of atmospheric aerosols reflecting solar radiation, by the way. They pop up through vulcanism in the 1950s and just...stop in 1970, I guess. I wasn't born until after that, though, so I can't verify or deny that this was the case, I suppose... The third item of note, here, is that there is the largest increase (followed by a consistent rise) around 1975-80, which happens to be the time when most atmospheric research labs either moved to less rural areas (like those in Illinois, I believe), or had urban areas "sprout" around them (like in Arizona). These, the IPCC states themselves, are unmodified numbers, because they're certain that the urban setting (with asphalt and the like soaking up heat) won't bias the numbers. Temperature readings from aerial tests show no such rise, incidentally, and the IPCC claims them all to be flawed. Literally handwaved away on p27-8. Tree ring data is notably absent, from what I can see. There are also big names in the global climate field, like Richard Courtney (alas, not knighted, so he can't carry the same weight as Houghton...), Peter Dietze, Vincent Gray, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, and others have concluded that there are a lot of other critical omissions (like studies showing that pre-industrial carbon dioxide was more prevalent than it is now) and is generally overblown. I give them credit for recognizing ozone as a greenhouse gas, though, rather than linking ozone depletion with global warming; I've seen that in too many "technical" articles. Finally, if you check page 37 of their same document, you'll see that their "scientific understanding" of factors isn't what it could be. Of twelve presumed factors, they "kinda" understand *nine* of them, including albedo and sulphates. The only one they even claim to understand is our favorite, "greenhouse gases," which by points above (using their own data), is pretty obvious isn't a very thorough understanding. Now, interestingly, Mark Jacobson (of Stanford) published an article two years ago with evidence showing that soot (and soot complexes forming in the atmosphere, which I believe the IPCC classifies as "Mineral Dust") almost certainly has a greater effect than carbon dioxide, but the IPCC chooses to ignore him. Most likely, this is because his numbers (using the IPCC models, but putting soot on-par with carbon dioxide in historical and projected results) shows a maximum of a one degree (Centigrade) increase in temperature over the next century. > The panel's Third Assessment Report, published last year, contains many > findings that seem to merit concern and precautionary action, while noting > many uncertainties of detail. So much for "vague feeling". If you got that from reading their report, then you might want to brush up on your technical reading skills, and *perhaps* find additional sources. Nature magazine is *usually* fairly good at actually publishing verifiable results, whether or not they're politically correct, for example. That's where Jacobson's report was printed, for example. So, in the presence of data that the IPCC apparently couldn't care less about, I'm going to downgrade their alarmism back to "vague feeling." [...] > If and when there is time for that, that's plainly the right way to go about > it. In many real situations, perfect knowledge is not available when one > needs it, and so one has to weigh likelihoods, risks, and benefits. Perfect > consensus is probably never going to be forthcoming. (Anyone who went on > smoking on the basis that the Tobacco Institute scientists said it was > harmless, and that therefore there wasn't consensus that there was any > danger involved, would have been severely misguided. Even though quitting is > a difficult and painful step.) Sidebar: There was a recent study (last five years, as I recall) that indicated that cigarette smoke contains enough albedo that it reduces global warming and, therefore, anti-smoking campaigns were actually contributing to our demise. Real scientists, too. Nobody from the tobacco companies. > > If that's offensive to you, I > > apologize, but the idea of tilting against windmills just for the sake > > of looking busy is simply not the way I was brought up, and no amount > > of activist screaming and science-bashing is going to change how these > > things need to happen. [...] > -I have not said anything that could reasonably be construed as > anti-science, mostly because I am in fact strongly in favor of science. That you can't be bothered to critically review evidence you cite suggests a bias against the scientific process to me. Likewise your willingness to act on severely flawed data and analysis, and your faith in the IPCC (a political organization with a known agenda, remember) to provide you with reliable, propaganda-free data and plans of action. And, with that, I think it's best that I bow out of the discussion before this devolves entirely into a shouting match. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 16 07:53:57 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xKyM-00005x-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:53:42 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:53:35 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xKyE-00005q-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:53:34 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:53:32 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10906.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.42]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xKy2-00005j-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:53:22 +0300 Message-ID: <20020416045318.49746.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:53:18 PDT Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:53:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: lamb To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > --- John Colagioia wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I honestly don't know if cooking qualifies as > > > esoteric > > > > (though some Ming Tsai/Stan > Frankenthaler/Masaharu > > > > Morimoto Asian Fusion recipes would definitely > be on > > > > topic :-) ), but I do have to say that if > anyone here > > > > ever winds up doing a huge meal like that, > it's > > > > actually possible to do something that big all > by > > > > yourself if you organize well. > > > Most holidays I do turkey, stuffing, gravy, a > > > handful of vegetables, > > > and biscuits all from scratch. If I arrange it > > > right, it comes to just > > > about six hours (plus another hour or two for > the > > > bread machine to make > > > the bread for the stuffing). > > Do you do anything different from basic white? > > I'm not a fan of white bread. I'll usually go for > whole wheat and oat > as a base, and then add whatever might match the > vegetables, like corn > meal and/or walnuts. Makes sense. It's always been Pepperidge Farm around here. Could be worse; could be Stove Top... > > I haven't used my bread machine since we moved, > but it > > sounds like a pretty good idea. You want some real > > fun, use commercial bread flour; it's practically > > useless for regular baking but it works just fine > if > > you have a bread machine or mixer. King Arthur > sells > > it; I don't know if anyone else does. > > You mean as opposed to the "normal" bread flour? > I'll have to look > into that. It's not that hard to find in New England; any decent-sized supermarket around here should have it. The problem is that I get the sense that King Arthur is still somewhat of a regional brand (their all-purpose is fairly high-protein for an all-purpose, so it wouldn't fly down south in the Biscuit Belt), so anywhere too far away from Vermont it might not be readily available. > > > The really nice thing about it is that the only > > > things you have to know > > > are: > > > - How big the turkey is (to get the cooking > time) > > > - Make the gravy from a roux > > I seldom make traditional gravy; I've never really > > learned how > > Heh. Make a roux. Add drippings. Whisk and let it > sit. Well, yeah, but... > > and a deglace with a simple flour > > thickener is more fun anyway. I remember the first > > time my sister saw me dumping Sutter Home Merlot > into > > a roast beef pan... she couldn't believe it. Now > that > > she's been waitressing for a few years, she > > understands a bit better, I think. > > I'd probably do that, but since I don't drink, I > don't usually have > wine sitting around the kitchen (and I can't really > bring myself to buy > a bottle just to play with). And cooking wine is > thoroughly vile. Agreed. I say when in doubt use a cheap-but-decent Merlot or Shiraz for gravy; I've gotten burned by less-than-exciting wines going into the pot. It's not bad, it's just plain. > > > - Adding Cream of Wheat to a biscuit recipe > gives it > > > a nicer texture > > Hmm... I wonder if cornmeal would work as well. > > Cornmeal changes the texture in a slightly different > (also good) way. > Basically, the Cream of Wheat sort of replaces > gluten development, > giving you a...not quite "flaky," but it's light and > soft. I will definitely try one or the other. Probably the cornmeal, as I'm more likely to have that lying around. BTW, good breakfast: jonnycakes. I'll see if I can dig up a recipe tomorrow morning, but it's basically just cornmeal and hot water, fried. Not quite polenta, though. > Corn meal supplements this neatly, and makes it > slightly crispy at > points, but not consistently (which I like). > > > Might > > try something like that next time I whip out the > > Bisquick. > > Ack! That's nasty...Try this: > > 2c flour (or, rather, at least 1c flour, and the > other cup "dry > stuff" that you want to play with, like corn meal) > 1T baking powder > 1/2t salt > 1/3c butter > 3/4c milk > Preheat the oven to 450, and stir the dry > ingredients. Cut in the > butter (until it looks like coarse cornmeal), and > stir in milk. > The recipe talks about kneading it and cutting it > into biscuits, but I > usually just roll it into balls. Either way, bake > 'em for about 12min. Maybe, but I've come to like the buttermilk. Besides, we make Bisquick drop biscuits a fair amount in my family for breakfast, and I've found you can make a really good pot pie crust with the dough. > > > - You must own a ricer to make mashed potatoes; > bake > > > them, shove them > > > through the ricer, add milk, and reheat > > I don't use a ricer, just a wire masher. Does the > job > > just fine. > > The advantage I find to the ricer is that once you > shove them through, > you're essentially done. Very little fluid is > actually necessary to > turn it into food. True. > > (Besides, I use red potatoes and leave the > > skins on -- I sincerely doubt you can do that > without > > fouling the ricer.) > > True, but I'll usually either toss the skins in > while the potatoes are > reheating or use them as garnish or something > (depending on how cute > I'm looking to be). Six of one, half dozen of the other I suppose. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to peel them :-) Besides, I like the idea of utterly decadent yet colorful mashed potatoes. (Incidentally, should you ever find yourself in the Arlington, MA area, there's a barbecue joint called the Blue Ribbon. Best mashed potatoes on earth.) > > A couple of cloves of fresh garlic, some sour > cream, > > and a ton of butter are always nice too. > Incidentally, > > I know a lot of pro chefs out there hate garlic > > presses, but if you're not going to go through the > > trouble of roasting your garlic for garlic > smashed, a > > nice Zyliss press is always a good idea. (I use > mine > > all the time, or at least did until it was packed > away > > when we moved.) > > I watched too much Graham Kerr growing up. There is > One, True Way(tm) > to prepare garlic, and that's to smash it with a > solid object (those > flat pastry-scooper things work great), and run a > knife through the > remains. Ah, Garlic Religious Wars. I guess I'm one of the heathens :-) > Unless you're cooking for someone who doesn't like > heavy garlic. Then > you slice it thinly. The classic way of controlling garlic flavor. I try to be a bit heavy-handed with garlic (without overdoing it), and if I'm doing something that doesn't call for it (like my Linguine Pomodoro that I made a few weeks ago) that's when I slice it, so you get a hint of garlic without it permeating everything. > Oh, and keep a lemon handy, so you don't smell like > this is what you've > done... Oh, what's wrong with smelling like garlic :-) I will say one thing, though: I don't use them in everything, but if you put me in a kitchen with no access to lemons, fresh garlic, or olive oil I ain't cookin'. Just as simple as that (even butter is optional most of the time, though it better be unsalted if it's there). > > > Other than that, you're free to wing the entire > > > deal, and you really > > > can't go too far wrong (although apples in the > > > stuffing weren't a big > > > hit; I liked it, though). > > I once used apples and walnuts in a chicken stir > fry. > > The end result was pretty good, but the entire > dish > > turned purple. I think it was a walnut side > effect. > > Very possibly. Actually, I'd guess that the acids > from the apple > didn't help, either. But it sounds like a decent > idea, maybe with some > brie or something (and fresh apple bits) dropped in > at serving time. Possibly. The walnuts and apples seem as though they'd be very Normandy somehow, so go with the French theme -- a little tarragon for flavoring, replace the onions with shallots.... > > > > I should write a cookbook... no wait, in a > sense I am > > > > (ObPlug: > http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/food). > > > > Actually... esoteric food in general. Anyone > have any > > > > commentaries, apart from deconstructing > episodes of > > > > Iron Chef? > > > Depends on your definitions. I was on an > "African > > > Fusion" kick for a > > > while (for example, stir-fried spinach and > peanuts > > > with garlic, feta > > > cheese, and corn bread); that went well. Corn > > That sounds pretty good. I might try that some > time. > > Works very well. Specifically, I used a real frying > pan, and some > butter. I dropped in some diced onion and crushed > garlic, dumped in > some crushed peanuts, and then added the spinach. > Drop some uncooked > peanuts (whole) on top, and you're done. Maybe we should all use more peanuts. I've made pad thai once at home and it was very well recieved (even though I had to remix the sauce because the first batch OD'd on Tabasco). > > > pudding with grilled > > > tempeh has also figured in rather nicely. Most > > Ugh.. I *hate* tempeh... > > Depends what you do with it. Actually, that's what > I made last night, > but instead of the tempeh (which I seem to be out > of), I tossed walnuts > and goat cheese into the recipe. > > Once I realized that it had to be cooked a bit > longer, it came out > almost fine. There's a kink or two that needs to be > worked out, as I > ended up with a "corn layer," and a brownish > "pudding layer." > Obviously, the base needs to be thicker. Eh. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When we first got a microwave oven I don't know how many years ago we tried to make a cheese omelet out of it. It didn't quite work, but I wish I could remember exactly how we did it because what did come out was probably the world's most perfect cheesy scrambled eggs. I still remember that fondly, and I was about 8 at the time. > > > things that I fry > > > (chicken, mozzerella sticks, and the like), I > make > > > my own "bread" > > > crumbs out of corn meal, ground Bac-Os (one of > the > > > few times I demand a > > > name brand), oat and wheat bran, and ground nuts > > Well, with something like that a brand name is > > important. It's like soy milk: if you use Westsoy > in > > your coffee bar and switch to some other brand, > your > > soy-swilling customers will notice. > > Well, it's more than that. Being, essentially, > fried soy flakes (and > kosher, too, which scared the heck out of some > Jewish friends in > college), they grind into a nifty powder. Well, that's my point really. > > > (usually peanuts). > > That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure about > the > > bran... > > It's partly for bulk, partly for texture, and partly > to bring back some > of the wheat taste. I happen to like it, but my > sister finds it kind > of repulsive (she actually doesn't really care for > the nuts, either). > > The amusing thing, though, is that it *smells* like > a full meal when > they're frying. Reminds me of Erma Bombeck once making a wisecrack in one of her books about "throwing an onion in the oven"... > > > Oh, and I make my own pasta. None of that > machine > > > crap for me. A cup > > > of flour, an egg, some olive oil, a rolling pin, > and > > Olive oil? I bet it probably tastes good, but I > would > > think that makes a very delicate pasta. > > Oh, not too much. A drop or two, maximum (depending > on humidity). You > ever make pie crust? You know that point where you > drip in cold water > to get it to form a ball? That's what the oil does. I thought that was candymaking? > > Fat and gluten > > development don't get along so well; can I presume > > that overcooking it even a little is a risky > > proposition? > > I actually wouldn't know. I generally undercook my > pasta, and let it > sort of self-cook in the sauce (generally alfredo or > vague vegetable, > for me, since I'm not a big tomato fan). Fair enough. The problem of course is that fresh pasta is notorious for cooking in about a blink and a half, at least if it's really fresh. > > > a knife. Takes > > > about fifteen minutes to get dinner (including > > > cleanup), which is about > > > how long it takes me to make boxed pasta... > > I just don't like fresh pasta as much as I like > dry > > pasta. Not necessarily that one is better than the > > other; they're pretty much held on the same level > in > > Italy. > > Yeah, I can see that there could be a preference. I > don't notice a big > difference (other than the lack of semolina flour in > mine), personally, > but I know people with strong preferences in each > direction. A lot of it is in what you do with it. You can't make really good ravioli (unless you're Sardinian) with semolina because the texture is too tough; fancy durum flour is more appropriate. It's all in what the final product is supposed to be. > I also have to point out that it's a really bad idea > (which I figured > intuitively, before testing it) to try to make > anything resembling > macaroni and cheese with fresh pasta (since the > cheese really doesn't > have anywhere to cling). Hmmm... except that's exactly what fettucine alfredo is, the world's deadliest mac'n'cheese. Fettucine is usually (though not always) an egg pasta. > > That said, I have yet to be treated to the > delights of > > maccheroni alla chitarra. > > > > > My upcoming batch of experiments (aside from > > > building a better apple > > > pie, which I don't think I can do more than once > a > > > month without having > > > to buy bigger pants) involves (wheat-) flourless > > > bread, since I'd like > > > a change of pace sometimes. Powdered almond > looks > > > like it might be > > > just about right for flour, though it'll need > > > gluten. So, that's where > > > I'm starting... > > Now *that's* esoteric! > > Kind of, I guess. Part of it is that I have a few > friends who have > various problems with digesting bread products. I'd That's what I figured. The problem is usually gluten itself, though. Granted this is taking it out of the realm of esoterica, but the ancient Romans got a lot of mileage out of chestnut polenta. Might be an avenue worth checking out, if you can find the chestnuts. (Speaking of which... I've been to NYC a few times myself, always around Christmas. Some people don't like it, but to me the burnt-toast smell of roasting chestnuts is a thing of beauty. Of course, I also like the smell of boiling beer wort, which a lot of people find truly offensive...) > like to find a > general enough "fix" that, while I don't expect it > to be "bread" at the > end, will at least be servicible and tasty. That does sound good one way or the other though; almond is one of those flavors that are hard to dislike. > > I see the fat problem popping up again, though -- > try > > it, but don't be too surprised if you just get > gooey > > marzipan out of the deal. > > Well, I figure cutting the other fats will > definitely help. And, I > seem to remember there being ways of "binding" the > excess lipids in > food. That's just a matter of research, though. > > > Heh. Some of that may be esoteric, depending on > > > what you're used to. > > I guess I'm a bit more into the food science end > of it > > right now (Shirley Corriher is my hero, or at > least > > number three behind Claudia Roden and Julia), > > I actually find Hillman's books to be slightly more > adept and...well, I do have Kitchen Science; it was one of the first books of that sort I've bought. He is pretty good. And let us not forget Harold McGee, who all the other food science writers look up to as God. > entertaining. And, I'm a fairly big fan (as > mentioned) of Graham Kerr. > He's currently on a super-health kick, which leads > to rather disgusting > food choices, but when it comes to preparation > ideas, the man is an > absolute genius. I've not had the opportunity to get much into him; I know he's been around a long while, but... Actually, I've been watching a lot of TV Food Network (Can you guess, or have I said that already?) and I find Alton Brown to be quite good in that area. I've flipped through his book (can't afford it yet though) and I do think it's probably the next cookbook I buy. > > but I do > > like to just have fun with food. Most of the time > it > > works (though please don't ask me about the time I > > tried to throw the book out on tuna salad; it was > a > > disaster). > > Heh. I have a few incidents like that. Only one > was in the presence > of company, leading to the, "you know? Let's go > out," solution. Well, I'll tell you about the tuna salad anyway. I was trying to make something without mayo and wound up using a bunch of different ingredients apart from the tuna; the only things I can remember were balsamic vinegar and corn kernels. It just tanked. More food esoterica: how's this for fusion? Balsamic vinegar and miso as a stirfry sauce. Really good. > > The web page I mentioned above has a recipe > > called "Neither French Nor Toast; Discuss" which > was a > > very well recieved Asianized version of American > > breakfast; that I think is where fusion is the > most > > fun, when you transpose whole styles to completely > > different ingredients. > > A fairly neat idea, by the way. I'll have to try > that, next time I > make bread. I would actually imagine that, as long > as you're not > overly concerned about solid pieces of bread, that > even weird things > like biscuits could work out, here. Au contraire. You're looking for something that looks sort of like a bowl of noodles garnished with dried fruit; you need something with a fair amount of gluten that won't fall apart too much in the wok. I originally used scala bread. Bagels might work; biscuits won't, I guarantee. You'll get custard pie. > > (I've made chicken marengo as a > > stirfry, and my potroast attempt was almost Boeuf > > Bourgignon in disguise.) > > I suppose that would make a certain amount of sense. > > Get the America's Test Kitchen cookbook; there's > some > > interesting esoterica in there, like the > Coke-glazed > > ham and the buttermilk brine they used on fried > > chicken. > > I think that was on my list, somewhere. But, darn > it, I finally > corralled all the cookbooks onto one set of shelves > (in the > kitchen), though... Guess you'll have to get another shelf. btw, check out ars.flyingember.com, the Ars Technica Bachelor Chow Cookbook -- quite entertaining reading, though you do get the suspicion that a lot of geeks have a rather limited repertoire in the kitchen. Hey, who has this problem: I can cook for an audience just fine, get raves, get told "you should open a restaurant", but if I'm cooking for me I turn into a ramen-slurping neanderthal. /brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 16 14:47:28 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xRQ1-0001yt-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:46:41 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:46:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xRPk-0001ym-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:46:24 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:46:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from glisan.hevanet.com ([198.5.254.5]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xRPh-0001yg-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:46:21 +0300 Received: from [130.94.161.238] (130-94-161-238-dsl.hevanet.com [130.94.161.238]) by glisan.hevanet.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GBkH615605 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:46:18 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:46:20 -0700 Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils From: Daniel To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cristofd@hevanet.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: cristofd@hevanet.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Daniel wrote: > [...] >> Here, anyway, is the webpage of the panel the UN formed to study and >> synthesize the scientific literature bearing on the issue. >> http://www.ipcc.ch/ > > Hee, hee. I love these guys. > > First, to get the usual barely-relevant crap out of the way, the IPCC > is a part of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change--the group > whose primary purpose is to push Kyoto. Their top science guy is Sir > John Houghton, who is well-known for pretty much delivering his verdict > on Global Warming long before evidence arrived. And, my personal > favorite, a primary financier of their work is the US Global Change > Research Program--a government organization whose sole objective is > Global Warming research. Well-known according to whom? And anyone researching global warming has global warming research as an objective--that's a tautology. Don't see what "sole" objective suggests other than a greater degree of specialization. > Therefore, their "findings" are about as unbiased as, oh, I don't know, > those that General Motors might publish. That is possible. I freely admit that I do not have nearly enough background in the field to be able to tell who is lying. It is obvious which side has stronger motives for lying, and more resources to lie with. But that doesn't prove anything. The thing is that given at least a large contingent of scientists who think there's a problem, and given the number of things that people on all sides agree we don't know, it seems sensible to take some basic steps to reduce the effects of human activity on the atmosphere. It seems far safer than to go full steam ahead and trust that there won't be any consequences we can't deal with. > As I've said over and over again, though, the fact that messengers have > an agenda does not, a priori, negate their message. So, we'll look at > their evidence. I bring it up only because any data I bring to the > table will undoubtedly be decried as being produced by the vast Right- > Wing Conspiracy(tm) that wants to steal your bodily fluids, and I feel > we should be on even footing, here. Bodily fluids, hee hee. And "conspiracy" has become a funny word these days too, because we all know that people in positions of high corporate or governmental power are too honest or too stupid to bend the rules secretly. > Figure 2 of their "Scientific Basis" report (p26) shows the "global > climate deviation." This is a fascinating piece of evidence, to be > honest. First, it's amazing how most of the years are significantly > *below* average (making me wonder how the "average value" was chosen). It says in the graph that "average" means the average for 1961 to 1990. Good question why, I grant. > Ignoring that for the moment, though, note the obvious peak around WWII > (a time when, yes, greenhouse gases would've suddenly been produced > heavily, so that much does track) followed by an immediate drop > thereafter, which lasts for a good thirty years (and, during which, one > assumes we produced equal amounts of gases). The drop is lamely > covered by the IPCC as the result of atmospheric aerosols reflecting > solar radiation, by the way. They pop up through vulcanism in the > 1950s and just...stop in 1970, I guess. I wasn't born until after > that, though, so I can't verify or deny that this was the case, I > suppose... Fair enough. > The third item of note, here, is that there is the largest increase > (followed by a consistent rise) around 1975-80, which happens to be the > time when most atmospheric research labs either moved to less rural > areas (like those in Illinois, I believe), or had urban areas "sprout" > around them (like in Arizona). These, the IPCC states themselves, are > unmodified numbers, because they're certain that the urban setting > (with asphalt and the like soaking up heat) won't bias the numbers. You don't need an atmospheric research lab to measure surface temperatures, which is what's in question in this graph. > Temperature readings from aerial tests show no such rise, incidentally, > and the IPCC claims them all to be flawed. Literally handwaved away on > p27-8. I didn't see them say "flawed"; they seem to trust both sets of data, and conclude that surface and upper-atmosphere temperatures don't correlate well. > Tree ring data is notably absent, from what I can see. Mentioned twice on page 29 as one source of data for their analyses of long-term temperature trends, but not given much separate airtime; so it's possible it wasn't given enough weight, but also possible that it's, well, a summary. > There are also big names in the global climate field, like Richard > Courtney (alas, not knighted, so he can't carry the same weight as > Houghton...), Peter Dietze, Vincent Gray, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, > and others have concluded that there are a lot of other critical > omissions (like studies showing that pre-industrial carbon dioxide was > more prevalent than it is now) and is generally overblown. Again, I didn't say there was total consensus. > I give them credit for recognizing ozone as a greenhouse gas, though, > rather than linking ozone depletion with global warming; I've seen that > in too many "technical" articles. > > Finally, if you check page 37 of their same document, you'll see that > their "scientific understanding" of factors isn't what it could be. Of > twelve presumed factors, they "kinda" understand *nine* of them, > including albedo and sulphates. The only one they even claim to > understand is our favorite, "greenhouse gases," which by points above > (using their own data), is pretty obvious isn't a very thorough > understanding. Right. But these unknowns don't mean we're safe and everything's okay. The reverse, if anything. > Now, interestingly, Mark Jacobson (of Stanford) published an article > two years ago with evidence showing that soot (and soot complexes > forming in the atmosphere, which I believe the IPCC classifies as > "Mineral Dust") almost certainly has a greater effect than carbon > dioxide, but the IPCC chooses to ignore him. Most likely, this is > because his numbers (using the IPCC models, but putting soot on-par > with carbon dioxide in historical and projected results) shows a > maximum of a one degree (Centigrade) increase in temperature over the > next century. That's one possible reason, but "most likely" is a stretch. >> The panel's Third Assessment Report, published last year, contains many >> findings that seem to merit concern and precautionary action, while noting >> many uncertainties of detail. So much for "vague feeling". > > If you got that from reading their report, then you might want to brush > up on your technical reading skills, and *perhaps* find additional > sources. Nature magazine is *usually* fairly good at actually > publishing verifiable results, whether or not they're politically > correct, for example. That's where Jacobson's report was printed, for > example. > > So, in the presence of data that the IPCC apparently couldn't care less > about, I'm going to downgrade their alarmism back to "vague feeling." If you're going to do the same for any other science which is disputed or otherwise less than rock-solid, you'll be describing four fifths of science that way, easily. > [...] >> If and when there is time for that, that's plainly the right way to go about >> it. In many real situations, perfect knowledge is not available when one >> needs it, and so one has to weigh likelihoods, risks, and benefits. Perfect >> consensus is probably never going to be forthcoming. (Anyone who went on >> smoking on the basis that the Tobacco Institute scientists said it was >> harmless, and that therefore there wasn't consensus that there was any >> danger involved, would have been severely misguided. Even though quitting is >> a difficult and painful step.) > > Sidebar: There was a recent study (last five years, as I recall) that > indicated that cigarette smoke contains enough albedo that it reduces > global warming and, therefore, anti-smoking campaigns were actually > contributing to our demise. "Contains"? I didn't know albedo was a substance. :) > Real scientists, too. Nobody from the tobacco companies. I don't doubt it, though I would if the effect were claimed to be large. >>> If that's offensive to you, I >>> apologize, but the idea of tilting against windmills just for the sake >>> of looking busy is simply not the way I was brought up, and no amount >>> of activist screaming and science-bashing is going to change how these >>> things need to happen. > [...] >> -I have not said anything that could reasonably be construed as >> anti-science, mostly because I am in fact strongly in favor of science. > > That you can't be bothered to critically review evidence you cite > suggests a bias against the scientific process to me. "Can't be bothered" is different than "lack the specialized competence and know it". At the most it suggests I'm not a scientist myself. Which I grant. > Likewise your > willingness to act on severely flawed data and analysis, and your faith > in the IPCC (a political organization with a known agenda, remember) to > provide you with reliable, propaganda-free data and plans of action. Just how flawed the report is is questionable. Again, there is shouting on both sides, and the nonspecialist is not in a position to assess who is right. Hence the "50%" and "20%" in my original question re: the invisible train. Second, I very much doubt if anyone has said anything much on the subject without his opponents describing his agenda and his biases. Third, the IPCC report doesn't include plans of action. > And, with that, I think it's best that I bow out of the discussion > before this devolves entirely into a shouting match. Very wise. I think I'll do the same. -Daniel. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 16 18:40:57 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xV4P-0003bm-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:40:37 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:40:30 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xV4H-0003bY-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:40:29 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:40:28 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xV4A-0003bO-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:40:22 +0300 Received: (qmail 29722 invoked by uid 20150); 16 Apr 2002 15:39:42 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:39:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: lamb In-Reply-To: <20020416045318.49746.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Snipping like crazy, because it's too dang hot in here, and this room isn't air conditioned. On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: [...] > Makes sense. It's always been Pepperidge Farm around > here. Could be worse; could be Stove Top... My mother likes Stove Top. I keep hoping she'll disown me over it. [...] > > You mean as opposed to the "normal" bread flour? > > I'll have to look > > into that. > It's not that hard to find in New England; any > decent-sized supermarket around here should have it. > The problem is that I get the sense that King Arthur > is still somewhat of a regional brand (their > all-purpose is fairly high-protein for an all-purpose, > so it wouldn't fly down south in the Biscuit Belt), so > anywhere too far away from Vermont it might not be > readily available. King Arthur actually has penetrated at least down this far. I don't think I've looked them over closely enough to look at the different flours, though. I'll have to check next time I'm shopping. I mean, it's either do it right or go to Costco and buy the 50lb Pillsbury sack, right? [...] > > Basically, the Cream of Wheat sort of replaces > > gluten development, > > giving you a...not quite "flaky," but it's light and > > soft. > I will definitely try one or the other. Probably the > cornmeal, as I'm more likely to have that lying > around. I'm a fan of both, but then I've always had both sitting in the cabinet (and, once spring hits, Cream of Wheat is entirely useless as a breakfast food). > BTW, good breakfast: jonnycakes. I'll see if I can dig > up a recipe tomorrow morning, but it's basically just > cornmeal and hot water, fried. Not quite polenta, > though. Hm. Interesting. I'll have to look into that. [...] > Maybe, but I've come to like the buttermilk. Lovely thing about the recipe: You can mangle it however you like. As long as you don't change the wet:dry mix too much, keep the fat content about right, and keep at least 1/2c of the flour, you can't go wrong. The pH should probably not go too far out of whack, either (i.e., add a tiny bit of baking soda if you're adding sour stuff). For example, it worked with apple cider instead of milk. I needed to add butter and baking soda, and I think I changed the dry mix, too (whatever happened to be around, as usual). I'll grant you that they tasted pretty disgusting, but they were remarkably biscuit-like. > Besides, > we make Bisquick drop biscuits a fair amount in my > family for breakfast, and I've found you can make a > really good pot pie crust with the dough. Oh, well. We all have our sick and depraved sides, I guess... [...] > > Oh, and keep a lemon handy, so you don't smell like > > this is what you've done... > Oh, what's wrong with smelling like garlic :-) During the meal? Nothing. After the meal? Not much. The following afternoon, though, it starts to get a bit annoying (to self and others), and no amount of showering seems to make it go away... > I will say one thing, though: I don't use them in > everything, but if you put me in a kitchen with no > access to lemons, fresh garlic, or olive oil I ain't > cookin'. Just as simple as that Heh. I am *never* eating any of your cookies. Just sayin', is all. But, yes. Real food pretty much needs one of the three, for the most part. > (even butter is > optional most of the time, though it better be > unsalted if it's there). Oh, I don't know. Salted butter has its uses. But, then, I've always needed the sodium in my diet, so I go through a lot of salt. [...] > > Oh, not too much. A drop or two, maximum (depending > > on humidity). You > > ever make pie crust? You know that point where you > > drip in cold water > > to get it to form a ball? That's what the oil does. > I thought that was candymaking? Same technique, different branch of science. And it's much more visually appealing when the pie crust does it. It literally goes from bits of pastry crud to a ball of dough in a couple of seconds. Same with the pasta. Once it's at that point, you roll it out (or haul out a pasta machine, if you're one of them sissy-boys) and it's ready to go. [...] > Fair enough. The problem of course is that fresh pasta > is notorious for cooking in about a blink and a half, > at least if it's really fresh. The "recipe" I use (someone sort of said, "this is how you do it") boils the pasta for about two minutes. That's plenty of time, as long as you've staggered everything else accordingly. [...] > > I also have to point out that it's a really bad idea > > (which I figured > > intuitively, before testing it) to try to make > > anything resembling > > macaroni and cheese with fresh pasta (since the > > cheese really doesn't > > have anywhere to cling). > Hmmm... except that's exactly what fettucine alfredo > is, the world's deadliest mac'n'cheese. Fettucine is > usually (though not always) an egg pasta. Alfredo sauce becomes nice and think as it sits (mine does, at least), though, so it doesn't need to cling, really. [...] > > Kind of, I guess. Part of it is that I have a few > > friends who have > > various problems with digesting bread products. I'd > That's what I figured. The problem is usually gluten > itself, though. That's one of the problems, and one which I have fewer ideas for solving. So he's out of the rotation, for the moment. Another one reacts poorly to high-carbohydrate foods (I suspect an amylase deficiency, but that's a bit hard to prove, given my limited technology base), and another has semi-mysterious digestion problems when faced with wheat (though not what I'd expect from gluten allergies, and she drinks on occasion, which suggests that the wheat, itself, is OK). > Granted this is taking it out of the realm of > esoterica, but the ancient Romans got a lot of mileage > out of chestnut polenta. Might be an avenue worth > checking out, if you can find the chestnuts. That's not a bad idea, though chestnuts only seem to make their rounds at Christmastime, and then they go bad (blue and hairy, amazingly enough; very Muppet-like) almost instantly. [...] > I do have Kitchen Science; it was one of the first > books of that sort I've bought. He is pretty good. And > let us not forget Harold McGee, who all the other food > science writers look up to as God. Yep. He's on the shelf, too. I bought his book(s?) at the same time as Hillman's, though, and so I usually accidentally confuse the two. > > entertaining. And, I'm a fairly big fan (as > > mentioned) of Graham Kerr. > > He's currently on a super-health kick, which leads > > to rather disgusting > > food choices, but when it comes to preparation > > ideas, the man is an > > absolute genius. > I've not had the opportunity to get much into him; I > know he's been around a long while, but... Well, I grew up watching "The Galloping Gourmet," which was fairly amusing, though nothing special. His recent kick, though, has been to "health up" his food. And he does it *right*. Rather than trying to "simulate" the "real" dish, he takes an original dish, replaces the core ingredients with things that are more healthy (which tends to be the repulsive part), and then rebuilds the dish so that, while there are some similarities to the original, it tastes good (to him, at least, I guess) rather than "pretty close to the original." My personal favorite, which worked pretty well when I tried it, was a riff on a Welsh Rarebit (cheese on toast, for all intents and purposes), and ended up being a spicy potato dish in a baguette crust. He's also the first chef I've ever seen acknowledge that, while those fake egg-in-a-box things are disgusting if you need food to taste like eggs, that it's still got lecithin and proteins and stuff that work well structurally (and don't contribute much egg-like taste). Not that I use them, but it's nice to know they'll work. > Actually, I've been watching a lot of TV Food Network > (Can you guess, or have I said that already?) The only cooking person I know who doesn't has an excuse: She hasn't gotten a TV since her housemate moved out. > and I > find Alton Brown to be quite good in that area. He kind of bugs me, but he does seem to know what he's talking about. Unlike some nameless chefs Emeril who seem to be on all the time, but who seem to be "personalities," rather than cooks. Admittedly, though, you haven't lived until you see an auditorium of grown men and women go nuts over a guy "bamming" some powdered sugar onto cookies. It's an experience that'll stay with you, no matter how much you try to repress it... > I've > flipped through his book (can't afford it yet though) > and I do think it's probably the next cookbook I buy. I'll have to look into it, I suppose. [...] > Well, I'll tell you about the tuna salad anyway. I was > trying to make something without mayo and wound up > using a bunch of different ingredients apart from the > tuna; the only things I can remember were balsamic > vinegar and corn kernels. It just tanked. I took the opposite approach to ditching mayonnaise that worked a bit better: I mixed in egg white and then heated it through. It wasn't nearly as disgusting as it looked. > More food esoterica: how's this for fusion? Balsamic > vinegar and miso as a stirfry sauce. Really good. It makes a bit of sense. You've got the caramel from the vinegar supporting the miso spice (whatever blend that is). At least, I assume you're using commercial balsamic vinegar (which is pretty much vinegar and caramel), and not the god-knows-how-much-per-ounce tiny bottles that've been aging since the dawn of time. [...] > > I think that was on my list, somewhere. But, darn > > it, I finally > > corralled all the cookbooks onto one set of shelves > > (in the > > kitchen), though... > Guess you'll have to get another shelf. But...it all looks so nice! Finally... > btw, check out ars.flyingember.com, the Ars Technica > Bachelor Chow Cookbook -- quite entertaining reading, > though you do get the suspicion that a lot of geeks > have a rather limited repertoire in the kitchen. Appears that way, doesn't it? They also suffer from terminal cuteness. No wonder they're bachelors... On the other hand, the alfredo sauce recipe (and the idea of using a frying pan) looks like it'll blow mine out of the water, so it was well-worth the download. > Hey, who has this problem: I can cook for an audience > just fine, get raves, get told "you should open a > restaurant", but if I'm cooking for me I turn into a > ramen-slurping neanderthal. I, unfortunately, don't get a heck of a lot of company (most of my friends don't live nearby, so eating out at a central location has become the solution), so not really. Depending on my mood and energy level, though, sliced cheddar cheese or a tablespoon or two of peanut butter isn't entirely out of the question. And on the subject of peanut butter, I've found it's a necessity to own a coffee grinder. I don't drink coffee, but if you buy a good grinder, you can dump nuts in, and get fresh peanut (or cashew, or almond--if they're really, really fresh, or even walnut, if you add a small amount of lipid) butter in under a minute. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 16 19:50:27 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xW9d-0004SQ-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:50:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:49:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xW9V-0004SK-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:49:57 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:49:56 +0300 (EEST) Received: from pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk ([195.188.53.121] helo=blueyonder.co.uk) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xW9T-0004SA-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:49:55 +0300 Received: from pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:49:40 +0100 Received: from salem.coldcity.com (unverified [62.31.72.18]) by pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.9) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:49:38 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Iain Craig Organization: Gael.net Ltd To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: lamb Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:53:20 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200204161753.20145.iain@smokejet.com> X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: iain@smokejet.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: iain@smokejet.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Tuesday April 16 2002 4:39 pm, John Colagioia wrote: > And on the subject of peanut butter, I've found it's a necessity to own > a coffee grinder. I don't drink coffee, but if you buy a good grinder, > you can dump nuts in, and get fresh peanut (or cashew, or almond--if > they're really, really fresh, or even walnut, if you add a small amount > of lipid) butter in under a minute. - I have no idea what anyone's talking about on most of this thread. But = THAT=20 is inspired. Nice one :) --=20 Iain From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 16 20:52:24 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xX7T-0004eE-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:51:55 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:51:48 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xX7L-0004e8-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:51:47 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:51:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web10907.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.131.43]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xX7F-0004e2-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:51:41 +0300 Message-ID: <20020416175138.44703.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [141.157.161.35] by web10907.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:51:38 PDT Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:51:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Connors Subject: [chat] Re: lamb To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: connorbd@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- John Colagioia wrote: > Snipping like crazy, because it's too dang hot in > here, and this room > isn't air conditioned. > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > > --- John Colagioia wrote: > [...] > > Makes sense. It's always been Pepperidge Farm > around > > here. Could be worse; could be Stove Top... > > My mother likes Stove Top. I keep hoping she'll > disown me over it. Do we want to know? > > > You mean as opposed to the "normal" bread flour? > > > > I'll have to look > > > into that. > > It's not that hard to find in New England; any > > decent-sized supermarket around here should have > it. > > The problem is that I get the sense that King > Arthur > > is still somewhat of a regional brand (their > > all-purpose is fairly high-protein for an > all-purpose, > > so it wouldn't fly down south in the Biscuit > Belt), so > > anywhere too far away from Vermont it might not be > > readily available. > > King Arthur actually has penetrated at least down > this far. I don't > think I've looked them over closely enough to look > at the different > flours, though. I'll have to check next time I'm > shopping. They used to call it Special for Machines, but now it's just Special Bread Flour. > I mean, it's either do it right or go to Costco and > buy the 50lb > Pillsbury sack, right? Not that there's anything wrong with Pillsbury; it's just that all-purpose thing... > [...] > > > Basically, the Cream of Wheat sort of replaces > > > gluten development, > > > giving you a...not quite "flaky," but it's light > and > > > soft. > > I will definitely try one or the other. Probably > the > > cornmeal, as I'm more likely to have that lying > > around. > > I'm a fan of both, but then I've always had both > sitting in the cabinet > (and, once spring hits, Cream of Wheat is entirely > useless as a > breakfast food). Hmmm... yeah, not too much hot cereal during the summer. > > BTW, good breakfast: jonnycakes. I'll see if I can > dig > > up a recipe tomorrow morning, but it's basically > just > > cornmeal and hot water, fried. Not quite polenta, > > though. > > Hm. Interesting. I'll have to look into that. There's a pretty good recipe in the '97 Joy of Cooking. Add a little jam or syrup, they're pretty good - the only thing is they tend to be heavy. > [...] > > Maybe, but I've come to like the buttermilk. > > Lovely thing about the recipe: You can mangle it > however you like. As > long as you don't change the wet:dry mix too much, > keep the fat content > about right, and keep at least 1/2c of the flour, > you can't go wrong. > The pH should probably not go too far out of whack, > either (i.e., add > a tiny bit of baking soda if you're adding sour > stuff). > > For example, it worked with apple cider instead of > milk. I needed to > add butter and baking soda, and I think I changed > the dry mix, too > (whatever happened to be around, as usual). I'll > grant you that they > tasted pretty disgusting, but they were remarkably > biscuit-like. > > > Besides, > > we make Bisquick drop biscuits a fair amount in my > > family for breakfast, and I've found you can make > a > > really good pot pie crust with the dough. > > Oh, well. We all have our sick and depraved sides, > I guess... Hey, a little garlic, a little parsley, a pile of Thanksgiving leftovers... > [...] > > > Oh, and keep a lemon handy, so you don't smell > like > > > this is what you've done... > > Oh, what's wrong with smelling like garlic :-) > > During the meal? Nothing. After the meal? Not At least if you're like me and don't have to worry about dates... > much. The following > afternoon, though, it starts to get a bit annoying > (to self and > others), and no amount of showering seems to make it > go away... Okay. But you know... > > I will say one thing, though: I don't use them in > > everything, but if you put me in a kitchen with no > > access to lemons, fresh garlic, or olive oil I > ain't > > cookin'. Just as simple as that > > Heh. I am *never* eating any of your cookies. Just > sayin', is all. I have never once used lemon in a cookie and am deeply offended by that remark. > But, yes. Real food pretty much needs one of the > three, for the most > part. I think garlic is pretty important almost but not quite everywhere. I remember an incident a while back where the Queen of England ticked off the people of Italy by wanting her food with no garlic. Yeah, way to go Liz, making a fool of yourself like that... What I find truly hilarious is that though the English have embraced many of the foods that the British Empire brought them, they don't seem to incorporate them into their cooking very much. I mean, the US has swallowed Southwestern food hook, line, and sinker, and I'm sure most people with a grill do a teriyaki grilling once in a while. > > (even butter is > > optional most of the time, though it better be > > unsalted if it's there). > > Oh, I don't know. Salted butter has its uses. But, > then, I've always > needed the sodium in my diet, so I go through a lot > of salt. I don't necessarily agree. I've acclimated myself to the taste of unsalted butter after growing up on margarine and I have to say that salted butter usually tastes "off" to me. I also agree with those who say you shouldn't cook with it because you can't control the salt content. > [...] > > > Oh, not too much. A drop or two, maximum > (depending > > > on humidity). You > > > ever make pie crust? You know that point where > you > > > drip in cold water > > > to get it to form a ball? That's what the oil > does. > > I thought that was candymaking? > > Same technique, different branch of science. And > it's much more > visually appealing when the pie crust does it. It > literally goes from > bits of pastry crud to a ball of dough in a couple > of seconds. Same > with the pasta. Once it's at that point, you roll > it out (or haul out > a pasta machine, if you're one of them sissy-boys) > and it's ready to > go. Pasta machine?! How thin a crust do people who do that want? > [...] > > Fair enough. The problem of course is that fresh > pasta > > is notorious for cooking in about a blink and a > half, > > at least if it's really fresh. > > The "recipe" I use (someone sort of said, "this is > how you do it") > boils the pasta for about two minutes. That's > plenty of time, as long > as you've staggered everything else accordingly. Hey, as long as it works. > [...] > > > I also have to point out that it's a really bad > idea > > > (which I figured > > > intuitively, before testing it) to try to make > > > anything resembling > > > macaroni and cheese with fresh pasta (since the > > > cheese really doesn't > > > have anywhere to cling). > > Hmmm... except that's exactly what fettucine > alfredo > > is, the world's deadliest mac'n'cheese. Fettucine > is > > usually (though not always) an egg pasta. > > Alfredo sauce becomes nice and think as it sits > (mine does, at least), > though, so it doesn't need to cling, really. Uh... huh? Of course it clings. > [...] > > > Kind of, I guess. Part of it is that I have a > few > > > friends who have > > > various problems with digesting bread products. > I'd > > That's what I figured. The problem is usually > gluten > > itself, though. > > That's one of the problems, and one which I have > fewer ideas for > solving. So he's out of the rotation, for the > moment. Another one > reacts poorly to high-carbohydrate foods (I suspect > an amylase > deficiency, but that's a bit hard to prove, given my > limited technology > base), and another has semi-mysterious digestion > problems when faced > with wheat (though not what I'd expect from gluten > allergies, and she > drinks on occasion, which suggests that the wheat, > itself, is OK). don't know much about semi-mysterious, I'm afraid :-) > > Granted this is taking it out of the realm of > > esoterica, but the ancient Romans got a lot of > mileage > > out of chestnut polenta. Might be an avenue worth > > checking out, if you can find the chestnuts. > > That's not a bad idea, though chestnuts only seem to > make their rounds > at Christmastime, and then they go bad (blue and > hairy, amazingly > enough; very Muppet-like) almost instantly. > [...] > > I do have Kitchen Science; it was one of the first > > books of that sort I've bought. He is pretty good. > And > > let us not forget Harold McGee, who all the other > food > > science writers look up to as God. > > Yep. He's on the shelf, too. I bought his book(s?) > at the same time > as Hillman's, though, and so I usually accidentally > confuse the two. > > > entertaining. And, I'm a fairly big fan (as > > > mentioned) of Graham Kerr. > > > He's currently on a super-health kick, which > leads > > > to rather disgusting > > > food choices, but when it comes to preparation > > > ideas, the man is an > > > absolute genius. > > I've not had the opportunity to get much into him; > I > > know he's been around a long while, but... > > Well, I grew up watching "The Galloping Gourmet," > which was fairly > amusing, though nothing special. His recent kick, > though, has been to > "health up" his food. And he does it *right*. > Rather than trying to > "simulate" the "real" dish, he takes an original > dish, replaces the > core ingredients with things that are more healthy > (which tends to be > the repulsive part), and then rebuilds the dish so > that, while there > are some similarities to the original, it tastes > good (to him, at > least, I guess) rather than "pretty close to the > original." > > My personal favorite, which worked pretty well when > I tried it, was a > riff on a Welsh Rarebit (cheese on toast, for all > intents and > purposes), and ended up being a spicy potato dish in > a baguette crust. > > He's also the first chef I've ever seen acknowledge > that, while those > fake egg-in-a-box things are disgusting if you need > food to taste like > eggs, that it's still got lecithin and proteins and > stuff that work > well structurally (and don't contribute much > egg-like taste). Not that > I use them, but it's nice to know they'll work. Worth noting. My few experiences with egg substitute have not been pleasant, but it sounds useful. > > Actually, I've been watching a lot of TV Food > Network > > (Can you guess, or have I said that already?) > > The only cooking person I know who doesn't has an > excuse: She hasn't > gotten a TV since her housemate moved out. > > > and I > > find Alton Brown to be quite good in that area. > > He kind of bugs me, but he does seem to know what > he's talking about. Yeah, he can be a bit grating. Read his book, though; it's pretty cool. > Unlike some nameless chefs Emeril who > seem to be on all > the time, but who seem to be "personalities," rather > than cooks. By all accounts, though, Emeril is every bit as much a cook as he is a showman. I consider him the latter day Frugal Gourmet. He does it as much for the fun as the food, and though he's not quite to my taste I do have a couple of his cookbooks. I figure it this way: if you've got the skills, that covers a multitude of sins. Bobby Flay is another one; that accent of his is grating beyond belief, but he's got m6d 5k177z. > Admittedly, though, you haven't lived until you see > an auditorium of > grown men and women go nuts over a guy "bamming" > some powdered sugar > onto cookies. It's an experience that'll stay with > you, no matter how > much you try to repress it... And yet I've heard people who watch him work in his restaurants tend to come away disappointed -- he's said to be very intense in his real kitchens. > > I've > > flipped through his book (can't afford it yet > though) > > and I do think it's probably the next cookbook I > buy. > > I'll have to look into it, I suppose. > > [...] > > Well, I'll tell you about the tuna salad anyway. I > was > > trying to make something without mayo and wound up > > using a bunch of different ingredients apart from > the > > tuna; the only things I can remember were balsamic > > vinegar and corn kernels. It just tanked. > > I took the opposite approach to ditching mayonnaise > that worked a bit > better: I mixed in egg white and then heated it > through. It wasn't > nearly as disgusting as it looked. Yes, but aren't looks so important sometimes... I would say, though, that I'd just as soon go all the way and make a tuna omelette. > > More food esoterica: how's this for fusion? > Balsamic > > vinegar and miso as a stirfry sauce. Really good. > > It makes a bit of sense. You've got the caramel > from the vinegar > supporting the miso spice (whatever blend that is). > At least, I assume > you're using commercial balsamic vinegar (which is > pretty much vinegar > and caramel), and not the Really? I'd think the Italian government would take issue with artificially colored balsamico... > god-knows-how-much-per-ounce tiny bottles > that've been aging since the dawn of time. Yeah. I can't imagine even using one of those, to be honest with you; I'd be wracked with guilt... > [...] > > > I think that was on my list, somewhere. But, > darn > > > it, I finally > > > corralled all the cookbooks onto one set of > shelves > > > (in the > > > kitchen), though... > > Guess you'll have to get another shelf. > > But...it all looks so nice! Finally... Life of a food geek, Johnny. > > btw, check out ars.flyingember.com, the Ars > Technica > > Bachelor Chow Cookbook -- quite entertaining > reading, > > though you do get the suspicion that a lot of > geeks > > have a rather limited repertoire in the kitchen. > > Appears that way, doesn't it? They also suffer from > terminal cuteness. > No wonder they're bachelors... I thought they were bachelors because they were geeks? > On the other hand, the alfredo sauce recipe (and the > idea of using a > frying pan) looks like it'll blow mine out of the > water, so it was > well-worth the download. I like the section on supermarkets as well. What sort of bothered me is that there seemed to be almost a stereotypical geekiness about the cuisine. I found myself thinking "these people don't know how to eat, some of them". > And on the subject of peanut butter, I've found it's > a necessity to own > a coffee grinder. I don't drink coffee, but if you > buy a good grinder, > you can dump nuts in, and get fresh peanut (or > cashew, or almond--if > they're really, really fresh, or even walnut, if you > add a small amount > of lipid) butter in under a minute. I agree, though I use mine for spices (chili powder three times out of five). I'm actually contemplating doing my own cooking show, btw... /Brian ===== -- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 16 23:51:08 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xZua-0005DB-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:50:48 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:50:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xZuS-0005D5-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:50:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:50:39 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xZuL-0005Cz-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:50:33 +0300 Received: (qmail 1337 invoked by uid 20150); 16 Apr 2002 20:49:52 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:49:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc There's a little bit here and there that I think can be kept at actual discussion. Or, at least, is important enough to discuss, regardless of how "loud" we get. On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Daniel wrote: [...] > > First, to get the usual barely-relevant crap out of the way, the IPCC > > is a part of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change--the group > > whose primary purpose is to push Kyoto. Their top science guy is Sir > > John Houghton, who is well-known for pretty much delivering his verdict > > on Global Warming long before evidence arrived. And, my personal > > favorite, a primary financier of their work is the US Global Change > > Research Program--a government organization whose sole objective is > > Global Warming research. > Well-known according to whom? Uhm...I thought "pretty much everybody," but I guess that's inaccurate. He's been on about Global Warming since the early-to-mid '80s, and I'm pretty sure just about every scientific and general-purpose periodical has showcased his work at least once. Depending on your reading material, you might also know him from his religious discussions, though that does little more than put a name with a face. > And anyone researching global warming has > global warming research as an objective--that's a tautology. Badly phrased. What I meant was that their mandate is to see "how bad" Global Warming "really" is. If, at any point, they say, "not too bad," then they--by definition--talk themselves out of jobs. "Bad, maybe worse" is in their best interests. > Don't see what > "sole" objective suggests other than a greater degree of specialization. Put simply, if they lose their Global Warming budget (for example--and I'm making this absurd on purpose--by somehow proving that it's a fiction perpetrated by windmill owners in an attempt to bolster their industry), they don't have anything else to do. It's like, on the other side, the petroleum companies. Take away the world's need for oil (by--and I support this, though for other reasons--significantly reducing fossil fuel usage), and they pretty much just have some really nifty drills for sale. > > Therefore, their "findings" are about as unbiased as, oh, I don't know, > > those that General Motors might publish. > That is possible. I freely admit that I do not have nearly enough background > in the field to be able to tell who is lying. I always start with the assumption that both sides are lying to equal extents, and work from there. As I've reviewed what evidence has come my way, though, the Global Warming people seem equally shady, but far sloppier, if not dishonest (which I can't prove). > It is obvious which side has > stronger motives for lying, Really? I can't see a clear point, on this. On one side, you have major corporations whose livelihoods almost exclusively depend on fossil fuels, true. But, on the other hand, you've got scientists (who, as far as I can tell, *love* the attention that this gets them) whose livelihoods depend on government grants, and politicians who have found a "cause" that people can hardly fault ("clean up the environment" is hardly something to disagree with) and given it a spooky apocolyptic backing ("clean up the environment or we'll all die horrible, painful deaths" is a bit more compelling). > and more resources to lie with. Like above, I'm not sure I can avoid putting G8 funding (for example) on par with GM. The US Global Change Research Program's budget, alone, last I heard, was nearing the two billion dollar mark. > But that doesn't > prove anything. Right. It's equivalent to saying that they're lying because they're mostly (in the US, at least) Republicans. Not an unfounded assumption, I admit, but hardly conclusive. > The thing is that given at least a large contingent of > scientists who think there's a problem, and given the number of things that > people on all sides agree we don't know, it seems sensible to take some > basic steps to reduce the effects of human activity on the atmosphere. But given the scanty evidence in the theory's favor, isn't it kind of--I don't know, the only word coming to mind is "arrogant"--arrogant to assume that if it's happening, then (a) it's a problem, (b) it's a big problem, and (c) it's all our fault? > It > seems far safer than to go full steam ahead and trust that there won't be > any consequences we can't deal with. But, what if, hypothetically, (a) there is no problem (since you do have got tree ring and balloon data saying that temperature is pretty stable), and (b) we forge ahead and make efforts to prevent the climate from heating. Doesn't that *cause* an equally bad (perhaps worse, since lots of stuff other than humans thrive in the heat) problem? I'm not saying that efforts shouldn't be taken to "clean the environment" (whatever that means), or that fossil fuels shouldn't be deprecated in favor of something with less biochemical reactivity. These are good ideas. But to try to convince people to do it because of some ephemeral bogeyman under the bed that can't be disproved is outright dishonest, and can (and does) cause people to overreact and cause bigger problems than those you started with. > > As I've said over and over again, though, the fact that messengers have > > an agenda does not, a priori, negate their message. So, we'll look at > > their evidence. I bring it up only because any data I bring to the > > table will undoubtedly be decried as being produced by the vast Right- > > Wing Conspiracy(tm) that wants to steal your bodily fluids, and I feel > > we should be on even footing, here. > Bodily fluids, hee hee. So sue me, I liked "Dr. Strangelove"... > And "conspiracy" has become a funny word these days > too, because we all know that people in positions of high corporate or > governmental power are too honest or too stupid to bend the rules secretly. I actually figured they didn't bother with secrecy, because (a) nobody significant ever seems to care about policy, and (b) a sex scandal can always be fabricated that'll trump the story by a wide margin. I mean, honestly. If you're all sneaky about things, when/if you're caught, you look like an ass. If you do everything in the public eye, and convince them that some other guy's sex life is more important, then there's nothing to catch. If it was such a big deal, after all, why didn't anyone say something at the time...? > > Figure 2 of their "Scientific Basis" report (p26) shows the "global > > climate deviation." This is a fascinating piece of evidence, to be > > honest. First, it's amazing how most of the years are significantly > > *below* average (making me wonder how the "average value" was chosen). > It says in the graph that "average" means the average for 1961 to 1990. I understand that. Hence my question. The numbers don't seem to add up; the majority of the duration from '61-'90 is below or near "average." Even ignoring the question of why that duration is so critical, I blatantly don't understand what that tells us. [...Urban heat bias...] > > unmodified numbers, because they're certain that the urban setting > > (with asphalt and the like soaking up heat) won't bias the numbers. > You don't need an atmospheric research lab to measure surface temperatures, > which is what's in question in this graph. You don't need it, but that's where the researchers are, so that's where the temperatures are taken. This much, at least, I can vouch for as a primary source. A friend of mine got his MS in atmospheric physics in Tucson, AZ, and I got to see the weather station (well within city limits) firsthand. > > Temperature readings from aerial tests show no such rise, incidentally, > > and the IPCC claims them all to be flawed. Literally handwaved away on > > p27-8. > I didn't see them say "flawed"; Not in the report. I know I saw that term elsewhere when some of their people were interviewed, a while back. > they seem to trust both sets of data, and > conclude that surface and upper-atmosphere temperatures don't correlate > well. And--here's where they annoy me--they, therefore, exclusively use the data with a known, uncompensated bias, ignoring the consistent data which blatantly contradicts their conclusions. > > Tree ring data is notably absent, from what I can see. > Mentioned twice on page 29 as one source of data for their analyses of > long-term temperature trends, but not given much separate airtime; so it's > possible it wasn't given enough weight, but also possible that it's, well, a > summary. I suppose, but I've read that the tree rings also contradict the warming trend (though, I remember a few years back that, somehow, Houghton managed to use this lack of trend to "show" that the temperature was just about to jump in a horrible way. Sigh...). > > There are also big names in the global climate field, like Richard > > Courtney (alas, not knighted, so he can't carry the same weight as > > Houghton...), Peter Dietze, Vincent Gray, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, > > and others have concluded that there are a lot of other critical > > omissions (like studies showing that pre-industrial carbon dioxide was > > more prevalent than it is now) and is generally overblown. > Again, I didn't say there was total consensus. But these are the *big* names in the field, is my point. The other side has...well, Houghton, as far as a name goes, and only the New York Times seems to trust him. If we're going to trust "scientists," I'd just as soon trust those with known careers and well-established results. [...] > But these unknowns don't mean we're safe and everything's okay. The > reverse, if anything. What it means is that their results follow from a shaky understanding of (as discussed above) unreliable data. To go back to your train analogy, this is like me assuming that, since I saw a train pass once (or, rather, someone told me about a train passing through), that they come through continuously, and that I should, therefore, never go near the track. [...] > > Most likely, this is > > because his numbers (using the IPCC models, but putting soot on-par > > with carbon dioxide in historical and projected results) shows a > > maximum of a one degree (Centigrade) increase in temperature over the > > next century. > That's one possible reason, but "most likely" is a stretch. Well, Jacobsen is (a) also a "big name" in the field (as if his tenure at Stanford doesn't suggest that), and (b) bolsters their argument, though not to the extent that they've been screaming about. If you firmly believed that trains hit people and ran them over, would you dismiss a guy who had a video tape of such an event occurring? What if he told you that, while it does happen, it's exceedingly rare? Again, there's no proof, per se, but it casts a very suspicious light on their work when they even ignore (well-founded) supporting evidence. [...] > > So, in the presence of data that the IPCC apparently couldn't care less > > about, I'm going to downgrade their alarmism back to "vague feeling." > If you're going to do the same for any other science which is disputed or > otherwise less than rock-solid, you'll be describing four fifths of science > that way, easily. Heh...And, you'll note that I do not base anything in my life around quantum tunnelling or relativistic effects. For pretty much exactly that reason. I do, however, use gravity in a lot of my life, and have been known to try to make use of action-reaction pairs, and the occasional bit of chemistry. That's a bit unfair, however, because I never said anything about "rock solid," and never implied that such a field even exists. What I've consistently attacked the IPCC for is being--at least--sloppy with their data and--at worst--dishonest in their results. Given such a state of affairs (where I think their conclusions are inaccurate, and believe I have firmer proof of that inaccuracy than they do for those same conclusions), it should be obvious that I'm *not* "waiting for them to get a better handle on things." Rather, I'm waiting for them to stop trying to spook the world population and try to do something that might actually help us. What that might be, I couldn't tell you. If I knew, I'd be doing it. [...] > > Sidebar: There was a recent study (last five years, as I recall) that > > indicated that cigarette smoke contains enough albedo that it reduces > > global warming and, therefore, anti-smoking campaigns were actually > > contributing to our demise. > "Contains"? I didn't know albedo was a substance. :) You're going to make me look up the word. Grr... OK, while I did think that "albedo" was "reflective stuff," the unabridged Webster (sitting in my lap, else I'd give you a link to it) provides the following: 1. reflective power 2a. the fraction of incident light or electromagnetic radiation that is reflected by a surface or body (as the moon, a planet, a cloud, the ground, or a field of snow) 2b. the fraction of incident neutrons that are reflected by a surface 3. the whitish inner portion of the rind of citrus fruits that is a source of pectin used esp. in jelly and jam - compare FLAVEDO Just so I don't leave anyone hanging, that's "the outer colored layer of the mesocarp of a citrus fruit - compare ALBEDO." So, yes. Albedo is a substance. Just not what I thought it was. > > Real scientists, too. Nobody from the tobacco companies. > I don't doubt it, though I would if the effect were claimed to be large. Lemme see what I can track down, here. Oops. Sorry, wrong way. And it was only advertising. Here's a decent story on it: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/guestcolumnists2002/auchterlonie04-12-02p.htm [...] > > That you can't be bothered to critically review evidence you cite > > suggests a bias against the scientific process to me. > "Can't be bothered" is different than "lack the specialized competence and > know it". At the most it suggests I'm not a scientist myself. Which I grant. This might be the "ugly American" in me talking (though, probably not, since I don't know many people who follow the same philosophy), but if you're not willing (you're certainly able) to train yourself, and simply take the word of anyone who calls himself a scientist (especially those nameless guys), then you're basically turning science into a religion, in my opinion, content to know that "someone knows what's going on." > > Likewise your > > willingness to act on severely flawed data and analysis, and your faith > > in the IPCC (a political organization with a known agenda, remember) to > > provide you with reliable, propaganda-free data and plans of action. > Just how flawed the report is is questionable. Again, there is shouting on > both sides, and the nonspecialist is not in a position to assess who is > right. Hence the "50%" and "20%" in my original question re: the invisible > train. Second, I very much doubt if anyone has said anything much on the > subject without his opponents describing his agenda and his biases. Third, > the IPCC report doesn't include plans of action. No, but their contributing organizations are (at least partly) policy makers. That's pretty similar, in my opinion. They have "the ear of the king," whether or not their technical data has an explicit plan. > > And, with that, I think it's best that I bow out of the discussion > > before this devolves entirely into a shouting match. > Very wise. I think I'll do the same. Eh, it's going well enough. It's more of a debate than an argument, at this stage. Very little shouting, at all. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 17 00:46:28 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xamL-0005Li-00; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:46:21 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:46:14 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xamD-0005Lc-00; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:46:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:46:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rama.poly.edu ([128.238.10.212]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xam6-0005LW-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:46:06 +0300 Received: (qmail 1849 invoked by uid 20150); 16 Apr 2002 21:45:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:45:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John Colagioia X-Sender: jcolag@rama To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: lamb In-Reply-To: <20020416175138.44703.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jcolag@rama.poly.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Still too hot, but I'm learning to ignore it. On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Brian Connors wrote: > --- John Colagioia wrote: [...] > > My mother likes Stove Top. I keep hoping she'll > > disown me over it. > Do we want to know? Heh...Nothing exciting, really. I got yelled at on Thanksgiving for making my own stuffing and ignoring the carton of Stove Top... [...King Arthur Flour...] > They used to call it Special for Machines, but now > it's just Special Bread Flour. The really clever among us might have considered going to: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/ and...y'know...just ordering whatever we needed. And, hey, look. Someone went to the trouble of grinding almond flour, too. Hazelnut, too, following up on your thought. Amazing what you can find when you actually go and look for it... > > I mean, it's either do it right or go to Costco and > > buy the 50lb > > Pillsbury sack, right? > Not that there's anything wrong with Pillsbury; it's > just that all-purpose thing... Fifty pounds seems excessive, to me, though. I don't usually use *that* much flour... [...] > > > Oh, what's wrong with smelling like garlic :-) > > During the meal? Nothing. After the meal? Not > At least if you're like me and don't have to worry > about dates... As I understand it (I'm in a similar boat, alas), if both people have lots of garlic, neither notices as much... [...] > > Oh, I don't know. Salted butter has its uses. But, > > then, I've always > > needed the sodium in my diet, so I go through a lot > > of salt. > I don't necessarily agree. I've acclimated myself to > the taste of unsalted butter after growing up on > margarine I only use margarine for spreading (if I don't have something more exotic in mind), but that's only because I'm too lazy to spread butter. > and I have to say that salted butter usually > tastes "off" to me. I also agree with those who say > you shouldn't cook with it because you can't control > the salt content. Yeah, but I know I'm pretty much going to put salt on everything when it's done, *anyway*, so... [...] > > Same technique, different branch of science. And > > it's much more > > visually appealing when the pie crust does it. It > > literally goes from > > bits of pastry crud to a ball of dough in a couple > > of seconds. Same > > with the pasta. Once it's at that point, you roll > > it out (or haul out > > a pasta machine, if you're one of them sissy-boys) > > and it's ready to > > go. > Pasta machine?! How thin a crust do people who do that > want? I had actually gone back to the pasta idea, but the machine *is* good (on low settings) for getting enough layers to your crust that it'll be more pastry-like than the cardboard-like stuff my friend makes. He's the same guy who "makes" cookies (from the dough-in-a-tube) in muffin tins, "'cause then they'll all be the same size and shape." [...] > > Alfredo sauce becomes nice and think as it sits > > (mine does, at least), > > though, so it doesn't need to cling, really. > Uh... huh? Of course it clings. Well, no. "Cling," to me, is where you can dip a noodle in the sauce, and it sticks to the surfaces beneath. My alfredo sauce will just as often kind of "congeal around" the noodle, which is a bit less clingy, in my eyes. [...] > > Admittedly, though, you haven't lived until you see > > an auditorium of > > grown men and women go nuts over a guy "bamming" > > some powdered sugar > > onto cookies. It's an experience that'll stay with > > you, no matter how > > much you try to repress it... > And yet I've heard people who watch him work in his > restaurants tend to come away disappointed -- he's > said to be very intense in his real kitchens. He doesn't have the offscreen chubby black woman acting as cheerleader when he's at the restaurant. Apparently (caught a bit of a "behind- the-scenes of things you don't care about" show), she helps out a bit... And a friend of mine has been to one of his restaurants, and while the word "intense" didn't come up, "pretentious git" did. Take that as you like, I suppose... [...] > > I took the opposite approach to ditching mayonnaise > > that worked a bit > > better: I mixed in egg white and then heated it > > through. It wasn't > > nearly as disgusting as it looked. > Yes, but aren't looks so important sometimes... I > would say, though, that I'd just as soon go all the > way and make a tuna omelette. Well, that wasn't the goal, really. And "retreating to a known safe haven" has never been my approach to cooking. ...As evidenced by the time I tried to make soy milk palatable. I tasted it, nearly spit it out, and tried adding seltzer and cranberry juice. That didn't work, so I added some corn syrup. That was worse, so I mixed in some pepper. I tried a handful of other odds and ends before finally declaring it a complete loss... [...] > > At least, I assume > > you're using commercial balsamic vinegar (which is > > pretty much vinegar > > and caramel), and not the > Really? I'd think the Italian government would take > issue with artificially colored balsamico... Not caramel coloring. Caramel, like "burnt sugar." > > god-knows-how-much-per-ounce tiny bottles > > that've been aging since the dawn of time. > Yeah. I can't imagine even using one of those, to be > honest with you; I'd be wracked with guilt... Those few people I've known who have gone to the trouble of purchasing some usually just splash a drop or two over food at the end. I remain unconvinced that it does anything that commercial balsamic vinegar wouldn't do much cheaper. [...] > > > Guess you'll have to get another shelf. > > But...it all looks so nice! Finally... > Life of a food geek, Johnny. Heh...Well, I had four thigh-high piles of books in my bedroom, which I decided "had to go." After finally cleaning out the corners of the house, I decided to solve both problems (the table of books and the spooky, empty corners) by adding bookshelves. I seem to have stabilized, and am somewhat leery of interfering with the balance... > > > btw, check out ars.flyingember.com, the Ars Technica > > > Bachelor Chow Cookbook -- quite entertaining reading, > > > though you do get the suspicion that a lot of geeks > > > have a rather limited repertoire in the kitchen. > > Appears that way, doesn't it? They also suffer from > > terminal cuteness. > > No wonder they're bachelors... > I thought they were bachelors because they were geeks? Nah. I know married geeks. Bachelors seem to occur when they try to *pretend* that they're "domestic," or when they make excuses for their lifestyle (by showing how cool and amusing it "really" is)... > > On the other hand, the alfredo sauce recipe (and the > > idea of using a > > frying pan) looks like it'll blow mine out of the > > water, so it was > > well-worth the download. > I like the section on supermarkets as well. I only skimmed that, after finding those markets in my area are far more local than I had previously assumed... > What sort of bothered me is that there seemed to be > almost a stereotypical geekiness about the cuisine. I > found myself thinking "these people don't know how to > eat, some of them". You mean like the guy who has a recipe for cheese on crackers? Or the several recipes that tell you to make the packet of stuff from the store? I could easily be convinced that some contributors would have trouble recognizing food, if forced... [...] > I'm actually contemplating doing my own cooking show, > btw... There's a Long Islander who...uhm...let's see, where is it...Oh, he's gone. A guy at Gurney's Inn (major ritzy restaurant out at Montauk Point or so)--the youngest executive chef in the country, incidentally--had a daily internet broadcast where he'd pretty much make recipes for the staff using the leftovers. Nifty stuff, but it looks like the webpage (josephplayswithfood.com) seems like it's been discontinued. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 17 23:22:38 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xvvm-0009OO-00; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:21:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:21:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xvtx-0009O5-00; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:19:37 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:19:30 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [212.16.6.108] (helo=frox25.dhs.org) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16xvtp-0009Nz-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:19:29 +0300 Received: (qmail 10702 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2002 20:00:10 -0000 Received: from heartw.ih (10.0.17.4) by nova.ih with SMTP; 17 Apr 2002 20:00:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:10:03 +0400 From: Mtv Europe X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.49) Personal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] [kayak] prime numbers (coming soon) In-reply-To: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mtve@frox25.dhs.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mtve@frox25.dhs.org Precedence: bulk X-list: misc "quiet... too quiet... where IS everybody?" (c) Shrek Hello All! Anybody interested in arithmetic on Kayak? ---- Mtv Europe in perlgolf off-season From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 18 22:15:43 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yHMg-000DI5-00; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:14:42 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:14:35 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yHLE-000DFQ-00; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:13:12 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:13:05 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web21402.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.232.72]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yHL3-000DFJ-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:13:02 +0300 Message-ID: <20020418191259.66188.qmail@web21402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.120.209.42] by web21402.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:12:59 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:12:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Quowong Liu Subject: [lang] [conser] New interpreter To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1104431168-1019157179=:66037" X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --0-1104431168-1019157179=:66037 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hello, I have a new conser interpreter written in ocaml. It does lazy evaluation and uses the nested pair structure suggested by Ben Rudiak-Gould for io. It's at: http://www.geocities.com/qpliu/conser/conser-20020418.tar.gz And the description of the language (included) is also at: http://www.geocities.com/qpliu/conser/ A useful option is "-O cond", which optimizes conditional identity functions. For example, without it rot13.cons takes forever to process one character. With -O cond, it can do about 13 characters per second on my computer with the native-code version and the bytecode version is about 4 times slower. I also added infix functions, a purely syntactic extension. For example: a (+) b = ... defines + with one left argument and one right argument. Forth fans could also do: a b (+) = ... Fans of obfuscation can note that a b + + c is equivalent to b + (a + c) for the first definition of +. I've attached rot13.cons and quine.cons. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ --0-1104431168-1019157179=:66037 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="rot13.cons" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: rot13.cons Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rot13.cons" InJvdDEzOiB0aGlzIGlzIGluY3JlZGlibHkgc2xvdywgdGhlICctTyBjb25k JyBvcHRpb24gaXMgcmVjb21tZW5kZWQiCgptYWluIGlucCA9IG90IHJvdDEz IGJ0IGlucC4KCmJ0IGIgPSA/KDxiLChiMT5iKDcsKCwpKSxiMDxiKDcsKCwp KSkpLgpiMCBiIGEgPSA/KDxhLCgoKD5hLCksYnQgYiksPyg8YiwoPyg+Yiwo KCg+YSwpLCksYjE+Yig8PGEsKD5hLCkpKSksYjA8Yig8PGEsKD5hLCkpKSkp KS4KYjEgYiBhID0gPyg8YSwoKCgsPmEpLGJ0IGIpLD8oPGIsKD8oPmIsKCgo LD5hKSwpLGIxPmIoPDxhLCgsPmEpKSkpLGIwPGIoPDxhLCgsPmEpKSkpKSku CjcgPSAoKCgoKCgoLCksKSwpLCksKSwpLCkuCgo/IGEgPSAoKDw+YSEyPGE8 PmEpMjxhPj5hKS4gIDIgYSBiID0gYi4KCm90IGwgPSBvYig8bCw/KD5sLCgo LCksb3Q+bCkpKS4Kb2IgYSA9ID8oPDxhLCg/KD48YSwoPmEsb2IoPjxhLCgs PmEpKSkpLG9iKDw8YSwoPmEsKSkpKS4KCnJvdDEzIGwgPSAocm90MTNjKHMv PGwsPGwpLHJvdDEzPmwpLgoKcm90MTNjIHIgPSA/KDxyLCg+ciw8cikpLgpz LyAqID0gKHRyICogYSBuICB0ciAqIGIgbyAgdHIgKiBjIHAgIHRyICogZCBx ICB0ciAqIGUgciAgdHIgKiBmIHMgIHRyICogZyB0CiAgICAgICAgdHIgKiBo IHUgIHRyICogaSB2ICB0ciAqIGogdyAgdHIgKiBrIHggIHRyICogbCB5ICB0 ciAqIG0gegogICAgICAgIHRyICogQSBOICB0ciAqIEIgTyAgdHIgKiBDIFAg IHRyICogRCBRICB0ciAqIEUgUiAgdHIgKiBGIFMgIHRyICogRyBUCiAgICAg ICAgdHIgKiBIIFUgIHRyICogSSBWICB0ciAqIEogVyAgdHIgKiBLIFggIHRy ICogTCBZICB0ciAqIE0gWikuCgp0ciBhIGIgYyA9ICg/KChhIWIpLChjLCkp PygoYSFjKSwoYiwpKSkuCgphID0gKCwoKCgoKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpLCksKSwp LCkpLiAiMDExMDAwMDEiCmIgPSAoKCwoKCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSwpLCkp LCkuICIwMTEwMDAxMCIKYyA9ICgsKCwoKCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSwpLCkp KS4gIjAxMTAwMDExIgpkID0gKCgoLCgoKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpLCksKSksKSwp LiAiMDExMDAxMDAiCmUgPSAoLCgoLCgoKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpLCksKSksKSku ICIwMTEwMDEwMSIKZiA9ICgoLCgsKCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSwpKSksKS4g IjAxMTAwMTEwIgpnID0gKCwoLCgsKCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSwpKSkpLiAi MDExMDAxMTEiCmggPSAoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCkuICIw MTEwMTAwMCIKaSA9ICgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKS4gIjAx MTAxMDAxIgpqID0gKCgsKCgsKCgsKCwoKCwpLCkpKSwpKSwpKSwpLiAiMDEx MDEwMTAiCmsgPSAoLCgsKCgsKCgsKCwoKCwpLCkpKSwpKSwpKSkuICIwMTEw MTAxMSIKbCA9ICgoKCwoLCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSkpLCksKS4gIjAxMTAx MTAwIgptID0gKCwoKCwoLCgoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSksKSkpLCkpLiAiMDExMDEx MDEiCm4gPSAoKCwoLCgsKCgsKCwoKCwpLCkpKSwpKSkpLCkuICIwMTEwMTEx MCIKbyA9ICgsKCwoLCgsKCgsKCwoKCwpLCkpKSwpKSkpKS4gIjAxMTAxMTEx IgpwID0gKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpLiAiMDExMTAwMDAi CnEgPSAoLCgoKCgsKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpKSwpLCksKSkuICIwMTExMDAwMSIK ciA9ICgoLCgoKCwoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSkpLCksKSksKS4gIjAxMTEwMDEwIgpz ID0gKCwoLCgoKCwoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSkpLCksKSkpLiAiMDExMTAwMTEiCnQg PSAoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpLCkuICIwMTExMDEwMCIKdSA9 ICgsKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpKS4gIjAxMTEwMTAxIgp2ID0g KCgsKCwoKCwoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSkpLCkpKSwpLiAiMDExMTAxMTAiCncgPSAo LCgsKCwoKCwoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSkpLCkpKSkuICIwMTExMDExMSIKeCA9ICgo KCgsKCwoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSkpKSwpLCksKS4gIjAxMTExMDAwIgp5ID0gKCwo KCgsKCwoLCgsKCgsKSwpKSkpKSwpLCkpLiAiMDExMTEwMDEiCnogPSAoKCwo KCwoLCgsKCwoKCwpLCkpKSkpLCkpLCkuICIwMTExMTAxMCIKCkEgPSAoLCgo KCgoKCwoKCwpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSkuICIwMTAwMDAwMSIKQiA9ICgoLCgo KCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSwpLCksKSksKS4gIjAxMDAwMDEwIgpDID0gKCwoLCgo KCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLiAiMDEwMDAwMTEiCkQgPSAoKCgsKCgo KCwoKCwpLCkpLCksKSwpKSwpLCkuICIwMTAwMDEwMCIKRSA9ICgsKCgsKCgo KCwoKCwpLCkpLCksKSwpKSwpKS4gIjAxMDAwMTAxIgpGID0gKCgsKCwoKCgo LCgoLCksKSksKSwpLCkpKSwpLiAiMDEwMDAxMTAiCkcgPSAoLCgsKCwoKCgo LCgoLCksKSksKSwpLCkpKSkuICIwMTAwMDExMSIKSCA9ICgoKCgsKCgoLCgo LCksKSksKSwpKSwpLCksKS4gIjAxMDAxMDAwIgpJID0gKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgo LCksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLiAiMDEwMDEwMDEiCkogPSAoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgs KSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCkuICIwMTAwMTAxMCIKSyA9ICgsKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgs KSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpKS4gIjAxMDAxMDExIgpMID0gKCgoLCgsKCgoLCgoLCks KSksKSwpKSksKSwpLiAiMDEwMDExMDAiCk0gPSAoLCgoLCgsKCgoLCgoLCks KSksKSwpKSksKSkuICIwMTAwMTEwMSIKTiA9ICgoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCgsKSwp KSwpLCkpKSksKS4gIjAxMDAxMTEwIgpPID0gKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCgsKSwp KSwpLCkpKSkpLiAiMDEwMDExMTEiClAgPSAoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSwpLCkuICIwMTAxMDAwMCIKUSA9ICgsKCgoKCwoKCwoKCwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSwpKS4gIjAxMDEwMDAxIgpSID0gKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSks KSwpKSwpLiAiMDEwMTAwMTAiClMgPSAoLCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSks KSwpKSkuICIwMTAxMDAxMSIKVCA9ICgoKCwoKCwoKCwoKCwpLCkpLCkpLCkp LCksKS4gIjAxMDEwMTAwIgpVID0gKCwoKCwoKCwoKCwoKCwpLCkpLCkpLCkp LCkpLiAiMDEwMTAxMDEiClYgPSAoKCwoLCgoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSksKSkp LCkuICIwMTAxMDExMCIKVyA9ICgsKCwoLCgoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSksKSkp KS4gIjAxMDEwMTExIgpYID0gKCgoKCwoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSkpLCksKSwp LiAiMDEwMTEwMDAiClkgPSAoLCgoKCwoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSkpLCksKSku ICIwMTAxMTAwMSIKWiA9ICgoLCgoLCgsKCgsKCgsKSwpKSwpKSksKSksKS4g IjAxMDExMDEwIgo= --0-1104431168-1019157179=:66037 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="quine.cons" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: quine.cons Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="quine.cons" Kj0oKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoLCgoLCgsKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgo LCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoLCgsKCwoKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwo KCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgo KCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgo LCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgs KCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgo KCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoLCgoKCgsKCgoKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCgo LCgoKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoLCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgo LCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgs KCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwo KCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgs KCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgo LCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgo KCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCgo KCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwo KCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwo KCgoKCwoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCwo KCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCwo KCgsKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgo LCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoLCgoLCgo KCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCgoKCgoKCwoKCwo LCgsKCwoKCgsKCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgsKCgsKCgs KCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCwoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCwo LCgsKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgs KCgoLCgsKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgs KCwoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoLCgo LCgoKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoKCgoLCgsKCgoKCgoKCwoKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwo LCgoKCgsKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgoLCgo LCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCgoKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgoKCgoKCwoLCgo KCgsKCwoKCgsKCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgo LCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoLCgsKCgsKCwo LCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCgo KCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoKCgoKCgsKCgoKCgsKCwoKCgsKCgoKCgo KCwoKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgo LCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoKCgsKCwoKCgoKCgoLCgoKCgoKCgsKCwo LCgsKCgoKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgo LCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwo KCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwo KCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgo KCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgo LCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgo KCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCgo KCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgo KCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgo LCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwo KCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgo LCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgs KCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwo LCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgo KCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwo KCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgs KCgoLCgsKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoLCgoKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgoLCgsKCwo LCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgo KCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgo LCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgs KCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwo KCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgo KCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoLCgoKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgs KCgoKCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgo KCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgo KCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgs KCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgo KCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwo KCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgo LCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgs KCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwo KCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgo KCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgo LCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgs KCgoLCgoLCgsKCwoKCgsKCwoKCgoLCgsKCgoLCgoKCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgo KCgoLCgsKCwoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgo KCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwo KCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgsKCwoLCgs KCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgs KCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgo LCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgo KCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoLCgoKCwoKCgoKCwoLCgoKCwoKCgoKCgo LCgsKCwoLCgoKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgo KCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgo LCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgo KCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgo LCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgs KCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgsKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgo KCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgo LCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoKCgs KCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwo KCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgsKCgsKCgoLCgo KCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgo LCgoLCgoKCwoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgoKCwoKCwoKCgsKCgoLCgoLCgsKCgoKCgs KCgsKCgoLCgoKCwoKCwoLCgsKCgoKCgoLCgoLCgoLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCks KSwpKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkp LCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwp KSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwp LCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwp KSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSks KSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSkp KSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCks KSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCks KSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCks KSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkp LCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpKSkpLCks KSwpLCksKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCksKSkpLCksKSwpLCkpLCksKSkp KSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwp KSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSks KSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCks KSwpKSkpKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCks KSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSkp KSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSwpKSksKSwpLCkpKSwpLCkpKSksKSksKSwpKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkp LCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSks KSwpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkp LCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSks KSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwp KSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkp LCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSwp LCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSks KSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCks KSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCks KSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSwpLCks KSwpLCksKSksKSwpKSkpKSwpLCkpLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSks KSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwp LCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSkp KSksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCks KSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkp LCkpLCksKSksKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSwp KSkpKSwpKSksKSwpKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSks KSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSks KSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwp KSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkp LCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSks KSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwp LCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkp LCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkp KSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpLCkpKSkpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSks KSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCks KSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkp KSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkp LCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwp LCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkp LCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSksKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSwpLCks KSwpLCkpKSwpLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCksKSwpKSwpLCkpKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSwpLCks KSkpKSkpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpLCkpKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSkpLCks KSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSkpKSwpKSksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSks KSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpLCkpKSwpLCksKSkpLCksKSwp LCksKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCksKSkpKSksKSks KSwpLCkpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSkpKSksKSwpKSwpLCksKSkp LCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpKSks KSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSkp KSkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSkpKSkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwp LCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSkpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCkpKSkpKSksKSwpKSwpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpLCkpLCkpLCksKSks KSksKSwpLCksKSkpKSkpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSkpKSksKSksKSwpLCkp KSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpKSwpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCksKSwpKSwpLCkpKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCksKSkpKSkp LCkpLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSkp KSkpLCksKSwpKSkpKSksKSwpKSkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSwpLCkpKSkp KSwpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSkpKSksKSksKSwpLCkpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwp KSkpKSwpLCkpKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSkpLCksKSkpKSkpLCkpLCkpLCks KSwpLCkpLCksKSkpKSksKSksKSwpLCkpKSkpKSwpLCksKSwpKSkpKSwpLCks KSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpKSkpKSwpLCkpKSkpLCkp LCksKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCksKSkpKSkpKSwpLCksKSkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCks KSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSks KSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwp LCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwp LCkpKSwpKSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCkpLCksKSksKSksKSwpKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkp LCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSksKSks KSksKSwpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpKSkpLCksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp LCksKSksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCks KSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSks KSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwp LCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwp LCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwp KSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkp LCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCksKSksKSksKSwp LCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSksKSkpKSksKSwpLCkpKSks KSkpLCkpLCksKSksKSkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpKSksKSkpLCksKSkp KSwpKSwpLCkubWFpbj0oKCgsKCgsKCgsKCgoKCwoLCgsKCwoKCwqIHwgKiks KSkpKSksKSwpLCkpLCkpLCkpLCksKS4/IC89KCg8Pi8hXzwvPD4vKV88Lz4+ LykuXyAvIFw9XC4vKHwpXD0/KDwvLCg/KD4vLCgwIFwsTyg+LyB8IGMgXCAp KSksbyg8LyB8IEMgXCApKSkuMCB4PSgoKCwoKCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKCgo KCwoKCwoKCgseCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCksKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwp KSwpLCkubyB4PSgoKCwoKCwoKCh4LCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkuTyB4PSgoKCwo KCwoKCgoKCgsKCgsKCwoKHgsKSwpKSksKSksKSwpLCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCku YyB4PSgoKCwoKCwoKCgseCksKSwpKSwpKSwpLCkuQyB4PSgoKCwoKCwoLCgo KCgoLCgoLCgoKCx4KSwpLCkpLCkpLCksKSwpLCkpKSwpKSwpLCkuCg== --0-1104431168-1019157179=:66037-- From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 18 22:21:19 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yHSv-000DIj-00; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:21:09 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:21:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yHSe-000DIZ-00; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:20:52 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:20:36 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yHSN-000DIT-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:20:35 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-234-231.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.234.231]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC938A3E6E for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:20:32 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:29:29 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming soon) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Mtv Europe wrote: > "quiet... too quiet... where IS everybody?" (c) Shrek Agreed. > Anybody interested in arithmetic on Kayak? Of course. I tried a bit, but couldn't come up with a good number representation, so I tried to implement a bad one, but the division/multiplication routine won't work and I can't see the problem, so I more or less gave up. If you can make a working version, I'll be interested. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 19 08:42:29 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yR9w-000Eyc-00; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:42:12 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:42:05 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yR9O-000EyW-00; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:41:38 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:41:31 +0300 (EEST) Received: from smtp-out-1.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.188] helo=mel-rto1.wanadoo.fr) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yR9G-000EyQ-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:41:30 +0300 Received: from mel-rta1.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by mel-rto1.wanadoo.fr; 19 Apr 2002 07:41:25 +0200 Received: from there (217.128.161.116) by mel-rta1.wanadoo.fr; 19 Apr 2002 07:41:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3cbfae003cd8958d@mel-rta1.wanadoo.fr> (added by mel-rta1.wanadoo.fr) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Jerome Quelin To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [conser] New interpreter Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:42:18 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: <20020418191259.66188.qmail@web21402.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20020418191259.66188.qmail@web21402.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jquelin@wanadoo.fr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: jquelin@wanadoo.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Jeudi 18 Avril 2002 21:12, Quowong Liu wrote : > I have a new conser interpreter written in ocaml. It does lazy > evaluation and uses the nested pair structure suggested by > Ben Rudiak-Gould for io. Hey there, Speaking of new interpreters, I've written a fully Concurrent Funge-98 compliant interpreter in perl, for 2D spaces (aka Befunge). Check the module Language::Befunge at: http://search.cpan.org/search?mode=module&query=language%3A%3Abefunge And I also made an Inline interface, at: http://search.cpan.org/search?mode=module&query=Inline%3A%3ABefunge Cheers, Jerome -- jquelin@wanadoo.fr From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 19 13:46:52 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yVuN-000GEd-00; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:46:27 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:46:20 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yVtT-000GEG-00; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:45:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:45:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from colin.pp.htv.fi ([212.90.94.40]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16yVtK-000GEA-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:45:22 +0300 Received: (qmail 6201 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Apr 2002 10:45:21 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:45:21 +0300 From: Heikki Kallasjoki To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: new interpreters Message-ID: <20020419134521.A5294@ubiquitous.eu.org> References: <20020418191259.66188.qmail@web21402.mail.yahoo.com> <3cbfae003cd8958d@mel-rta1.wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3cbfae003cd8958d@mel-rta1.wanadoo.fr>; from jquelin@wanadoo.fr on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:42:18AM +0200 X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: fizban@iki.fi Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: fizban@iki.fi Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:42:18AM +0200, Jerome Quelin wrote: > Speaking of new interpreters, I've written a fully Concurrent Funge-98 Well, speaking of new interpreters.. Recently I found out that the GNU C compiler has a support for compiled gotos, so I wrote a befunge-93 interpreter which uses it. The code is far from pretty, since it tries to be as fast as possible. There's an unhealthy amount of repeated almost-identical code - but it manages to have only one (computed) goto instruction per executed befunge command. Compiled with gcc flags '-O6 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-common -march=i586' it runs my recursive-fibonacci-number-program at approximately 13.66 MFIPS (millions of befunge instructions per second) on this intel-p233. So it should be quite fast. The program I used for testing was: 1&>:2`vv\ _+v v\-#2:_:/\^\< >1^2\0 _+.@ Needs GCC to compile, of course, since the computed goto is a GNU extension. I tried to compile it with intel C++ compiler, version 5.0.1 (Build 010730D0), but it only ate few hundred megs of RAM, used 160 seconds to think about it, and then said "icc: error: Fatal error in /opt/intel/compiler50/ia32/bin/mcpcom, terminated by segmentation violation". So use GCC. I also wrote a slow-and-really-ugly befunge-93 interpreter in fortran, when I was trying to teach myself it. It compiles well with g77, but is (as I said) slow. It isn't pretty, mainly because I really don't know how to do 'proper' fortran. Since both programs are fairly small, I've attached both to this email. Another experiment of mine was to try and make an executable file which would work both in i386-linux and dos. Thanks to linux' lazy interpretation of the ELF header, it was actually very easy. I'll attach the source (for nasm) to make a program which exits gracefully (with the return code of 42) in both linux and DOS. I'm currently modifying that to a befunge-93 interpreter (I seem to be doing that a lot), but only the dos portion of the code is written (and even that doesn't work - crashed my w2k last time I ran it). Also, I'll have to mention the home pages of a friend. He has befunge-93 interpreters written in algol-60 and z80 assembler (latter for the TI-86 calculator) on his page, along with some marvellous befunge programs. I think these have been mentioned here before, but "since we were talking about befunge interpreters..." The URI's http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/oma/quux/befunge.html I would mention also http://glfunge98.sourceforge.net/, but I'm too embarrassed to do that - it's broken and I haven't worked on it for so long it's got piles of dust over all the code. - Heikki Kallasjoki fizban@iki.fi -- >#v1&#:<-1<-1\0\_.@ "You cannot escape from window 0!" >2-!#v_:2\^fibre^-< fizban at iki dot fi ^:_ >$1>\#+:#$!_1^ PGP key fp 657AF64968F12E6ECBE5F90E421C1FDF9EC09E94 --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: fbef.for Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="fbef.for" c fbef.for c befunge interpreter c (c) 2002 Heikki Kallasjoki c usage: run it. it asks for file name. give something. c it'll ask for debug output. say '1' (yes) or '0' (no) c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c data area block data fbd implicit integer*1 (z) common /fbc/ istack(0:1023), isp, ismod, kdx, kdy, id common /fbcs/ zipf(0:79, 0:24) /fbco/ zobuf(0:79), iobufp data isp /0/ ismod /0/ iobufp /0/ id /0/ save end c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c subroutine push subroutine push ( ival ) common /fbc/ istack(0:1023), isp, ismod, kdx, kdy, id if(isp.gt.1023) then write(*, *) 'stack overflow.' isp = isp - 1 else isp = isp + 1 endif istack(isp-1) = ival end c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c function pop function pop ( ) common /fbc/ istack(0:1023), isp, ismod, kdx, kdy, id if(isp.eq.0) then pop = 0 return endif isp = isp - 1 pop = istack(isp) end c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c subroutine addchar subroutine addchar ( zval ) implicit integer*1 (z) common /fbco/ zobuf(0:79), iobufp character*80 cobuf equivalence (cobuf, zobuf) integer i integer*1 zi if(zval.eq.10) go to 301 zobuf(iobufp) = zval iobufp = iobufp + 1 if(iobufp.lt.80) go to 302 301 zi = 32 do 303, i = iobufp, 79 zobuf(i) = zi 303 continue iobufp = 0 write(*, '( A80 )') cobuf 302 end c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c subroutine flusho subroutine flusho ( ) implicit integer*1 (z) common /fbco/ zobuf(0:79), iobufp character*80 cobuf equivalence (cobuf, zobuf) if(iobufp.ne.0) write(*, '( A80 )') cobuf end c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c function execc function execc ( kpx, kpy ) implicit integer*1 (z) common /fbc/ istack(0:1023), isp, ismod, kdx, kdy, id common /fbcs/ zipf(0:79, 0:24) integer i, j, k character ccc integer*1 zccc character*16 tobuf integer*1 ztobuf(0:15) equivalence (tobuf, ztobuf), (ccc, zccc) execc = 0 zccc = zipf(kpx, kpy) if(id.eq.0) go to 404 write(*, *) 'exec:', kpx, kpy, ' - ', ccc, ' stack:', isp, '--', _ istack(0), istack(1), istack(2), istack(3), istack(4), istack(5), _ istack(6), istack(7), istack(8), istack(9), istack(10),istack(11) c -- stringmode handling 404 if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.34) if(ismod) 70, 71, 70 go to 124 70 ismod = 0 return 71 ismod = 1 return 124 if(ismod.eq.1) then i = zipf(kpx, kpy) call push(i) return endif c -- '<' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.60) then kdx = -1 kdy = 0 return endif c -- '>' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.62) then kdx = 1 kdy = 0 return endif c -- '^' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.94) then kdx = 0 kdy = -1 return endif c -- 'v' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.118) then kdx = 0 kdy = 1 return endif c -- '|' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.124) then kdx = 0 i = pop() if(i.eq.0) then kdy = 1 else kdy = -1 endif return endif c -- '_' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.95) then kdy = 0 i = pop() if(i.eq.0) then kdx = 1 else kdx = -1 endif return endif c -- ':' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.58) then i = pop() call push(i) call push(i) endif c -- '+' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.43) then i = pop() + pop() call push(i) return endif c -- '-' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.45) then i = pop() j = pop() call push(j - i) return endif c -- '*' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.42) then i = pop() * pop() call push(i) return endif c -- '/' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.47) then i = pop() j = pop() if(i.eq.0) then write(*, *) 'division by zero, returning 0' call push(0) else call push(j / i) endif return endif c -- numbers 0-9 if((zipf(kpx, kpy).gt.47).and.(zipf(kpx, kpy).lt.58)) then call push(zipf(kpx,kpy) - 48) return endif c -- '\' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.92) then i = pop() j = pop() call push(i) call push(j) return endif c -- '$' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.36) then i = pop() return endif c -- '`' instruction (greater-than) if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.96) then i = pop() j = pop() k = 0 if(j-i) 141, 141, 142 142 k = k + 1 141 call push(k) return endif c -- '!' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.33) then k = 0 if(pop()) 171, 172, 171 172 k = k + 1 171 call push(k) return endif c -- the '.' command 99 format ( I15, ' ' ) if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.46) then i = pop() write(tobuf, 99) i j = 0 k = 0 192 if(ztobuf(j).ne.32) k = 1 if(((ztobuf(j).gt.47).and.(ztobuf(j).lt.58)).or.(ztobuf(j).eq. _45)) call addchar(ztobuf(j)) j = j + 1 if((k.eq.0).or.(ztobuf(j).ne.32)) go to 192 zccc = 32 call addchar(zccc) return endif c -- the ',' command if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.44) then i = pop() zccc = i call addchar(zccc) return endif c -- '&' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.38) then call flusho read(*, *) i call push(i) return endif c -- '#' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.35) execc = 2 c -- '@' instruction if(zipf(kpx, kpy).eq.64) execc = 1 end c --------------------------------------------------------------------- c main program program fbef implicit integer*1 (z) common /fbc/ istack(0:1023), isp, ismod, kdx, kdy, id common /fbcs/ zipf(0:79, 0:24) integer i, j, kpx, kpy, ios, ib integer*1 ia(0:79), ztmp character*80 cc equivalence (cc, ia) character cconv write(*, *) 'fbef 0.9.1' c -- initialization (playfield, variables) do 1, i = 0, 79 do 10, j = 0, 24 zipf(i, j) = 32 10 continue 1 continue kdx = 1 kdy = 0 kpx = 0 kpy = 0 c -- load program write(*, *) 'load what file?' read(*, *) cc open (42, iostat=ios, file=cc, status='old', acce _ss='direct', form='formatted', recl=80) if(ios.gt.0) then write(*, *) 'unable to open file ', ios return endif j = 0 43 read(42, '( A80 )', err=42, end=44) cc do 60, i = 0, 79 zipf(i, j) = ia(i) 60 continue j = j + 1 if(j.gt.24) go to 44 go to 43 42 write(*, *) 'error loading program' return 44 write(*, *) 'program loaded' close (42) c -- debug mode? write(*, *) 'debug output?' read(*, *) id c -- main loop j = 0 2 i = execc(kpx, kpy) j = j + 1 if(i.eq.1) go to 222 33 kpx = kpx + kdx kpy = kpy + kdy i = i - 1 if(i) 34, 34, 33 34 if(kpx.gt.79) kpx = kpx - 80 if(kpx.lt.0) kpx = kpx + 80 if(kpy.gt.24) kpy = kpy - 25 if(kpy.lt.0) kpy = kpy + 25 go to 2 222 ztmp = 10 call flusho write(*, *) 'instructions executed:', j end --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: ff.c Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ff.c" /* * ff:ff.c - fast befunge interpreter * (c) 2002 Heikki Kallasjoki * * playfield size 256x256 bytes * stack size 1024 signed longs * * compile with 'DO_JPTR' defined in order to use the alternative * 'pointer to function table' approach and not the 'fixed function * tables' one. speed difference isn't noticeable. * * compile with 'DEBUGOUT' defined in order to get IP location, current * command and stack printed to stdout each 'tick'. actually not 'each' but * on most of them :p */ register long * sp asm ("edi"); #ifdef DO_JPTR register void * (*jtbl)[256] asm ("esi"); #endif /* DO_JPTR */ #include #include #include unsigned char pf[65536]; long st[1027]; unsigned short int ipc = 0; char ts[128]; static void * bff[1024]; int main(int argc, char ** argv) { int i, j; FILE * fi; char ln[258]; unsigned char cc; register long ri1; #ifdef DEBUGOUT long * lp; #define _D printf("0x%04x %c ", ipc, pf[ipc]); for(lp = sp-1; lp >= st+3; lp--) printf(" %ld", *lp); fputc('\n', stdout); #else #define _D #endif /* DEBUGOUT */ for(i = 0; i < 256; i++) { bff[i] = &&b_nop_ix; bff[256|i] = &&b_nop_iy; bff[512|i] = &&b_nop_dx; bff[768|i] = &&b_nop_dy; } #define FILL_ISET(x,off) bff[off+'<'] = &&b_left; bff[off+'>'] = &&b_right; bff[off+'^'] = &&b_up; bff[off+'v'] = &&b_down; \ bff[off+'|'] = &&b_ifver; bff[off+'_'] = &&b_ifhor; bff[off+'#'] = &&b_skip_ ## x; \ bff[off+':'] = &&b_dup_ ## x; bff[off+'\\'] = &&b_swap_ ## x; bff[off+'$'] = &&b_disc_ ## x; \ bff[off+'+'] = &&b_add_ ## x; bff[off+'-'] = &&b_sub_ ## x; bff[off+'*'] = &&b_mul_ ## x; bff[off+'/'] = &&b_div_ ## x; \ bff[off+'0'] = &&b_num0_ ## x; bff[off+'1'] = &&b_num1_ ## x; bff[off+'2'] = &&b_num2_ ## x; bff[off+'3'] = &&b_num3_ ## x; bff[off+'4'] = &&b_num4_ ## x; \ bff[off+'5'] = &&b_num5_ ## x; bff[off+'6'] = &&b_num6_ ## x; bff[off+'7'] = &&b_num7_ ## x; bff[off+'8'] = &&b_num8_ ## x; bff[off+'9'] = &&b_num9_ ## x; \ bff[off+'`'] = &&b_gt_ ## x; bff[off+'!'] = &&b_not_ ## x; bff[off+'?'] = &&b_rnd; \ bff[off+'.'] = &&b_prin_ ## x; bff[off+','] = &&b_pric_ ## x; bff[off+'&'] = &&b_getn_ ## x; bff[off+'~'] = &&b_getc_ ## x; \ bff[off+'@'] = &&b_ex_ ## x; bff[off+'"'] = &&b_sm_ ## x; \ bff[off+'g'] = &&b_get_ ## x; bff[off+'p'] = &&b_put_ ## x FILL_ISET(ix, 0); FILL_ISET(iy, 256); FILL_ISET(dx, 512); FILL_ISET(dy, 768); sp = st + 3; st[0] = 0; st[1] = 0; st[2] = 0; #ifdef DO_JPTR jtbl = (void *(*)[256])&bff; #endif /* DO_JPTR */ /* load proggie */ memset(pf, 32, sizeof(pf)); fi = fopen((argc > 1) ? argv[1] : "ff-in.bf", "rt"); if(!fi) { perror("fopen()"); exit(1); } i = 0; while(fgets(ln, 258, fi)) { for(j = 0; ln[j] && ln[j] != '\n' && j < 128; j++); memcpy(pf + (i << 8), ln, j); i++; if(i & 0x100) break; } fclose(fi); /* main "loop" */ goto *bff[*pf]; #ifdef DO_JPTR #define MOVE_TO2(mf, oo) mf; goto *(*jtbl)[pf[ipc]] #else #define MOVE_TO2(mf, oo) mf; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[oo]))[pf[ipc]] #endif /* DO_JPTR */ #define POP() ((sp>st+3)?*(--sp):0) #define PUSH(x) *(sp++) = (x) #define INSTSET(x,mf,mfdx,mfix,mfdy,mfiy,oo) \ b_dup_ ## x: _D *(sp) = *(sp-1); sp++; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_swap_ ## x: _D if(sp>st+4) { ri1 = *(sp-2); *(sp-2) = *(sp-1); *(sp-1) = ri1; } else { if(sp==st+3) *(sp++) = 0; (*sp++) = 0; } MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_disc_ ## x: _D if(sp>st+3) sp--; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_add_ ## x: _D if(sp>st+4) *(--sp-1) += *sp; else if(sp == st+3) *(sp++) = 0; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_sub_ ## x: _D if(sp==st+3) *(sp++) = 0; else if(sp==st+4) *(st+3) = -*(st+3); else if(sp>st+4) *(--sp-1) -= *sp; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_mul_ ## x: _D if(sp>st+4) *(--sp-1) *= *sp; else *((sp=st+4)-1) = 0; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_div_ ## x: _D \ if(sp>st+4) *(--sp-1) /= *sp; else raise(SIGFPE); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num0_ ## x: _D PUSH(0); b_nop_ ## x: MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num1_ ## x: _D PUSH(1); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num2_ ## x: _D PUSH(2); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num3_ ## x: _D PUSH(3); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num4_ ## x: _D PUSH(4); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num5_ ## x: _D PUSH(5); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num6_ ## x: _D PUSH(6); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num7_ ## x: _D PUSH(7); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num8_ ## x: _D PUSH(8); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_num9_ ## x: _D PUSH(9); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_gt_ ## x: _D if(sp>st+4) *(--sp-1) = *(sp-1) > *sp; else if(sp == st+3) *(sp++) =0; else if(*(st+3)<0) *(st+3) = 1; else *(st+3) = 0; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_not_ ## x: _D if(sp>st+3) *(sp-1) = !*(sp-1); else *(sp++) = 0; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_prin_ ## x: _D printf("%ld ", POP()); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_pric_ ## x: _D fputc(POP(), stdout); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_getn_ ## x: _D fgets(ts, 128, stdin); PUSH(atoi(ts)); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_getc_ ## x: _D PUSH(fgetc(stdin)); MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_ex_ ## x: _D exit(0); \ b_sm_ ## x: mf; if((cc = pf[ipc]) == '"') { MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); } PUSH(cc); goto b_sm_ ## x; \ b_get_ ## x: _D if(sp==st+3) *(sp++) = pf[0]; else if(sp == st+4) *(sp-1) = pf[*(sp-1)<<8]; else { *sp = pf[(*(sp-1) << 8) | *(sp-2)]; sp++; } MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ b_put_ ## x: _D pf[(*(sp-1) << 8) | *(sp-2)] = *(sp-3); if(sp>st+5) sp -= 2; else sp = st+3; MOVE_TO2(mf, oo); \ #ifdef DO_JPTR #define INSTSET_MISC(x, mf2, oo) \ b_skip_ ## x: _D \ mf2; goto *(*jtbl)[pf[ipc]]; #define INSTSET_TURN(mfdx,mfix,mfdy,mfiy) \ b_right: _D jtbl = (void *(*)[256])&bff; MOVE_TO2(mfix, foo); \ b_down: _D jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff[256]); MOVE_TO2(mfiy, foo); \ b_left: _D jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff[512]); MOVE_TO2(mfdx, foo); \ b_up: _D jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff[768]); MOVE_TO2(mfdy, foo); \ b_ifhor: _D \ if(sp == st+3 || *(--sp)) { jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff[512]); MOVE_TO2(mfdx, foo); } else { jtbl = (void *(*)[256])&bff; MOVE_TO2(mfix, foo); } \ b_ifver: _D \ if(sp == st+3 || *(--sp)) { jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff[768]); MOVE_TO2(mfdy, foo); } else { jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff[256]); MOVE_TO2(mfiy, foo); } \ b_rnd: _D jtbl = (void *(*)[256])(&bff [(rand()&3)<<8]); goto *(*jtbl)[0]; #else #define INSTSET_MISC(x, mf2, oo) \ b_skip_ ## x: _D \ mf2; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[oo]))[pf[ipc]]; #define INSTSET_TURN(mfdx,mfix,mfdy,mfiy) \ b_right: _D mfix; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff))[pf[ipc]]; \ b_down: _D mfiy; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[256]))[pf[ipc]]; \ b_left: _D mfdx; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[512]))[pf[ipc]]; \ b_up: _D mfdy; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[768]))[pf[ipc]]; \ b_ifhor: _D \ if(sp == st+3 || *(--sp)) { mfdx; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[512]))[pf[ipc]]; } else { mfix; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff))[pf[ipc]]; } \ b_ifver: _D \ if(sp == st+3 || *(--sp)) { mfdy; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[768]))[pf[ipc]]; } else { mfiy; goto *(*((void *(*)[256])&bff[256]))[pf[ipc]]; } \ b_rnd: _D ri1 = rand()&3; if(ri1==0) goto b_right; else if(ri1==1) goto b_down; else if(ri1==2) goto b_left; else goto b_up; #endif /* DO_JPTR */ INSTSET(ix, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)++, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)++, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))--, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))++, 0) INSTSET(iy, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))++, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)++, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))--, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))++, 256) INSTSET(dx, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)++, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))--, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))++, 512) INSTSET(dy, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)++, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))--, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))++, 768) INSTSET_MISC(ix, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc) += 2, 0) INSTSET_MISC(iy, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1)) += 2, 256) INSTSET_MISC(dx, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc) -= 2, 512) INSTSET_MISC(dy, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1)) -= 2, 768) INSTSET_TURN((*(unsigned char *)&ipc)--, (*(unsigned char *)&ipc)++, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))--, (*(((unsigned char *)&ipc) + 1))++) return 0; } --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: elfcom.s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="elfcom.s" ; elfcom.s ; (c) 2002 Heikki Kallasjoki ; ELF/COM file - assemble with nasm, binary output. ; only exits gracefully. ; this macro is used when converting addresses to use the elf address base ; nasm doesn't understand if I say 'org' many times, damn %define _e(x) ((x)+0x08047f00) [BITS 32] org 0x0100 ; dos loads us here elfhdr: ; we need the ELF header db 0x7f, "ELF" ; 4 first bytes of e_ident [BITS 16] jmp dospart ; jump to dos portion of the code [BITS 32] times 16 - ($ - $$) db 0 ; rest of e_ident (up to 16 bytes) dw 2 ; e_type: executable file dw 3 ; e_machine: i386 executable dd 1 ; e_version: EV_CURRENT, 1 dd _e(_start) ; e_entry: our entry point dd elfphdr - $$ ; e_phoff: program header table offset dd 0 ; e_shoff: section header table we don't have dd 0 ; e_flags: whatever dw elfhdrsz ; e_ehsize: header size dw elfphdrsz ; e_phentsize: program header size dw 1 ; e_phnum: one program header in the table times 3 dw 0 ; e_sh*: segment header stuff dd elfhdrsz elfhdrsz equ $ - elfhdr [BITS 16] ; some filler bytes here so the 'jg 0x45' jumps to right place times 0x47 - elfhdrsz - 2 db 0x90 ; nops perhaps dospart: ; dos portion of the code should be here ; remove the effects of elf header inc sp dec si ; here's where the jg would jump ; exit gracefully mov ax, 0x4c2a int 0x21 [BITS 32] elfphdr: ; elf program header table dd 1 ; p_type: loadable segment dd 0 ; p_offset: load everything from the beginning dd _e($$) ; p_vaddr: virtual address where we go dd _e($$) ; p_paddr: physical address, ignored dd filesz ; p_filesz: bytes in file dd filesz ; p_memsz: bytes in memory dd 7 ; p_flags: all access (rwx) dd 0x1000 ; p_align: 4k page boundary here elfphdrsz equ $ - elfphdr _start: ; linux portion of the code ; just exit xor eax, eax inc eax mov bl, 42 int 0x80 filesz equ $ - $$ --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl-- From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 20 23:59:16 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16z1ve-000PVL-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:57:54 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:57:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16z1tV-000PVC-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:55:41 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:55:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.85]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16z1tM-000PV6-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:55:32 +0300 Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16z1nK-0000Jn-05; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:49:18 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.230.181.145]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16z1nD-2E0cqmC; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:49:11 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3KKtMgw063781 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:55:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3KKtMgp063780 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:55:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:55:22 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming soon) Message-ID: <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Milo van Handel [020418 21:58]: > Mtv Europe wrote: > > > "quiet... too quiet... where IS everybody?" (c) Shrek > > Agreed. > > > Anybody interested in arithmetic on Kayak? > > Of course. I tried a bit, but couldn't come up with a good number > representation, so I tried to implement a bad one, but the > division/multiplication routine won't work and I can't see the problem, so > I more or less gave up. If you can make a working version, I'll be interested. Well, one could use 32bit numbers or so, but given bit stacks that seems like a lame representation. It would be a lot more interesting to make numbers of unlimited size ("bignums"). The problem I see is finding the end of a number (popping an empty stack yields 0). One solution would be to use unary, but that's quite lame, too. So, sticking to binary numbers, all I can think of is representing each number as two stacks - the first contains the number in binary, and the second contains the number of digits of the number in the first stack in unary. You could also fit this onto one stack doing something like [ 0 ], but a function receiving such an argument would have to decode it, anyway. Hmm, how would signed arithmetic fit into this representation? Markus PS: What was the "bad" representation you tried to implement? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 21 16:01:43 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zGyA-0009Vl-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:01:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:01:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from artemis.ee.teiath.gr ([195.130.107.17]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zGy2-0009Vf-00 for misc@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:01:22 +0300 Received: from ESCHER (ppp2.ee.teiath.gr [195.130.107.54]) by artemis.ee.teiath.gr (8.11.2/8.8.7) with SMTP id g3LDjIu04804 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:45:18 +0300 Message-ID: <002c01c1e934$9ed895d0$366b82c3@ESCHER> From: "Al. Andreou" To: Subject: ANNOUNCE Myalo 20020421 (#1) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:00:59 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: ee4299@ee.teiath.gr Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Hello people! I'm starting a BrainFuck compiler named 'myalo' (which is the greek word for 'brain'). Current version is 20020421 (#1), and actually is only a rough translation from BrainFuck to C. More features are worked on (plus some bugs). The compiler can be found in: http://nemesis.ee.teiath.gr/~ee4299/myalo/myalo-20020421.c Al. Andreou http://nemesis.ee.teiath.gr/~ee4299/ [Smart quote removed by court order.] From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 21 18:48:12 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zJZA-000Bpd-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:47:52 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:47:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zJYZ-000BpX-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:47:16 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:47:09 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [194.78.208.93] (helo=decis.be) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zJYR-000BpQ-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:47:08 +0300 Received: from decis.be [192.168.0.20] by decis.be [194.78.208.93] with SMTP (MDaemon.v3.5.3.R) for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:35:59 +0200 Message-ID: <3CC2E018.229E9A1A@decis.be> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:51:52 +0200 From: Frederic van der Plancke Organization: Decis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming soon) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MDRemoteIP: 192.168.0.20 X-Return-Path: fvdp@decis.be X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: fvdp@decis.be Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: fvdp@decis.be Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Markus Kliegl wrote: > > * Milo van Handel [020418 21:58]: > > Mtv Europe wrote: > > > > > "quiet... too quiet... where IS everybody?" (c) Shrek > > > > Agreed. > > > > > Anybody interested in arithmetic on Kayak? > > > > Of course. I tried a bit, but couldn't come up with a good number > > representation, so I tried to implement a bad one, but the > > division/multiplication routine won't work and I can't see the problem, so > > I more or less gave up. If you can make a working version, I'll be interested. > > Well, one could use 32bit numbers or so, but given bit stacks that > seems like a lame representation. It would be a lot more interesting > to make numbers of unlimited size ("bignums"). The problem I see is > finding the end of a number (popping an empty stack yields 0). One > solution would be to use unary, but that's quite lame, too. So, > sticking to binary numbers, all I can think of is representing each > number as two stacks - the first contains the number in binary, and > the second contains the number of digits of the number in the first > stack in unary. You could also fit this onto one stack doing something > like [ 0 ], but a > function receiving such an argument would have to decode it, anyway. You could also spend a pair of bits by binary digit: with top of stack on the left: 10 zero 11 one 00 (past-)end-of-number 01 should not occur so 13 appears as: 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 .... sort of your two-stacks solution with the two stacks intertwined. Frédéric From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 21 22:40:05 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zNBU-000CpR-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:39:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:39:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zNAs-000CpK-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:39:02 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:38:56 +0300 (EEST) Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com ([192.108.102.143]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zNAk-000CpE-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:38:55 +0300 Received: from myrealbox.com amirlb@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [62.219.224.69] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with Novell NIMS $Revision: 2.88.1.1 $ on Novell NetWare; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:38:51 -0600 Message-ID: <3CC323ED.9070701@myrealbox.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:41:17 +0200 From: Amir Livne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311 X-Accept-Language: en-us, he MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] [malbolge] Turing completeness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc The explanation of the turing-completeness of Malboge relies on being able to make all the arithmetic computations using only its operator (somewhat like NAND or NOR, I guess). Is there any proof/good explanation of this fact? If it does not have this property, maybe we should change Malbolge to use a better operator, to increase its chance to be turing complete? -- Bad spellers of the world UNTIE! lightstep (Amir Livne) From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 21 22:43:25 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zNF5-000Ct0-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:43:23 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:43:16 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zNEs-000Cst-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:43:10 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:43:03 +0300 (EEST) Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zNEg-000Csn-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:42:58 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-234-67.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.234.67]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBD137E13 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:42:56 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@pandora.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:50:13 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming soon) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Markus Kliegl wrote: > > Of course. I tried a bit, but couldn't come up with a good number > > representation, so I tried to implement a bad one, but the > > division/multiplication routine won't work and I can't see the problem, so > > I more or less gave up. If you can make a working version, I'll be interested. > > Well, one could use 32bit numbers or so, but given bit stacks that > seems like a lame representation. It would be a lot more interesting > to make numbers of unlimited size ("bignums"). The problem I see is > finding the end of a number (popping an empty stack yields 0). One > solution would be to use unary, but that's quite lame, too. So, > sticking to binary numbers, all I can think of is representing each > number as two stacks - the first contains the number in binary, and > the second contains the number of digits of the number in the first > stack in unary. You could also fit this onto one stack doing something > like [ 0 ], but a > function receiving such an argument would have to decode it, anyway. > Hmm, how would signed arithmetic fit into this representation? Two problems: (1) The main idea of Kayak is reversibility, and your representation requires a lot of effort to make reversible. Consider the number one, which can be encoded both as [1] [1] and [1] [1 1] (the first stack is the binary number, the second is the unary count). If you use this in a calculation, you will forget which of these you had. So you either have to give up reversibility (bad) or go through a large amount of trouble making sure the second case never occurs, even when you do something like 3-2 (bad). (2) starting to go this direction will cause people to go crazy with overgeneralization. Why not have a binary stack whose count is stored in a binary wtack whose count is stored in a binary stack whose count is stored in a binary stack whose count is stored in a unary stack? > PS: What was the "bad" representation you tried to implement? The number was given in binary, and there was a count stack. In contrast to the above, however, the count stack was predefined and universal for all numbers, and used only so recursive functions (that is, all of them) know how far down they need to go. And, of course, to make it easier to increase the count later - but only by modifying and restarting the programs. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 22 02:31:48 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zQnn-000DSa-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:31:27 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:31:20 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zQnL-000DSQ-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:30:59 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:29:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.42]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zQmH-000DSE-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:29:53 +0300 Received: from KiwiCado23@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id o.8f.1ac7a053 (17232) for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:28:37 -0400 (EDT) From: KiwiCado23@aol.com Message-ID: <8f.1ac7a053.29f4a524@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:28:36 EDT Subject: [lang] Re: [malbolge] Turing completeness To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 114 X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: KiwiCado23@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: KiwiCado23@aol.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc > The explanation of the turing-completeness of Malboge relies on being > able to make all the arithmetic computations using only its operator > (somewhat like NAND or NOR, I guess). It seemed to me that looping was somewhat of a problem. It seems more likely to me that it is possible to get NAND or NOR out of the operator than it being possible to form any sort of loop. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 22 11:16:12 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zYzD-000FQQ-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:47 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zYz5-000FQK-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:39 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:38 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zYz3-000FQE-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:37 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3M8FUB18770 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:35 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3M8FNO17417 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:23 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:15:23 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils In-Reply-To: <20020413041701.A38069@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > of newer x86 processors, and vendors can't distribute binaries that > will only run on a Pentium 4. (Another annoying thing... I suppose Another good thing about open source - you can compile it with local optimisations, unlike binary distributions which have to be binary compatible, not only source level compatible. This leads to a situation where hand-written assembler might actually be slower than compiled code, because it cannot adjust to changing conditions. (For example, on Pentium all combined instructions (enter, loop, ...) are slower than their outspelled equivalents, whereas on PII they are faster.) > I suppose letting the compiler use non-backwards-compatible > instructions is only used with some in-house development, and not much > otherwise. And for building your own fluffy kernel. > RMS, etc. suffer from having become so fascinated with their > ideologies that they confuse something being right with everything > else being wrong. They also become so involved in defining everything > to fit their perfect world, sort of losing track of reality. I don't think it's that. I think they are actually conscious about their being too fanatic, but that they think if they weren't it would only do harm. When a person is a symbol of an ideology, the ideology becomes the master and the person can only "do what has to be done". The more important symbol something is, the less it has freedom... > bureaucratic societies we live in. Realizing something is Wrong is the > first stip; fixing it is the second. Now how do you convince > bureaucrats that something is Wrong? I've come to the conclusion that You don't have to; just make a lot of example cases and don't worry about argumenting a single one. That way, the minds of people usually get gradually converted even if they disagree with particular examples. > 'American' is part of the definition of the word 'hero' and that > America is the only "free country", etc. and I really get the feeling I sometimes wonder why so many Americans are willing to claim hegemony on freedom when they have never been to other countries... -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 22 11:50:24 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zZWZ-000Fss-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:50:15 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:50:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zZWE-000FsX-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:49:54 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:49:47 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zZW6-000FsR-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:49:46 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3M8nhB29408 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:49:44 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3M8neG19718 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:49:40 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:49:39 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [malbolge] Turing completeness In-Reply-To: <3CC323ED.9070701@myrealbox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Amir Livne wrote: > The explanation of the turing-completeness of Malboge relies on being > able to make all the arithmetic computations using only its operator I think looping is a weaker point (nobody has come up with a way to write a non-terminating Malbolge program). > (somewhat like NAND or NOR, I guess). Is there any proof/good > explanation of this fact? If it does not have this property, maybe we The op table is: op 1st arg 0 1 2 2nd 0 1 0 0 arg 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 1 Let's choose 0 to represent false, 1 to represent true. Then neg a = a op a # negates bits norm a = neg neg a # converts trits into bits, 2 == 0 or a b = neg (a op (b op 2)) # logical OR, upper trits become garbage ors a b = neg (a op (b op 2222222222)) # bitwise OR Other connectives can be made from these. Fortunately, the machine already gives rotations... One can select trits by least_significant_trit a = (2 op (neg a)) op 0 From these, I think you can build quite a complete system. Of course, the execution model does not allow one to actually do these things in a program. Actually, I find op the most enjoyable bit of Malbolge. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 22 20:07:51 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zhHF-000IGE-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:06:57 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:06:50 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zhFE-000IG3-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:04:53 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:04:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [212.16.6.108] (helo=frox25.dhs.org) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zhF6-000IFx-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:04:44 +0300 Received: (qmail 87914 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2002 16:43:36 -0000 Received: from heartw.ih (10.0.17.4) by nova.ih with SMTP; 22 Apr 2002 16:43:36 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:04:26 +0400 From: Mtv Europe X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.49) Personal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-reply-To: <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------1C29162B00C92C" X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mtve@frox25.dhs.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mtve@frox25.dhs.org Precedence: bulk X-list: misc ------------1C29162B00C92C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All! > Markus Kliegl wrote: >> One solution would be to use unary, but that's quite lame, too. Unfortunately it is :) >> You could also fit this onto one stack doing something >> like [ 0 ], but a >> function receiving such an argument would have to decode it, anyway. Other version (which is in process now) will use bitwise numbers in form: (top) '1' bit0 '1' bit1 ... '0' (bottom), where bits are in order with least significant bit on top of stack. Milo van Handel wrote: > Two problems: (1) The main idea of Kayak is reversibility, Hate to upset you, but this one is not reversible. I think this main property of Kayak is badly harmonize with arithmetic, for example when you multiply by zero you indefinitely destroy information. Anyway, see attached. ---- Mtv Europe ------------1C29162B00C92C Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="primes.kayak" Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uue Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="primes.kayak" begin 644 primes.kayak M/`T*2!S8V%L92!O M9B!N;W1A=&EO;BP-"FYU;6)EF5R;R!A="!B;W1T;VT@86YD(&]N97,N#0H-"G-O(&EN('1H:7,@ M;F]T871I;VX@:6YC6%K#0H^ M#0H-"F-O<'DH87QB*7L)/"!A/6(@/@T*"6(@6R!C;W!Y*&%\8BEN=6T@,'PP M(%T@8B`P(&$-"GTH87QB*6YU;0T*#0IM;W9E*&%\8BE["3P@83UB(&(],"`^ M#0H)8B!;(&UO=F4H87QB*6YU;2!=(&$-"GTH87QB*6YU;0T*#0IA9&0H87QB M*7L)/"!A*SUB(#X-"@EB(%L@861D*&%\8BEB=7,@,'QA(%T@8@T*?2AA?&(I M8G5S#0H-"FQEPD\(')EPD\(&$J/6(@/@T*"6%D9&UU;"AC?&%\8BEL=6UB=7,- M"@EM;W9E*&5N='QA*6YU;0T*?2AC?&)\96YT*6UU;`T*#0ID:78H9'QM?&%\ M8BE["3P@9#UA+V(@;3UA)6(@/@T*"6QEPT*"6,Q,"@Q,"EC,3`-"@ED:78H9'QM M?&YU;7PQ,"ED:78-"@EC:'(H;7QO*6-H<@T*"60@6PT*"0DP?&0@:71O82AD M?&\I:71O82!D?#`-"@E=(&0-"@EV:60H,3!\;G5M?&U\9"EV:60-"@DP,6,H M,3`I,#%C#0I]*&YU;7QO*6ET;V$-"@T*871O:2AI?&YU;7QE;G0I>PT*"6D@ M6PT*"0EC,3`H,3`I8S$P(&UU;"AN=6U\,3!\96YT*6UU;"`P,6,H,3`I,#%C M#0H)"6D@6R`P?&YU;2!=(&5N=`T*"0EI(%L@,'QN=6T@,'QN=6T@72!E;G0- M"@D):2!;(#!\;G5M(#!\;G5M(#!\;G5M(#!\;G5M(%T@96YT#0H)"6D@6R`P M?&YU;2`P?&YU;2`P?&YU;2`P?&YU;2`P?&YU;2`P?&YU;2`P?&YU;2`P?&YU M;2!=(&5N=`T*"0EI(&5N="!I(&5N="!I(&5N="!I(&5N=`T*"0EA=&]I*&E\ M;G5M?&5N="EA=&]I#0H)72!E;G0-"GTH:7QN=6U\96YT*6%T;VD-"@T*/`T* M;&EB2!I'1E;G-I=F4@=7-A9V4@ M;V8@96YT:')O<'DL#0IB=70@:70@=V]U;&0@8F4@;6]R92!S;&]W97(-"CX- M"@T*PT*"6QEPT*"6QE Received: from [66.120.209.42] by web21410.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:00:44 PDT Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:00:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Quowong Liu Subject: [lang] hq9+, brainfuck, and unlambda interpreters in conser To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Here are three interpreters in conser. The hq9+ interpreter only took an hour and half or so to write. The brainfuck interpreter was pretty straightforward to write, and took an evening to write. The unlambda interpreter took a morning of thinking (while doing weekend chores) about how to support call/cc, and then a really late evening to write. In retrospect, programming in conser isn't too difficult once the conditional is defined. Coming up with the conditional in the first place took a couple of hours of thinking though. ---------------------------------- "unlambda 1.0 interpreter usage: conser -O cond unlambda.cons < file.unl incredibly slow: the shortest quine in the unlambda 2.0 distribution takes about 25 minutes to run on my computer" main inp = eval parse split inp. split inp = ?(inp,((,),b1>inp(b7,(,)))),b0acc,),split inp), ?(inp,(((>acc,),(,)),b1>inp(<acc,)))), b0acc,)))))). b1 inp acc = ?(acc),split inp), ?(inp,(((,>acc),(,)),b1>inp(<acc)))), b0acc)))))). b7 = (((((((,),),),),),),). ? a = ((<>a!:a):>a). : a b = b. `=((((((,(,((,),))),),),),),). i=(,(((,((,(,((,),))),)),),)). I=(,(((,(((,((,),)),),)),),)). dot=((,(,(,((,(((,),),)),)))),). k=(,(,((,((,(,((,),))),)),))). K=(,(,((,(((,((,),)),),)),))). s=(,(,(((,(,(,((,),)))),),))). S=(,(,(((,((,((,),)),)),),))). v=((,(,((,(,(,((,),)))),))),). V=((,(,((,((,((,),)),)),))),). d=(((,(((,(,((,),))),),)),),). D=(((,((((,((,),)),),),)),),). c=(,(,((((,(,((,),))),),),))). C=(,(,(((((,((,),)),),),),))). #=(,(,((((,(((,),),)),),),))). r=((,(((,(,(,((,),)))),),)),). R=((,(((,((,((,),)),)),),)),). \n=((,((,(((((,),),),),)),)),). \t=(,(((,(((((,),),),),)),),)). \r=(,((,(,(((((,),),),),))),)). sp=((((((,(((,),),)),),),),),). s2=((,),). "result is (exp,rest of input)" parse inp = ?((inp!(,)),(inp, ?((inp, ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp),>>inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp), ?((inp, ?((inp), ?((inp), parse >inp)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))). skip# inp = ?((inp!(,)),(inp, ?((inp, skip#>inp)))). parse-apply inp = parse-apply1 parse inp. parse-apply1 r = parse-apply2 r. parse-apply2 x r = ((`,((,x),(,r). eval parse-result = eval1 (stack, ?((<stack)))))). subst exp stack = ?(>>stack), "else Y must be (,y), pop, push (`,(X,(exp,))), apply" apply((`,(<>stack))))). apply stack = ">>>stack, "if X=(,x), push (`,((,),Y)), push x, eval1" ?(<<><>>stack)), "if Y=(,y), push (`,(X,(,))), push y, eval1" ?(<>>>>stack)), "X=(x,) Y=(y,) x=<<>>>stack), "if x=k, subst (k,y)" ?((<<>>stack, "if x=s, subst (s,y)" ?((<<>>stack, "if x=v, subst v" ?((<<>stack, "if x=c, push (`,((y,),((c,>stack),))), apply" ?((<<>>stack))),>stack), "if x=(dot,char), return char, push y, eval1" ?((<<<><<>>stack), "if x=(k,z), push z, eval1" ?((<<<><<>stack), "if x=(s,z), subst (s2,(z,y))" ?((<<<><<>>stack, "if x=(s2,(a,b)), push (`,((,(`,((a,),(y,)))),(,(`,((b,),(y,)))))), apply" ?((<<<><<>>><<>>stack), "if x=(d,z), push (`,((,),(y,))), push z, eval1" ?((<<<><<>>stack)), "x=(c,cont), cont is new stack, push y, eval1" eval1(<>><<>b(,cont), outl,((,),enc>l)). out p cont = out-bits (128,(64,(32,(16,(8,(4,(2,(1,0)))))))) p cont. out-bits l b cont = ?(l b cont,),(,out-bits>l - ba!:a):>a). : a b = b. split inp = ?(inp(b7,(,)),b0acc,),split inp),?(inp,(((>acc,),),b1>inp(<acc,)))),b0acc,)))))). b1 inp acc = ?(acc),split inp),?(inp,(((,>acc),),b1>inp(<acc)))),b0acc)))))). b7 = (((((((,),),),),),),). decode l = ?(>l,((decode1l))). decode1 b = decodeb b (1,(2,(4,(8,(16,(32,(64,(128,0)))))))) 0. decodeb b bs v = ?(b,(v,decodeb>b>bs +bs v)). 0s = (0,0s). bf pc p inp = ?(p),((<p))) ?(p)). -- p = ((<>p,>p). ++* p = ((inc<p). --* p = ((dec<p). gt=((,(,(,(,(,(((,),),)))))),). lt=(((,(,(,(,(((,),),))))),),). pl=(,(,((,((,(((,),),)),)),))). mi=(,((,(,((,(((,),),)),))),)). co=(((,(,((,(((,),),)),))),),). dt=((,(,(,((,(((,),),)),)))),). ob=(,(,((,(,((,((,),)),))),))). cb=(,((,(,(,((,((,),)),)))),)). ---------------------------------- "hq9+ interpreter usage: conser -O cond hq9+.cons < file.hq9+" main inp = interp inp split inp. ? a = ((<>a!:a):>a). : a b = b. split inp = ?(inp,((,),b1>inp(b7,(,)))),b0acc,),split inp),?(inp,(((>acc,),(,)),b1>inp(<acc,)))),b0acc,)))))). b1 inp acc = ?(acc),split inp),?(inp,(((,>acc),(,)),b1>inp(<acc)))),b0acc)))))). b7 = (((((((,),),),),),),). out data cont = ?(data,(cont,(,out>data cont))),(outones,(cont,verse-end tens ones cont)). 10 = (9,(8,(7,(6,(5,(4,(3,(2,(1,(0,(,))))))))))). verses tens cont = ?(>tens,(cont,10verses tens cont)). 99 cont = verse-start 9 9 s 10verses 9 >10 verses (8,(7,(6,(5,(4,(3,(2,(1,(,))))))))) 10verses (,) (9,(8,(7,(6,(5,(4,(3,(2,(,))))))))) verse-end (,) 1 (,) verse-start (,) 1 (,) verse-end (,) no s cont. Hins=((((,((,(,((,),))),)),),),). Qins=(,((((,(,(,((,),)))),),),)). 9ins=(,(((,(,(,(((,),),)))),),)). +ins=(,(,((,((,(((,),),)),)),))). interp inp insns = ?(>insns,((,),?((insns,?((insns,?((insns,?((insns,interp inp >insns)))))))))). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 22 21:35:27 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zief-000Ia5-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:35:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:35:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zieH-000IZw-00; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:34:49 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:34:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [212.16.6.108] (helo=frox25.dhs.org) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zie9-000IZq-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:34:41 +0300 Received: (qmail 88886 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2002 18:13:33 -0000 Received: from heartw.ih (10.0.17.4) by nova.ih with SMTP; 22 Apr 2002 18:13:33 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:34:23 +0400 From: Mtv Europe X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.49) Personal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <112209402956.20020422223423@frox25.dhs.org> To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: hq9+, brainfuck, and unlambda interpreters in conser In-reply-To: <20020422180044.21724.qmail@web21410.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020422180044.21724.qmail@web21410.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mtve@frox25.dhs.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mtve@frox25.dhs.org Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Hello Quowong Liu! Monday, April 22, 2002, 10:00:44 PM, you wrote: > Here are three interpreters in conser. Your results are unbelievable, quine is just beauty and unlambda interpreter is amazing! I watched closely to conser and tried to dive in few times, but all I can do in conser is to express full approval to your work. Sorry for reducing S/N ratio of this list, I just want to say openly that I really feel delight with your works. Just great, thank you! --- Mtv Europe From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 23 06:21:53 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zqrB-000Jwg-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:20:41 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:20:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zqpM-000JwV-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:18:48 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:18:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.125] helo=mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zqpD-000JwP-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:18:40 +0300 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.139]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3N3IZ323572 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:18:32 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16zqp8-0002tS-00 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:18:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:18:34 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020423031834.GF10461@twcny.rr.com> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:04:26PM +0400, Mtv Europe wrote: > Hate to upset you, but this one is not reversible. I think this main > property of Kayak is badly harmonize with arithmetic, for example > when you multiply by zero you indefinitely destroy information. Then work around multiplying by zero. Heck, I think it would be amusing and fitting for Kayak to raise a "multiply by zero error". -- Rob Speer From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 23 12:51:04 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zwwT-000LXV-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:50:33 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:50:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zwvj-000LXD-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:49:47 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:49:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.83]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zwvb-000LX7-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:49:39 +0300 Received: from fwd10.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16zwN0-00013j-06; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:13:54 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.230.171.104]) by fwd10.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16zwMx-1JGV84C; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:13:51 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3N9KGgw073408 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:20:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3N9KGAm073407 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:20:16 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming soon) Message-ID: <20020423112016.A73325@esoteric> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC2E018.229E9A1A@decis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3CC2E018.229E9A1A@decis.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Frederic van der Plancke [020421 18:05]: > > > Markus Kliegl wrote: > > > > * Milo van Handel [020418 21:58]: > > > Mtv Europe wrote: > > > > > > > "quiet... too quiet... where IS everybody?" (c) Shrek > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > Anybody interested in arithmetic on Kayak? > > > > > > Of course. I tried a bit, but couldn't come up with a good number > > > representation, so I tried to implement a bad one, but the > > > division/multiplication routine won't work and I can't see the problem, so > > > I more or less gave up. If you can make a working version, I'll be interested. > > > > Well, one could use 32bit numbers or so, but given bit stacks that > > seems like a lame representation. It would be a lot more interesting > > to make numbers of unlimited size ("bignums"). The problem I see is > > finding the end of a number (popping an empty stack yields 0). One > > solution would be to use unary, but that's quite lame, too. So, > > sticking to binary numbers, all I can think of is representing each > > number as two stacks - the first contains the number in binary, and > > the second contains the number of digits of the number in the first > > stack in unary. You could also fit this onto one stack doing something > > like [ 0 ], but a > > function receiving such an argument would have to decode it, anyway. > > You could also spend a pair of bits by binary digit: > with top of stack on the left: > 10 zero > 11 one > 00 (past-)end-of-number > 01 should not occur > > so 13 appears as: > 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 .... > > sort of your two-stacks solution with the two stacks intertwined. > > Frédéric > Yeah, Mtv Europe pointed that one out to me by private mail (probably by accident). I quite like it and it reminds me a little of the BCD ("Binary Coded Decimal") notation, where a nibble is used to represent the digits 0-9. 13 is 0001 0011. Of course using binary we can represent 0-15 in a nibble, and a byte only gives us to 0-99 as opposed to 0-255. (I believe this is used by the Saturn processor - the one used by the HP 48/49). The advantage is with floating-point numbers. 0.2 in binary is 0.00110011... while in BCD it's 0.0010 Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 23 14:08:28 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zy9b-000Lv3-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:08:11 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:08:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zy9B-000Lus-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:07:46 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:07:39 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.82]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zy94-000Lum-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:07:38 +0300 Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16zy67-0007Md-05; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:04:35 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.230.171.104]) by fwd00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16zy5w-1xuRJgC; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:04:24 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3NBAngw073524 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:10:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3NBAnQh073523 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:10:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:10:49 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Mtv Europe [020422 20:06]: [...] > Milo van Handel wrote: > > Two problems: (1) The main idea of Kayak is reversibility, > > Hate to upset you, but this one is not reversible. I think this main > property of Kayak is badly harmonize with arithmetic, for example > when you multiply by zero you indefinitely destroy information. > > Anyway, see attached. > > ---- > Mtv Europe I find this quite disturbing. Multiplying both sides of an equation by zero also destroys all information about the solutions of the variables. So multiplication by zero just isn't allowed. I seem to be the only one who regards this kind of thing as a problem or inconsistency. The same with the '0.9999... = 1' problem. First, there's the irrefutable argument that since '1/3 = 0.3333...' and '1/3 * 3 = 1', '0.3333... * 3 = 0.9999... = 1'. Then I say, but '0.9999... * 2 = 1.9999...8' and not '1.9999...9', so '0.9999... * 2 != 2'. People say that's because you have to substitute 1 for 0.9999... in that multiplication, but using that reasoning I might as well claim '13=8' and when people say, that 13*2=26 while 8*2=16, I'll say that's because you have to substitute 13 for 8 before doing that multiplication. (Note, you could also substitue 8 for 13 and it's the same with 0.9999... and 1) - The problem seems to begin with the first statement that '1/3 = 0.3333...', which my intuition tells me, makes sense. But when people write 1/3, they mean 1/3, or 1/3 rounded to a certain number of decimal places. Which leads me to my next problem with mathematics, the decimal point: As we know, natural numbers in bases work like this: for a number of n digits in base b, it's value is calculated like this: d_1*b^0 + d_2*b^1 + d_3*b^2 + ... + d_n*b^{n-1} The value of a number of n digits in base b after the decimal point is calculated like this: d_1*b^-1 + d_2*b^-2 + ... d_n*b^-n Note the lack of symmetry between d_1*b^0, d_1*b^-1 (instead of ^-0) and d_n*b^{n-1}, d_n*b^-n (instead of ^{-(n-1)}). All natural numbers are representable in any base, while not all rational numbers are representable (where I mean representable as a floating-point number in a finite number of digits), in every base. I'll make some studies about this in the next paragraph. Let me first define a natural number z as "pprime" (power-prime - is there already a term for this?), if there are no two natural numbers x, y such that x^y = z. (Note that all prime numbers are obviously pprime, but the set of pprime numbers includes a lot of numbers that that of prime numbers doesn't). I claim that any "pprime" base can represent some rational numbers (with the above definition of 'represent'), which another "pprime" base can't, while a non-pprime base z=x^y cannot represent any more rational numbers than the base x, be it pprime or not. I'll try and prove this last claim. Take a non-pprime base z=x^y and a representable number n written in that base. To get the equivalent number m in base x, we take each digit of n and convert it individually to base x (leaving the possible zeroes at the front) and stringing all those numbers together in the original order. Since the largest value of a digit in base z is x^y-1, it will take exactly y digits to represent a z digit in base x (for example, for base 16=2^4, it will take 4 digits in base two to represent one digit in base 16). Thus for a number of n digits in base z, it will take y*n digits to represent it in base x. Given that the number in z had a finite number of digits, the number represented in x must also have a finite number of digits. Q.E.D. The more interesting problem is of course my first claim (that no "pprime" base can represent all the rational numbers that a different "pprime" base can). If someone could find a pprime base that can represent the rational numbers of all other pprime bases, we'd have no more floating-point problems for rational numbers (of course there's still reals...). End of Kliegl's Mathematical Problems for the 21st Century Part One Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 23 15:18:43 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zzFI-000MO5-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:18:08 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:18:01 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zzFA-000MNy-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:18:00 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:17:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16zzF7-000MNs-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:17:57 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:49132 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[X+GpTFjODmEEx41+bbl7yrm7qF20nMYR]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:17:46 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:17:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > I find this quite disturbing. Multiplying both sides of an equation > by zero also destroys all information about the solutions of the variable= s. > So multiplication by zero just isn't allowed. I seem to be the only > one who regards this kind of thing as a problem or inconsistency. Hm. Multiplication by zero is allowed, but reduces information, in fact completely removes all information. A similar case is squaring both sides of an equation, which also loses information but not all of it. A somewhat inverse case is taking the square root of both sides, which doesn't lose information but is only allowed if you know that the original was non-negative (unless you are using complex numbers.) Of course these are problems, in that it would be simpler if every operation were invertible. But you just have to note that not everything is invertible and make the best use of the properties that do hold. > The same with the '0.9999... =3D 1' problem. First, there's the > irrefutable argument that since '1/3 =3D 0.3333...' and '1/3 * 3 =3D 1', > '0.3333... * 3 =3D 0.9999... =3D 1'. Then I say, but '0.9999... * 2 =3D > 1.9999...8' and not '1.9999...9', so '0.9999... * 2 !=3D 2'. People say Well, you would be wrong at least because there is no last digit which could be 8. The digits are indexed by integers, as you show below. As for what people say, the above is just hand-waving to try and convince someone who already knows how to calculate with decimal fractions. To show properly that 0.9999... =3D 1, you need to have a definition of real numbers (see the axioms I posted a while ago), and then a definition of what the left and right side mean (usually the left side would be the limit of an infinite series, with limit defined in the usual epsilon way). It _is_ possible to model the real numbers as infinite decimal fractions, but then you need to include all the identifications of ...(d)9999... with (d+1)0000... and you can then prove the axioms from that. However, personally I prefer to model real numbers as Cauchy (i.e. "converging") sequences of rational numbers, precisely because it doesn't have any such ugly special cases. > that's because you have to substitute 1 for 0.9999... in that > multiplication, but using that reasoning I might as well claim '13=3D8' > and when people say, that 13*2=3D26 while 8*2=3D16, I'll say that's > because you have to substitute 13 for 8 before doing that > multiplication. (Note, you could also substitue 8 for 13 and it's the > same with 0.9999... and 1) - The problem seems to begin with the first > statement that '1/3 =3D 0.3333...', which my intuition tells me, makes > sense. But when people write 1/3, they mean 1/3, or 1/3 rounded to a > certain number of decimal places. Which leads me to my next problem > with mathematics, the decimal point: > > As we know, natural numbers in bases work like this: > for a number of n digits in base b, it's value is calculated like > this: d_1*b^0 + d_2*b^1 + d_3*b^2 + ... + d_n*b^{n-1} > The value of a number of n digits in base b after the decimal point is > calculated like this: d_1*b^-1 + d_2*b^-2 + ... d_n*b^-n > Note the lack of symmetry between d_1*b^0, d_1*b^-1 (instead of ^-0) > and d_n*b^{n-1}, d_n*b^-n (instead of ^{-(n-1)}). All natural numbers Ouch. I certainly would preserve the symmetry by using corresponding indices, i.e. d_0*b^0 etc. as well. When representing reals, there is of course another break of symmetry in that the indices are bounded only upwards. Just a fact of (a mathematician's) life... > are representable in any base, while not all rational numbers are > representable (where I mean representable as a floating-point number > in a finite number of digits), in every base. I'll make some studies > about this in the next paragraph. > > Let me first define a natural number z as "pprime" (power-prime - > is there already a term for this?), if there are no two natural I haven't heard any special term, "not a (non-trivial) power" would probably be used. Prime power usually means that x is a prime as well. > numbers x, y such that x^y =3D z. (Note that all prime numbers are > obviously pprime, but the set of pprime numbers includes a lot of > numbers that that of prime numbers doesn't). I claim that any "pprime" > base can represent some rational numbers (with the above definition of > 'represent'), which another "pprime" base can't, while a non-pprime > base z=3Dx^y cannot represent any more rational numbers than the base x, > be it pprime or not. I'll try and prove this last claim. Take a > non-pprime base z=3Dx^y and a representable number n written in that base= =2E To > get the equivalent number m in base x, we take each digit of n and > convert it individually to base x (leaving the possible zeroes at the > front) and stringing all those numbers together in the original order. > Since the largest value of a digit in base z is x^y-1, it will take > exactly y digits to represent a z digit in base x (for example, for > base 16=3D2^4, it will take 4 digits in base two to represent one digit > in base 16). Thus for a number of n digits in base z, it will take y*n > digits to represent it in base x. Given that the number in z had a > finite number of digits, the number represented in x must also have a > finite number of digits. Q.E.D. That's good enough for me... > The more interesting problem is of course my first claim (that no > "pprime" base can represent all the rational numbers that a different > "pprime" base can). If someone could find a pprime base that can > represent the rational numbers of all other pprime bases, we'd have > no more floating-point problems for rational numbers (of course > there's still reals...). Theorem: A rational number q/r in reduced form (i.e. q and r have no (non-trivial) common factors)) can be expressed finitely in base b if and only if every prime factor of r is also a prime factor of b. Proof: If q/r can be expressed in base b, then q/r =3D n/b^i, so r must divide b^i and in particular every prime factor of r is a prime factor of b. Conversely, let r be the product of i (not necessarily distinct) prime factors, all prime factors of b. Then r divides b^i, and so q/r =3D n/b^i with n=3Dq*b^i/r. Q.E.D. Now it is simple to see that no base b can represent all rational numbers, because there must be some prime p not dividing b and then 1/p cannot be represented. On the other hand (I am not sure if you claimed the opposite or not) there are "pprime" bases that can represent exactly the same rational numbers, for example 6 and 12 (they have the same prime factors, 2 and 3.) However there is a concept in number theory of _square free_ numbers. A number is square free if it is not divisible with any square > 1. A square free number is a product of _distinct_ prime factors, and so it is determined by the set of its prime factors. Therefore no two square free bases can represent exactly the same numbers. > End of Kliegl's Mathematical Problems for the 21st Century Part One > > Markus Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 23 23:53:52 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1707I2-000OZM-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1707Ha-000OZ3-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:02 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:52:55 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1707HN-000OYx-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:52:49 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-219-69.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.219.69]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA099395CA for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:52:43 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC5CC78.889A1E26@dds.nl> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:04:56 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Markus Kliegl wrote: > The same with the '0.9999... = 1' problem. First, there's the > irrefutable argument that since '1/3 = 0.3333...' and '1/3 * 3 = 1', > '0.3333... * 3 = 0.9999... = 1'. Then I say, but '0.9999... * 2 = > 1.9999...8' and not '1.9999...9', so '0.9999... * 2 != 2'. You are most certainly wrong here. The string '0.9999...' goes on to infinity, therefore there is no last digit, and therefore it is nonsense to speak of it being eight or nine. It simply does not exist, and it is impossible for two nonexistant digits to differ, therefore they cannot raise any problems. > People say > that's because you have to substitute 1 for 0.9999... in that > multiplication, but using that reasoning I might as well claim '13=8' > and when people say, that 13*2=26 while 8*2=16, I'll say that's > because you have to substitute 13 for 8 before doing that > multiplication. If you first prove that truly 13=8, you may do this. However, you cannot, therefore you may not. > (Note, you could also substitue 8 for 13 and it's the > same with 0.9999... and 1) - The problem seems to begin with the first > statement that '1/3 = 0.3333...', which my intuition tells me, makes > sense. There is also another proof, using infinite sums, that does not need this intuitive approach. However, the mere fact that you didn't mention it yourself leads me to think you wouldn't have understood it. > But when people write 1/3, they mean 1/3, or 1/3 rounded to a > certain number of decimal places. When a mathematician writes 1/3, he means 1/3, and not rounded down do any number of decimal places. Once you round is down, it is no longer 1/3, only an approximation to 1/3. But if you like to look at approximations: 1.0000-0.9999=0.0001, and this difference goes to zero as the number of digits going to zero, giving another sort of proof for the claim 0.9999...=1. > Which leads me to my next problem > with mathematics, the decimal point: > > As we know, natural numbers in bases work like this: > for a number of n digits in base b, it's value is calculated like > this: d_1*b^0 + d_2*b^1 + d_3*b^2 + ... + d_n*b^{n-1} > The value of a number of n digits in base b after the decimal point is > calculated like this: d_1*b^-1 + d_2*b^-2 + ... d_n*b^-n > Note the lack of symmetry between d_1*b^0, d_1*b^-1 (instead of ^-0) > and d_n*b^{n-1}, d_n*b^-n (instead of ^{-(n-1)}). All natural numbers > are representable in any base, while not all rational numbers are > representable (where I mean representable as a floating-point number > in a finite number of digits), in every base. I'll make some studies > about this in the next paragraph. Do not that a number is not defined as anything in any base, only "represented" by it. A number can exist without being represented in any base. By the way, a rational can be expressed finitely in any base - store numerator and the denominator. You can do calculations with this perfectly well, and if you want, I'll try to finish my C++ class that handles these. > Let me first define a natural number z as "pprime" (power-prime - > is there already a term for this?), if there are no two natural > numbers x, y such that x^y = z. I assume you mean that y>1. And how do you pronounce "pprime"? > (Note that all prime numbers are > obviously pprime, but the set of pprime numbers includes a lot of > numbers that that of prime numbers doesn't). I claim that any "pprime" > base can represent some rational numbers (with the above definition of > 'represent'), which another "pprime" base can't, while a non-pprime > base z=x^y cannot represent any more rational numbers than the base x, > be it pprime or not. Note: you can insist that x always be a pprime, since if it isn't, you can combine their ys. > I'll try and prove this last claim. Take a > non-pprime base z=x^y and a representable number n written in that base. To > get the equivalent number m in base x, we take each digit of n and > convert it individually to base x (leaving the possible zeroes at the > front) and stringing all those numbers together in the original order. > Since the largest value of a digit in base z is x^y-1, it will take > exactly y digits to represent a z digit in base x (for example, for > base 16=2^4, it will take 4 digits in base two to represent one digit > in base 16). Thus for a number of n digits in base z, it will take y*n > digits to represent it in base x. Given that the number in z had a > finite number of digits, the number represented in x must also have a > finite number of digits. Q.E.D. I agree with this proof (well, I didn't read it fully so there might be typos, but I alredy knew it). Also note that a number that can be expressed in base x*y can also be expressed in bases x and y, although the proof is harder and I don't know what it is. As an example, consider that 0.001 in binary is the somewhat longer but still finite 0.125 in decimal (10=2*5). > The more interesting problem is of course my first claim (that no > "pprime" base can represent all the rational numbers that a different > "pprime" base can). If someone could find a pprime base that can > represent the rational numbers of all other pprime bases, we'd have > no more floating-point problems for rational numbers (of course > there's still reals...). Choose a number q relative prime to the base z (for example, the first prime which is not a divisor of z). If you'll write it out sufficiently, you will see that 1/z is not expressible. > End of Kliegl's Mathematical Problems for the 21st Century Part One Mathematical? As a mathematician, I'd call these more computer scientific than mathematical (consider what I said about these being problems with the representations of the numbers rather than the numbers themselves). From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Tue Apr 23 23:53:53 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1707I2-000OZN-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:30 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1707Hj-000OZB-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:11 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:05 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.178]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1707Hc-000OZ5-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:53:04 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-219-69.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.219.69]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F25939676 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:52:59 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rhea.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC47737.1774501F@dds.nl> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:48:55 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Mtv Europe wrote: > > Two problems: (1) The main idea of Kayak is reversibility, > > Hate to upset you, but this one is not reversible. I think this main > property of Kayak is badly harmonize with arithmetic, for example > when you multiply by zero you indefinitely destroy information. Multiplication by zero is something to be careful for. However, it is not quite a complete irreversibility. If you have no other data from which the multiplicand might be recalculated, then you can dump it into the bit bucket. "Revesibility" in Kayak does not mean that you can definitely reobtain the original input, only that you will obtain some input that *might* have been the original - and might not - with a zero chance of getting an error message from the interpreter (and no, hacking the interpreter to remove error message reporting is considered cheating). Of course, it's impossible for the multiplication routine to know whther the number can be recomputed, so the caller has to take care about this. And, although non-reversible programs aren't completely worthless, they effectively treat Kayak like yet another few-operator lanugage like Brainfuck. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 24 00:57:16 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1708HN-000PjZ-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:53 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1708H8-000Pf5-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:38 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:31 +0300 (EEST) Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com ([192.108.102.143]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1708H0-000Pdy-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:30 +0300 Received: from myrealbox.com amirlb@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [62.219.224.252] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with Novell NIMS $Revision: 2.88.1.1 $ on Novell NetWare; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:55:39 -0600 Message-ID: <3CC5E6FD.7040804@myrealbox.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:58:05 +0200 From: Amir Livne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311 X-Accept-Language: en-us, he MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Markus Kliegl wrote: > [...] > The more interesting problem is of course my first claim (that no > "pprime" base can represent all the rational numbers that a different > "pprime" base can). If someone could find a pprime base that can > represent the rational numbers of all other pprime bases, we'd have > no more floating-point problems for rational numbers (of course > there's still reals...). I didn't understand your proof throughfully, but it doesn't help to solve your problem. There will always be rational numbers that aren't representable (or have an infinite representation), no matter which base you choose. Say you use base B, and look at the fraction 1/(B-1). it expends this way: 1 B B-1+1 B-1 1 1 1 1 --- = ------ = ------ = ------ + ------ = - + - * --- B-1 B(B-1) B(B-1) B(B-1) B(B-1) B B B-1 inf And continuing this way, 1/(B-1) will expand to SUM 1/(B^i), and the representation of 1/(B-1) will be 0.1111111... i=1 So 1/(B-1) * (B-1) will always turn out to be 0 . B-1 B-1 B-1 ... If we don't want the extra data, a reversible solution for this problem should be found. But we don't have to use decimal (or Bcimal) fractions: we can store the numerator and the denominator of the fraction instead, and then we will always have whole numbers, and won't have these ambiguity problems. -- Bad spellers of the world UNTIE! lightstep (Amir Livne) From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 24 11:44:59 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170IO7-0005Db-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:44:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:44:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170INX-000557-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:55 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:48 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170INP-00054l-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:47 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3O8hkB32037 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:46 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3O8hgd06970 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:42 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:42 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > when you multiply by zero you indefinitely destroy information. > I find this quite disturbing. Multiplying both sides of an equation > by zero also destroys all information about the solutions of the variables. > So multiplication by zero just isn't allowed. I seem to be the only > one who regards this kind of thing as a problem or inconsistency. The "correct" solution to than will be to give a random answer to the reverse of multiply-by-zero, as with other things that destroy information. Not much could be done if all information-losing operations would be forbidden in Kayak. > The same with the '0.9999... = 1' problem. First, there's the > irrefutable argument that since '1/3 = 0.3333...' and '1/3 * 3 = 1', > '0.3333... * 3 = 0.9999... = 1'. Then I say, but '0.9999... * 2 = > 1.9999...8' and not '1.9999...9', so '0.9999... * 2 != 2'. People say This argument does not work, IMO, not only because the decimal series are not the number itself but its approximation, but especially because you can't form a number "1.99999...8" (the last digit just isn't there if the series is infinite). > Note the lack of symmetry between d_1*b^0, d_1*b^-1 (instead of ^-0) > and d_n*b^{n-1}, d_n*b^-n (instead of ^{-(n-1)}). All natural numbers This is, of course, due to the more practical observation that the numbers left of the dec.point cannot form parts whereas those to the right can. Only when the base is not an integer will this start to seem inconsistent. The problem is of course already handled by engineer notation (x*10^y) Panu From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 24 13:41:00 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170KCN-0005tM-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:40:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:40:23 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170KBq-0005t7-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:39:58 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:39:51 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail.space2u.com ([62.20.1.135]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170KBh-0005t1-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:39:49 +0300 Received: from alice (c213-100-18-138.swipnet.se [213.100.18.138]) by mail.space2u.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3OAm0D20691 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:48:00 +0200 Received: from kha by alice with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 170KB7-0005vp-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:39:13 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:39:13 +0200 From: Kalle =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hasselstr=F6m?= To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020424103913.GB22759@treskal.com> Mail-Followup-To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi References: <3CC5E6FD.7040804@myrealbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CC5E6FD.7040804@myrealbox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Karl_Hasselstr=F6m?= X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: kalle@treskal.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: kalle@treskal.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:58:05AM +0200, Amir Livne wrote: > I didn't understand your proof throughfully, but it doesn't help to > solve your problem. There will always be rational numbers that aren't > representable (or have an infinite representation), no matter which base > you choose. Say you use base B, and look at the fraction 1/(B-1). it > expends this way: >=20 > 1 B B-1+1 B-1 1 1 1 1 > --- =3D ------ =3D ------ =3D ------ + ------ =3D - + - * --- > B-1 B(B-1) B(B-1) B(B-1) B(B-1) B B B-1 >=20 > inf > And continuing this way, 1/(B-1) will expand to SUM 1/(B^i), and the > representation of 1/(B-1) will be 0.1111111... > i=3D1 >=20 > So 1/(B-1) * (B-1) will always turn out to be 0 . B-1 B-1 B-1 ... The cool thing is that this is true for base 2 as well, even though 1/(B-1) =3D 1/(10-1) =3D 1/1 =3D 1. Of course, this is because 1 =3D 0.11111111111... (all numbers in base 2). On the other hand, this makes the counterexample not work as intended for base 2 :-). --=20 Kalle Hasselstr=F6m, kalle@treskal.com www.treskal.com =20 --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: För information se http://www.gnupg.org/ iD8DBQE8xotRN7iPzXSoOQoRAr04AJ90IDCyD8+lhk0eIUzqZ/FaEDEgoACfcEay Nx6//U8FUkTjzHkJH72mw7I= =W0g6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rJwd6BRFiFCcLxzm-- From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 24 22:02:46 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170S27-0007nl-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:02:27 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:02:20 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170S0h-0007ne-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:00:59 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:00:52 +0300 (EEST) Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170S0Z-0007nY-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:00:51 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-240-54.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.240.54]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149CC3BDB7 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:00:49 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@pandora.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC703EB.F2186DB5@dds.nl> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:13:47 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> <3CC5CC78.889A1E26@dds.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Milo van Handel wrote: So, I'm always nitpicking others, but now I'm the first to discover my own mistake. > Also note that a number that can be expressed > in base x*y can also be expressed in bases x and y, although the proof is > harder and I don't know what it is. As an example, consider that 0.001 > in binary is the somewhat longer but still finite 0.125 in decimal (10=2*5). This is not true. The example is for the true statement that a fraction expressible in base x is also expressible in base x*y, but the converse, which is what I stated, is false. You can, however, define a sort of prime that lies between being completely prime and being pprime, by insisting that any prime factor appears either once or twice. I haven't thought of a name yet. However, if you take a number z, you can always turn it into a "maximal" whatever-you're-going-to-call-the-above-type-of-number x, by keeping zero of all prime factors you had zero of and one of all prime factors you had one or more of. In this case, any rational number expressible in base z is also expressible in base x. Also note that the claim "any rational number expressible in base x is also expressible in base y" is true if and only if the claim "1/x is expressible in base y" is. Proof: - To the right: trivial, since 1/x is expressible in x as 0.1. - To the left: every number expressible in base x can be multiplied by some x^n (n is a natural number) so that it becomes an integer m. That is, after all, the meaning of "a finite number of digits after the point". Thus, the number is m*(1/x)^n, which is expressible in base y since we assumed 1/x was and natural powers/multiples can easily be checked to retain finitability. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Wed Apr 24 22:21:03 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170SK2-0007tO-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:20:58 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:20:51 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170SJj-0007tI-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:20:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:20:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170SJc-0007tC-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:20:32 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:19587 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[UIERkPqcxs4qnAnh5wFOeHA4tAKhhbF3]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:20:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:20:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <3CC703EB.F2186DB5@dds.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > You can, however, define a sort of prime that lies between being > completely prime and being pprime, by insisting that any prime factor > appears either once or twice. I haven't thought of a name yet. ^zero times Assuming you meant zero, the technical term is "square free". I take it you didn't read my message to the sci list... Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 04:07:40 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170XjF-00096O-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:07:21 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:07:14 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170Xj7-00096I-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:07:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:07:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.84]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170Xj4-00096C-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:07:10 +0300 Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 170XgI-0008T1-01; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:04:18 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.88.124.247]) by fwd01.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 170Xg3-0CGKECC; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:04:03 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3P1AWgw076584 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:10:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3P1AVSL076583 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:10:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:10:31 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020425031031.A74085@esoteric> References: <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Orjan Johansen [020423 15:08]: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > > I find this quite disturbing. Multiplying both sides of an equation > > by zero also destroys all information about the solutions of the variables. > > So multiplication by zero just isn't allowed. I seem to be the only > > one who regards this kind of thing as a problem or inconsistency. > > Hm. Multiplication by zero is allowed, but reduces information, in fact > completely removes all information. > > A similar case is squaring both sides of an equation, which also loses > information but not all of it. > > A somewhat inverse case is taking the square root of both sides, which > doesn't lose information but is only allowed if you know that the original > was non-negative (unless you are using complex numbers.) > > Of course these are problems, in that it would be simpler if every > operation were invertible. But you just have to note that not everything > is invertible and make the best use of the properties that do hold. Ok, I see there's a lot more to it than I thought. Do you know if any research has been done regarding the construction of systems with only invertible operations? > > > The same with the '0.9999... = 1' problem. First, there's the > > irrefutable argument that since '1/3 = 0.3333...' and '1/3 * 3 = 1', > > '0.3333... * 3 = 0.9999... = 1'. Then I say, but '0.9999... * 2 = > > 1.9999...8' and not '1.9999...9', so '0.9999... * 2 != 2'. People say > > Well, you would be wrong at least because there is no last digit which > could be 8. The digits are indexed by integers, as you show below. Well, yes, there is no last digit, but that's sort of my point: 1/3 = 0.3333.... only as far as you calculate it. If you mean 1/3, write 1/3 - if you mean 1/3 rounded to the third decimal place, write 0.333. If you calculate '0.9999... * 2' to the end (of course there is no end; this is hard to express :-), you'll get an 8 as the last digit. Maybe view it the other way around - start at the end (again, there is no end) and multiply your way forward; this is how people normally do such calculations on paper, no? Maybe, exactly because there is no end, we simply can't start that calculation. To be honest, I'm not convinced of my own arguing, but I'm not convinced of the other side, either. Maybe my grudge is really just the notation; I have no troubles buying '1/3 = 0.3333...', or '1/3 * 3 = 1', or '0.3333... = 0.9999...', for that matter, but '0.9999... = 1' just seems so incredibly intuitively wrong to me. Maybe I view things in a too concrete manner :-) > > As for what people say, the above is just hand-waving to try and convince > someone who already knows how to calculate with decimal fractions. To > show properly that 0.9999... = 1, you need to have a definition of real > numbers (see the axioms I posted a while ago), and then a definition of > what the left and right side mean (usually the left side would be the > limit of an infinite series, with limit defined in the usual epsilon way). Ok, I looked this up in Courant's "What is mathematics?" - it gives me 's_n = 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^3 + ... + 9^/10^n' and '1 = 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + 9/^10^3 + ...' as meaning '1 is the limit [of that sum] as n approaches infinity'. In that sense, 1 is the limit and it is never reached, though we can get an infinitely close approximation to it. It seems to me then that 0.9999... must be the next smallest number to 1, but by no means 1 itself, and the expression '1 = 0.9999...' doesn't mean '0.9999... = 1', but 1 is the limit of the sum that constitutes 0.9999... So much for that, the actual equation that gives us the exact result 1 is this one: 9 9 9 9 1 ---- + ---- + ---- + ... = --- * -------- = 1 10 10^2 10^3 10 1 - 1/10 This relies on the following: (8) s_n = 1 + q + q^2 + q^3 + q^3 + ... + q^n and the following obtained by multiplying (8) with q. (8a) q * s_n = q + q^2 + q^3 + ... + q^{n+1} It then proposes to subtract (8a) from (8) and obtain: (1 - q) * s_n = 1 - q^{n+1} You can follow through and arrive at the above equation, but my quibble is really with (8) and (8a)... note the + ... + q^n (or q^{n+1}) I don't see how that's too different from my '1.9999...8'. So if my reasoning is flawed, then why isn't that reasoning flawed? I must be missing something here... (9/10 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^3 + ... + 9/10^n) * 2 = 18/10 + 18/10^2 + 18/10^3 + ... + 18/10^n = 1.8 + 0.18 + 0.018 + ... + 0.0000...18 = 1.999...8 > It _is_ possible to model the real numbers as infinite decimal fractions, > but then you need to include all the identifications of ...(d)9999... with > (d+1)0000... and you can then prove the axioms from that. However, Sure, pi is: 314159... --------- 100000... But the point is the 'infinite' part. > personally I prefer to model real numbers as Cauchy (i.e. "converging") > sequences of rational numbers, precisely because it doesn't have any such > ugly special cases. I was going to look this up, but haven't found the time yet; so I won't comment on this for now. > > > that's because you have to substitute 1 for 0.9999... in that > > multiplication, but using that reasoning I might as well claim '13=8' > > and when people say, that 13*2=26 while 8*2=16, I'll say that's > > because you have to substitute 13 for 8 before doing that > > multiplication. (Note, you could also substitue 8 for 13 and it's the > > same with 0.9999... and 1) - The problem seems to begin with the first > > statement that '1/3 = 0.3333...', which my intuition tells me, makes > > sense. But when people write 1/3, they mean 1/3, or 1/3 rounded to a > > certain number of decimal places. Which leads me to my next problem > > with mathematics, the decimal point: > > > > As we know, natural numbers in bases work like this: > > for a number of n digits in base b, it's value is calculated like > > this: d_1*b^0 + d_2*b^1 + d_3*b^2 + ... + d_n*b^{n-1} > > The value of a number of n digits in base b after the decimal point is > > calculated like this: d_1*b^-1 + d_2*b^-2 + ... d_n*b^-n > > Note the lack of symmetry between d_1*b^0, d_1*b^-1 (instead of ^-0) > > and d_n*b^{n-1}, d_n*b^-n (instead of ^{-(n-1)}). All natural numbers > > Ouch. I certainly would preserve the symmetry by using corresponding > indices, i.e. d_0*b^0 etc. as well. > > When representing reals, there is of course another break of symmetry in > that the indices are bounded only upwards. Just a fact of (a > mathematician's) life... Fair enough... looking back at it now, my points there do seem quite ridiculous :-) > > > are representable in any base, while not all rational numbers are > > representable (where I mean representable as a floating-point number > > in a finite number of digits), in every base. I'll make some studies > > about this in the next paragraph. > > > > Let me first define a natural number z as "pprime" (power-prime - > > is there already a term for this?), if there are no two natural > > I haven't heard any special term, "not a (non-trivial) power" would > probably be used. Prime power usually means that x is a prime as well. Ok. I just noticed that I forgot to add a 'where y >= 2' clause. > > > numbers x, y such that x^y = z. (Note that all prime numbers are > > obviously pprime, but the set of pprime numbers includes a lot of > > numbers that that of prime numbers doesn't). I claim that any "pprime" > > base can represent some rational numbers (with the above definition of > > 'represent'), which another "pprime" base can't, while a non-pprime > > base z=x^y cannot represent any more rational numbers than the base x, > > be it pprime or not. I'll try and prove this last claim. Take a > > non-pprime base z=x^y and a representable number n written in that base. To > > get the equivalent number m in base x, we take each digit of n and > > convert it individually to base x (leaving the possible zeroes at the > > front) and stringing all those numbers together in the original order. > > Since the largest value of a digit in base z is x^y-1, it will take > > exactly y digits to represent a z digit in base x (for example, for > > base 16=2^4, it will take 4 digits in base two to represent one digit > > in base 16). Thus for a number of n digits in base z, it will take y*n > > digits to represent it in base x. Given that the number in z had a > > finite number of digits, the number represented in x must also have a > > finite number of digits. Q.E.D. > > That's good enough for me... > > > The more interesting problem is of course my first claim (that no > > "pprime" base can represent all the rational numbers that a different > > "pprime" base can). If someone could find a pprime base that can > > represent the rational numbers of all other pprime bases, we'd have > > no more floating-point problems for rational numbers (of course > > there's still reals...). > > Theorem: > > A rational number q/r in reduced form (i.e. q and r have no (non-trivial) > common factors)) can be expressed finitely in base b if and only if every > prime factor of r is also a prime factor of b. > > Proof: > > If q/r can be expressed in base b, then q/r = n/b^i, so r must divide b^i > and in particular every prime factor of r is a prime factor of b. > > Conversely, let r be the product of i (not necessarily distinct) prime > factors, all prime factors of b. Then r divides b^i, and so q/r > = n/b^i with n=q*b^i/r. Q.E.D. > > > Now it is simple to see that no base b can represent all rational numbers, > because there must be some prime p not dividing b and then 1/p cannot be > represented. Ok, thank you! > > On the other hand (I am not sure if you claimed the opposite or not) there > are "pprime" bases that can represent exactly the same rational numbers, > for example 6 and 12 (they have the same prime factors, 2 and 3.) No, I hadn't taken that step yet. So, base 10 can represent all numbers of the bases 2 and 5? Hmm, so it is actually the prime numbers that play an important role and not the "pprime" numbers, as I had suggested. I want a way of using the base that is the product of all prime numbers :-) > > However there is a concept in number theory of _square free_ numbers. A > number is square free if it is not divisible with any square > 1. A > square free number is a product of _distinct_ prime factors, and so it is > determined by the set of its prime factors. Therefore no two square free > bases can represent exactly the same numbers. > Hmm, if I see this correctly, all products of distinct prime factors must be pprime, or the product z=x^y could be represented by base x, which would in all(?) cases consist of a different set of prime factors. But I guess that's trivial to prove in other ways anyway. Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 04:38:03 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170YCk-0009As-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:37:51 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:37:44 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170YCd-0009Am-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:37:43 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:37:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.17]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170YCa-0009Af-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:37:40 +0300 Received: from fwd11.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 170YCZ-0008C8-01; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:37:39 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.88.124.247]) by fwd11.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 170YCP-0c6eDAC; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:37:29 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3P1hxgw076657 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:44:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3P1hx8T076656 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:43:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 03:43:59 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils Message-ID: <20020425034359.A76632@esoteric> References: <20020413041701.A38069@esoteric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Panu A Kalliokoski [020422 11:06]: > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > of newer x86 processors, and vendors can't distribute binaries that > > will only run on a Pentium 4. (Another annoying thing... I suppose > > Another good thing about open source - you can compile it with local > optimisations, unlike binary distributions which have to be binary > compatible, not only source level compatible. This leads to a situation > where hand-written assembler might actually be slower than compiled code, > because it cannot adjust to changing conditions. (For example, on Pentium > all combined instructions (enter, loop, ...) are slower than their > outspelled equivalents, whereas on PII they are faster.) > > > I suppose letting the compiler use non-backwards-compatible > > instructions is only used with some in-house development, and not much > > otherwise. > > And for building your own fluffy kernel. I was talking about a commercial setting where a commercial compiler (as I understand icc to be) would be used, whose main(?) feature is taking advantage of non-backwards-compatible instructions or non-backwards-applying optimizations. > > bureaucratic societies we live in. Realizing something is Wrong is the > > first stip; fixing it is the second. Now how do you convince > > bureaucrats that something is Wrong? I've come to the conclusion that > > You don't have to; just make a lot of example cases and don't worry about > argumenting a single one. That way, the minds of people usually get > gradually converted even if they disagree with particular examples. Heh, I could tell you stories... :-) In my experience, using examples to convince them will only get them to argue all the specific points of the examples and not at all get the general message you're trying to convey to them. Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 05:40:34 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ZBD-0009Iv-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:40:19 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:40:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ZAr-0009Im-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:39:57 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:39:50 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.82]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ZAj-0009Ig-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:39:49 +0300 Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 170ZAi-0008UG-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:39:48 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.88.124.247]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 170ZAW-0HmxAOC; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:39:36 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3P2k9gw076851 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:46:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3P2k9Vn076850 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:46:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:46:09 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020425044609.A76818@esoteric> References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> <3CC5CC78.889A1E26@dds.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CC5CC78.889A1E26@dds.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Milo van Handel [020423 23:09]: > Markus Kliegl wrote: [...] > > (Note, you could also substitue 8 for 13 and it's the > > same with 0.9999... and 1) - The problem seems to begin with the first > > statement that '1/3 = 0.3333...', which my intuition tells me, makes > > sense. > > There is also another proof, using infinite sums, that does not need > this intuitive approach. However, the mere fact that you didn't mention > it yourself leads me to think you wouldn't have understood it. Milo, I understand that everyone else disagrees with me, and I don't make these posts to make myself look stupid, as you seem to think, but rather to get my apparently unfounded or ill-informed prejudices clarified, and to learn. [...] > > Which leads me to my next problem > > with mathematics, the decimal point: > > > > As we know, natural numbers in bases work like this: > > for a number of n digits in base b, it's value is calculated like > > this: d_1*b^0 + d_2*b^1 + d_3*b^2 + ... + d_n*b^{n-1} > > The value of a number of n digits in base b after the decimal point is > > calculated like this: d_1*b^-1 + d_2*b^-2 + ... d_n*b^-n > > Note the lack of symmetry between d_1*b^0, d_1*b^-1 (instead of ^-0) > > and d_n*b^{n-1}, d_n*b^-n (instead of ^{-(n-1)}). All natural numbers > > are representable in any base, while not all rational numbers are > > representable (where I mean representable as a floating-point number > > in a finite number of digits), in every base. I'll make some studies > > about this in the next paragraph. > > Do not that a number is not defined as anything in any base, only > "represented" by it. A number can exist without being represented in > any base. By the way, a rational can be expressed finitely in any > base - store numerator and the denominator. You can do calculations > with this perfectly well, and if you want, I'll try to finish my C++ > class that handles these. Note the '(where I mean representable as a floating-point number in a finite number of digits)'. I am aware of rational number representations in the form of numerator/denominator; I use them in Common Lisp all the time. My quest is to find the Ultimate floating-point representation, if you want to look at it that way (and probably indeed, there is no such thing and numerator/denominator is our best bet). > > > Let me first define a natural number z as "pprime" (power-prime - > > is there already a term for this?), if there are no two natural > > numbers x, y such that x^y = z. > > I assume you mean that y>1. And how do you pronounce "pprime"? Yes. How ever you wish to. > > > I'll try and prove this last claim. Take a > > non-pprime base z=x^y and a representable number n written in that base. To > > get the equivalent number m in base x, we take each digit of n and > > convert it individually to base x (leaving the possible zeroes at the > > front) and stringing all those numbers together in the original order. > > Since the largest value of a digit in base z is x^y-1, it will take > > exactly y digits to represent a z digit in base x (for example, for > > base 16=2^4, it will take 4 digits in base two to represent one digit > > in base 16). Thus for a number of n digits in base z, it will take y*n > > digits to represent it in base x. Given that the number in z had a > > finite number of digits, the number represented in x must also have a > > finite number of digits. Q.E.D. > > I agree with this proof (well, I didn't read it fully so there might be > typos, but I alredy knew it). Also note that a number that can be expressed > in base x*y can also be expressed in bases x and y, although the proof is > harder and I don't know what it is. As an example, consider that 0.001 > in binary is the somewhat longer but still finite 0.125 in decimal (10=2*5). No. 0.2 is representable in base 10=2*5, but not in base 2. If you change 'bases x and y' to 'base x or y', then it holds. [...] > > End of Kliegl's Mathematical Problems for the 21st Century Part One > > Mathematical? As a mathematician, I'd call these more computer scientific > than mathematical (consider what I said about these being problems with the > representations of the numbers rather than the numbers themselves). > That was a joke... Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 05:43:17 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ZDz-0009Mx-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:43:12 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:43:05 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ZDs-0009Mr-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:43:04 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:43:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web12906.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.73]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ZDp-0009Ml-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:43:01 +0300 Message-ID: <20020425024259.47876.qmail@web12906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.78.145.92] by web12906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:42:59 PDT Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Nikita Ayzikovsky Subject: [sci] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi In-Reply-To: <20020425031031.A74085@esoteric> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: order_of_may@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: order_of_may@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --- Markus Kliegl wrote: > Ok, I looked this up in Courant's "What is mathematics?" - it gives me > 's_n = 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^3 + ... + 9^/10^n' and > '1 = 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + 9/^10^3 + ...' as meaning '1 is the limit [of > that sum] as n approaches infinity'. In that sense, 1 is the limit and > it is never reached, though we can get an infinitely close > approximation to it. It seems to me then that 0.9999... must be the next > smallest number to 1, but by no means 1 itself That's the cool part though. You can indeed say that 0.9999... and 1 are adjacent - because there's no way to write a number that goes between them. However, them being adjacent means that the distance between is zero. Which, in turn, means that they are the same number. It's certainly a bit disappointing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 08:51:04 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170c8z-0009lA-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:50:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:50:05 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170c7h-0009kv-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:48:53 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:48:46 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170c7Z-0009kp-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:48:45 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3P5meB24058 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:48:41 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3P5mcN15653 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:48:38 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:48:38 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <20020425044609.A76818@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > Common Lisp all the time. My quest is to find the Ultimate > floating-point representation, if you want to look at it that way (and > probably indeed, there is no such thing and numerator/denominator is our > best bet). Actually, the numerator / denominator thing does not work very well for irrationals, because then both the numerator and denominator part are infinite and what you would need are a series of approximates converging to the truth. Of course, you could represent irrationals as (unbounded) (lazy) lists of rationals, which does have some nice sound to it. I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its original beauty. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 17:20:01 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170k0O-000BgY-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:13:52 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:13:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170k0G-000BgS-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:13:44 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list chat); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:13:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [194.78.208.93] (helo=decis.be) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170k0D-000BgL-00 for chat@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:13:41 +0300 Received: from decis.be [192.168.0.20] by decis.be [194.78.208.93] with SMTP (MDaemon.v3.5.3.R) for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:02:44 +0200 Message-ID: <3CC8103D.AEAC83C1@decis.be> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:18:37 +0200 From: Frederic van der Plancke Organization: Decis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [chat] Re: [lang] Re: GNU utils References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MDRemoteIP: 192.168.0.20 X-Return-Path: fvdp@decis.be X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: chat-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: fvdp@decis.be Precedence: bulk Reply-to: chat@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: chat X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: fvdp@decis.be Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > of newer x86 processors, and vendors can't distribute binaries that > > will only run on a Pentium 4. (Another annoying thing... I suppose > > Another good thing about open source - you can compile it with local > optimisations, unlike binary distributions which have to be binary > compatible, not only source level compatible. This leads to a situation > where hand-written assembler might actually be slower than compiled code, > because it cannot adjust to changing conditions. (For example, on Pentium > all combined instructions (enter, loop, ...) are slower than their > outspelled equivalents, whereas on PII they are faster.) But it would not be difficult to, say, encapsulate your time-critical code in a DLL, compile several versions of your DLL -- one for each target architecture, and chose the right one at runtime according to the host architecture. You must, of course, be clever enough to avoid calls from the main executable to the DLL in inner loops (since these are indirect calls and have a slight cost). Frédéric. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 18:12:49 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170kv3-000BqM-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:12:25 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:12:18 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ktb-000Bpu-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:10:55 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:10:49 +0300 (EEST) Received: from b070012.adsl.hansenet.de ([62.109.70.12] helo=rolands.linux-site.net) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ktT-000Bpo-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:10:47 +0300 Message-ID: <003d01c1ec6b$82ee5dc0$0261a8c0@hamburg.wg> From: "Roland Illig" To: Subject: [lang] zip quine Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:11:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: roland.illig@gmx.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: roland.illig@gmx.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Hi, I know that there are quines for some programming languages. Did anyone try to create a zip quine, i.e. a .zip file which decompresses to itself? Roland From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 21:23:54 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170nu4-000CKr-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:23:36 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:23:29 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170ntv-000CKl-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:23:28 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list sci); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:23:26 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170nts-000CKe-00 for sci@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:23:24 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:15238 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[wxyByzpDfoos8mwdHEIL0NI1jI/Rq91Z]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:23:00 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:23:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: sci@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [sci] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <20020425031031.A74085@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: sci-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: sci@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: sci X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > * Orjan Johansen [020423 15:08]: > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: [snip] > > Of course these are problems, in that it would be simpler if every > > operation were invertible. But you just have to note that not everythi= ng > > is invertible and make the best use of the properties that do hold. > > Ok, I see there's a lot more to it than I thought. Do you know if any > research has been done regarding the construction of systems with only > invertible operations? That may be the essence of group theory. Of course you don't get a model of all of mathematics that way, but a lot of mathematical theories contain parts that are groups. Some of the rules for equation solving can be summarized as saying that real numbers are a group under addition, and non-zero real numbers are a group under multiplication. Another field closer to Kayak is quantum computation. You then can only do reversible computations because a closed physical system must develop in a reversible way, and in order to prevent the quantum computation from breaking down it is necessary to keep the system closed, i.e. undisturbed. The main problem in making quantum computation work seems to be to actually create closed physical systems of any complexity. However, in that case one can make calculations reversible using a couple of tricks (also applicable to Kayak I suppose.) When adding numbers, instead of doing c =3D a + b you do c +=3D a + b which is reversible. Then of course you need to make sure c is zero initially. > > > The same with the '0.9999... =3D 1' problem. First, there's the > > > irrefutable argument that since '1/3 =3D 0.3333...' and '1/3 * 3 =3D = 1', > > > '0.3333... * 3 =3D 0.9999... =3D 1'. Then I say, but '0.9999... * 2 = =3D > > > 1.9999...8' and not '1.9999...9', so '0.9999... * 2 !=3D 2'. People s= ay > > > > Well, you would be wrong at least because there is no last digit which > > could be 8. The digits are indexed by integers, as you show below. > > Well, yes, there is no last digit, but that's sort of my point: > 1/3 =3D 0.3333.... only as far as you calculate it. If you mean 1/3, > write 1/3 - if you mean 1/3 rounded to the third decimal place, write > 0.333. If you calculate '0.9999... * 2' to the end (of course there is > no end; this is hard to express :-), you'll get an 8 as the last > digit. Maybe view it the other way around - start at the end (again, > there is no end) and multiply your way forward; this is how people > normally do such calculations on paper, no? Maybe, exactly because > there is no end, we simply can't start that calculation. You can start it from the beginning and try to get out as much information as possible, but then you risk never actually producing a digit. E.g. for 0.3333.... * 3 as long as you can only look at finitely many digits at a time, you can never determine whether the first digit should be 0 or 1. > To be honest, > I'm not convinced of my own arguing, but I'm not convinced of the > other side, either. Maybe my grudge is really just the notation; I > have no troubles buying '1/3 =3D 0.3333...', or '1/3 * 3 =3D 1', or > '0.3333... =3D 0.9999...', for that matter, but '0.9999... =3D 1' just > seems so incredibly intuitively wrong to me. Maybe I view things in a > too concrete manner :-) One thing wrong is that the space of infinite sequences of digits is initially a very bad fit for the space of real numbers. The former is totally disconnected (a Cantor set), while the latter is connected. Therefore there is no way to continuously assign digits to real numbers in such a way that every real number gets exactly one representation. 0.9999... =3D 1.0000... is one point of many where you glue together the totally disconnected space of digit sequences to make it connected. The strange thing is that you get any semblance of correspondence between the arithmetic operations at all. > > As for what people say, the above is just hand-waving to try and convin= ce > > someone who already knows how to calculate with decimal fractions. To > > show properly that 0.9999... =3D 1, you need to have a definition of re= al > > numbers (see the axioms I posted a while ago), and then a definition of > > what the left and right side mean (usually the left side would be the > > limit of an infinite series, with limit defined in the usual epsilon wa= y). > > Ok, I looked this up in Courant's "What is mathematics?" - it gives me > 's_n =3D 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^3 + ... + 9^/10^n' and > '1 =3D 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 + 9/^10^3 + ...' as meaning '1 is the limit [of > that sum] as n approaches infinity'. In that sense, 1 is the limit and > it is never reached, though we can get an infinitely close > approximation to it. It seems to me then that 0.9999... must be the next > smallest number to 1, but by no means 1 itself, and the expression > '1 =3D 0.9999...' doesn't mean '0.9999... =3D 1', but 1 is the limit of t= he sum > that constitutes 0.9999... And since there is no next smallest real number to 1, if you want to interpret 0.9999... as a number you make it 1. > So much for that, the actual equation that > gives us the exact result 1 is this one: > 9 9 9 9 1 > ---- + ---- + ---- + ... =3D --- * -------- =3D 1 > 10 10^2 10^3 10 1 - 1/10 > > This relies on the following: > (8) s_n =3D 1 + q + q^2 + q^3 + q^3 + ... + q^n > and the following obtained by multiplying (8) with q. > (8a) q * s_n =3D q + q^2 + q^3 + ... + q^{n+1} > > It then proposes to subtract (8a) from (8) and obtain: > (1 - q) * s_n =3D 1 - q^{n+1} > > You can follow through and arrive at the above equation, but my > quibble is really with (8) and (8a)... note the + ... + q^n (or q^{n+1}) > I don't see how that's too different from my '1.9999...8'. So if my > reasoning is flawed, then why isn't that reasoning flawed? I must be > missing something here... The n there must be a finite integer. To prove that the subtraction works you need to use induction which only works for finite integers. Alternatively you could turn these into infinite series and use limits, but then the "final 8" disappears, going to 0. The "..." notation requires a little interpretation, it is not completely stringent mathematically. In the above it is intended to abbreviate a finite number of "obvious" terms, as usual when between two terms. If at the end, it abbreviates a sequence of "obvious" terms, and the meaning of the whole is the limit. Stringent notation uses the sigma: n --- s_n =3D > q^i --- i=3D0 > (9/10 + 9/10^2 + 9/10^3 + ... + 9/10^n) * 2 > =3D 18/10 + 18/10^2 + 18/10^3 + ... + 18/10^n > =3D 1.8 + 0.18 + 0.018 + ... + 0.0000...18 > =3D 1.999...8 This is fine as long as you don't make anything infinite. One thing to note is this: In the finite case, each 8 except the last is turned into a 9 by adding the 1 from the next term. In the infinite case, _every_ term has a next term, and so every 8 becomes a 9. [snip] > > On the other hand (I am not sure if you claimed the opposite or not) th= ere > > are "pprime" bases that can represent exactly the same rational numbers= , > > for example 6 and 12 (they have the same prime factors, 2 and 3.) > > No, I hadn't taken that step yet. So, base 10 can represent all > numbers of the bases 2 and 5? Hmm, so it is actually the prime numbers > that play an important role and not the "pprime" numbers, as I had > suggested. I want a way of using the base that is the product of all > prime numbers :-) No such beast among the finite integers, of course. And it doesn't help taking a limit: Say, in a base b =3D 2n, you get 1/2 =3D 0.n so the first digit after the decimal point would go to infinity. There is a cheat possible, which alas makes arithmetic horrible: Use different bases for each digit. This is not that strange, it is essentially what we use for time: 20 : 1 8 : 1 5 bases 6 10 6 10 To represent every rational number finitely, let the first digit after the decimal point be binary, the next trinary, etc. Then the number q/r will stop at the latest with digit r. > > However there is a concept in number theory of _square free_ numbers. = A > > number is square free if it is not divisible with any square > 1. A > > square free number is a product of _distinct_ prime factors, and so it = is > > determined by the set of its prime factors. Therefore no two square fr= ee > > bases can represent exactly the same numbers. > > Hmm, if I see this correctly, all products of distinct prime factors > must be pprime, or the product z=3Dx^y could be represented by base x, > which would in all(?) cases consist of a different set of prime > factors. But I guess that's trivial to prove in other ways anyway. > > Markus Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 22:28:37 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170otP-000DCr-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:26:59 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:26:49 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170oqM-000DCb-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:23:50 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:23:43 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170oqE-000DCU-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:23:42 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-230-231.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.230.231]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E15D8D3D6E for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:23:30 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC85AD6.990DDB1@dds.nl> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:36:54 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Orjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > > > You can, however, define a sort of prime that lies between being > > completely prime and being pprime, by insisting that any prime factor > > appears either once or twice. I haven't thought of a name yet. > ^zero times > > Assuming you meant zero, the technical term is "square free". I take it > you didn't read my message to the sci list... Yes, I meant zero, and what is the sci list? > > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > -- > My esoteric language page: > (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 22:30:42 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170owk-000DDZ-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:30:26 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:30:19 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170owX-000DDR-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:30:13 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:30:06 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170owQ-000DDL-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:30:06 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-230-231.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.230.231]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700458D3DAA for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:30:01 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC85C5E.E0E483B4@dds.nl> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:43:26 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <20020409182814.26335.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com> <122227622878.20020418001003@frox25.dhs.org> <3CBF1E99.D8BE88AD@dds.nl> <20020420225522.A63738@esoteric> <3CC317F5.9C892FEC@dds.nl> <68204004806.20020422210426@frox25.dhs.org> <20020423131049.B73325@esoteric> <3CC5CC78.889A1E26@dds.nl> <20020425044609.A76818@esoteric> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Markus Kliegl wrote: > Note the '(where I mean representable as a floating-point number in a > finite number of digits)'. I am aware of rational number > representations in the form of numerator/denominator; I use them in > Common Lisp all the time. My quest is to find the Ultimate > floating-point representation, if you want to look at it that way (and > probably indeed, there is no such thing and numerator/denominator is our > best bet). Numerator/denominator representation also has a disadvantage: the numerator and denominator can both grow very large while still meaning something reasonable, meaning you easily get overflows (or, if the numberator and denominator are bignums, out of memory errors). > > I agree with this proof (well, I didn't read it fully so there might be > > typos, but I alredy knew it). Also note that a number that can be expressed > > in base x*y can also be expressed in bases x and y, although the proof is > > harder and I don't know what it is. As an example, consider that 0.001 > > in binary is the somewhat longer but still finite 0.125 in decimal (10=2*5). > > No. 0.2 is representable in base 10=2*5, but not in base 2. If you > change 'bases x and y' to 'base x or y', then it holds. Read my reply to myself. Also, "base x or y" is still not true, since 0.1 base 10 is representable in neither base 2 (0.00011001100110011...) nor in base 5 (0.02222222222222...). From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 22:32:48 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170oz1-000DEv-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:32:47 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:32:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170oyl-000DEd-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:32:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:32:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170oye-000DEW-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:32:24 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-230-231.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.230.231]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC728D3DB2 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:32:21 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC85CEA.E1D8B7E4@dds.nl> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:45:46 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > Actually, the numerator / denominator thing does not work very well for > irrationals, because then both the numerator and denominator part are > infinite and what you would need are a series of approximates converging > to the truth. Of course, you could represent irrationals as (unbounded) > (lazy) lists of rationals, which does have some nice sound to it. Yes, but what does it mean? Irrationals would still have to be approximated. > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > original beauty. Base 3/2? With one and a half digits? From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 22:52:55 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pIP-000DOe-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:52:49 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:52:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pI7-000DOX-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:52:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:52:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.169] helo=mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pI0-000DOO-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:52:24 +0300 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-4.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.202]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3PJqJH14654 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:52:18 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 170pHw-0000od-00 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:52:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:52:20 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020425195220.GB2865@twcny.rr.com> References: <3CC85CEA.E1D8B7E4@dds.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CC85CEA.E1D8B7E4@dds.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:45:46PM +0200, Milo van Handel wrote: > > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > > original beauty. > > Base 3/2? With one and a half digits? You would _create_ that problem in base 3/2, not eliminate it. In non-integral bases, stretching the definition of a base so that such things can exist, most numbers have an infinite number of possible representations. -- Rob Speer From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 23:07:24 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pWT-000DRL-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:07:22 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:07:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pWK-000DRE-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:07:12 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:07:05 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.82]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pWC-000DR8-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:07:04 +0300 Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 170pW8-0001Po-0A; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:07:00 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (340009195196-0001@[217.230.174.90]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 170pW5-0Fx6v2C; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:06:57 +0200 Received: from esoteric.holy-unicorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3PKDXgw078416 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:13:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from markus@esoteric.holy-unicorn) Received: (from markus@localhost) by esoteric.holy-unicorn (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g3PKDXEu078415 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:13:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:13:33 +0200 From: markus.kliegl@t-online.de (Markus Kliegl) To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020425221333.B77969@esoteric> References: <20020425044609.A76818@esoteric> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Sender: 340009195196-0001@t-dialin.net X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: markus.kliegl@t-online.de Precedence: bulk X-list: misc * Panu A Kalliokoski [020425 08:12]: > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > Common Lisp all the time. My quest is to find the Ultimate > > floating-point representation, if you want to look at it that way (and > > probably indeed, there is no such thing and numerator/denominator is our > > best bet). > > Actually, the numerator / denominator thing does not work very well for > irrationals, because then both the numerator and denominator part are > infinite and what you would need are a series of approximates converging > to the truth. Of course, you could represent irrationals as (unbounded) > (lazy) lists of rationals, which does have some nice sound to it. I was talking about rationals. In the end-effect you'll probably want to print out your information to the user in the form of a floating-point number, anyway, but you might as well not lose information in the intermediate calculations. * (sqrt 2) 1.4142135 * (type-of *) SINGLE-FLOAT * (/ 1 3) 1/3 * (type-of *) RATIO * (coerce 1/3 'float) 0.33333334 * (coerce 1/3 'double-float) 0.3333333333333333d0 > > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > original beauty. > I like the lazy lists of bits idea. Of course, it doesn't solve my problem of representing all rational numbers in a finite number of digits (or bits), but it's certainly neat to be able to retrieve the number as precise as one wants it. (Calculations with those lazy lists of bits would still require always using only a certain number of the bits, or?) I'm trying to figure out how non-natural-number bases would work. Let's take base 2.5 for example: 1 is 1, 2.5 is 10, 6.25 is 100 like in natural-number bases. But for more complicated numbers, it seems to differ quite strongly. I guess we don't have a finite alphabet (like 0-9 of base 10), but really an infinite alphabet (the interval from 0 to 2.5 exclusive). So, 2 would be '{2}', and 2.4 would be '{2.4}'. More interesting then in something like 4, which would be '{1}{1.5}' (where I enclose the individual digits of the number in braces). It becomes more interesting when we use floating-point numbers: 2.5^-1 = .4; 2.5^-2 = .16; 2.5^-3 = .064; ... So, 2.9 in base 2.5 is '{1}{0}.{1}', but also '{1}{0.4}'; so, the alphabet is probably more like 0 and the interval from 1 to 2.5 exclusive. Right? Markus From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Thu Apr 25 23:36:33 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pyR-000DXy-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:36:15 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:36:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170pyD-000DXs-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:36:01 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:35:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170py6-000DXm-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:35:54 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:26246 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[mBmc+9puEu9Xg1PiG0w7s0fuEgKDDr+1]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:35:42 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:35:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <3CC85AD6.990DDB1@dds.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > Yes, I meant zero, and what is the sci list? What you get if you replace "lang" by "sci" in the list address. Both (as well as "chat", at least) are included in "misc". The latest messages for all the lists are archived at . Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 09:41:06 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zPV-000FPW-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:49 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zP4-000FPO-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:22 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zOv-000FPI-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:14 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3Q6eCB27672 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:13 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3Q6eA303266 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:10 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:10 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <3CC85CEA.E1D8B7E4@dds.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Milo van Handel wrote: > > to the truth. Of course, you could represent irrationals as (unbounded) > > (lazy) lists of rationals, which does have some nice sound to it. > Yes, but what does it mean? Irrationals would still have to be approximated. Um... the only way to represent irrationals not as approximations but as precise values (that I know of) is giving the formula by which they are created in the first place - which is not much of calculation. So that the output is actually an approximation, is not of much concern to me, as it is nevertheless an arbitrarily-precise approximation. (The calculation itself does in a way deal with irrationals themselves, because it has the "potential" to produce the converging series to an arbitrary precision.) The hard-core way would be to make calculations on irrationals in the symbolic form, but that would severely limit the amount of irrationals that can be represented. > > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > > original beauty. > Base 3/2? With one and a half digits? Two digits. The idea is that the "areas of influence" of the digits overlap somewhat, like (2.25 dec =) 100.0 = 10.100000100... so that, whereas with binary 0.11... you have to prove that no 0 is forthcoming to be allowed to produce the zero before the decimal point, with base 3/2 numbers you can emit the zero because later digits are able to raise the value as if the digit had been 1. 1.0 = 0.10100000100... = 0.011100001100... = 0.0110101011001... Bad explanation. Well, anyhow. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 09:45:16 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zTm-000FTq-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:45:15 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:45:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zTe-000FTh-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:45:07 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:45:00 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zTX-000FTY-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:44:59 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3Q6iwB28799 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:44:58 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3Q6iuP03641 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:44:56 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:44:56 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <20020425195220.GB2865@twcny.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Rob Speer wrote: > > > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > > > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > > > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > > > original beauty. > You would _create_ that problem in base 3/2, not eliminate it. In > non-integral bases, stretching the definition of a base so that such > things can exist, most numbers have an infinite number of possible > representations. Yes. But it was not the solution that was badly expressed, it was the problem. The problem was not ambiguous representations but, um, well, I'll give an example. When you do addition on these lists of decimals, suppose you get to add 0.0000.... (real zero) and 0.1111.... (real one, in degenerate form). Now there's no way for you to ever produce a digit, because you can't make sure 0.0000.... doesn't have a 1 lurking there somewhere (unless you can inspect how it is produced) and because if it has even one 1, the first digit of the calculation should be one, otherwise it might be zero. This is the kind of problem I'm trying to circumvent with base 3/2. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 09:57:19 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zfR-000FX0-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:57:17 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:57:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zfD-000FWp-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:57:03 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:56:57 +0300 (EEST) Received: from porsta.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.48.124]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 170zf6-000FWh-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:56:56 +0300 Received: from melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (sslwrap@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porsta.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3Q6ukB01975 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:56:46 +0300 Received: from localhost (pkalliok@localhost) by melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3Q6uiQ04504 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:56:44 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: melkinpaasi.cs.Helsinki.FI: pkalliok owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:56:43 +0300 (EEST) From: Panu A Kalliokoski To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: <20020425221333.B77969@esoteric> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: pkalliok@cs.Helsinki.FI Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Markus Kliegl wrote: > > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > > original beauty. > I like the lazy lists of bits idea. Of course, it doesn't solve my > problem of representing all rational numbers in a finite > number of digits (or bits), but it's certainly neat to be able to All rational numbers can, of course, be represented in a finite number of bits. The numerator/denominator thingy is the way to go. (You might want to factorise both into a series of primes, so as to speed up normalisation.) > retrieve the number as precise as one wants it. (Calculations with > those lazy lists of bits would still require always using only a > certain number of the bits, or?) That's what I'm trying to make sure - that any calculation can produce a digit, at any stage, by inspecting a finite number of digits from its arguments. > I guess we don't have a finite alphabet (like 0-9 of base 10), but I see I should have explained it more thoroughly. The idea is exactly that even though the base is not an integer, the alphabet represent integers. A little bit similar to most microwave ovens, where you can put it to "99 sec" even though that means "1 min 39 sec". An similar idea would be to use base-2 with 3 digits: 6(dec) would be 110 or 102 or 22 or 21.2 or 21.112... but this is not as neat as base 3/2 with 2 digits. -- Am fuar -> symb <- am fesh atehwa@iki.fi From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 21:45:33 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171Aha-000JPb-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:44:14 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:44:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171AfS-000JPR-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:42:02 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:41:56 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171AfL-000JPK-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:41:55 +0300 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:10889 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "[T1Bb7sqzct2kbHrrQfQ024k8iQsYMEMg]" whoson: "-unregistered-") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:41:42 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 20:41:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Orjan Johansen To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: oerjan@nvg.ntnu.no Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > All rational numbers can, of course, be represented in a finite number of > bits. The numerator/denominator thingy is the way to go. (You might want > to factorise both into a series of primes, so as to speed up > normalisation.) Full factorization is hard. Normalization is easy. Greetings, =D8rjan. --=20 My esoteric language page: (Mostly Unlambda.) Latest contraption: CHIQRSX9+ interpreter. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 23:33:01 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171COe-000Jgq-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:32:48 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:32:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171COB-000Jgj-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:32:19 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:32:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171CO3-000Jgd-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:32:11 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-239-64.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.239.64]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4865C510C27 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:31:58 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC9BC94.EF75DBED@dds.nl> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:46:12 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Rob Speer wrote: > > > > I still give my vote on unbounded lazy lists of bits, but that does have > > > > the problem that 0.11.. == 1.00.. This can be circumvented by using base > > > > 3/2, for example, but that quite much berieves the solution of its > > > > original beauty. > > You would _create_ that problem in base 3/2, not eliminate it. In > > non-integral bases, stretching the definition of a base so that such > > things can exist, most numbers have an infinite number of possible > > representations. > > Yes. But it was not the solution that was badly expressed, it was the > problem. The problem was not ambiguous representations but, um, well, I'll > give an example. > > When you do addition on these lists of decimals, suppose you get to add > 0.0000.... (real zero) and 0.1111.... (real one, in degenerate form). Now > there's no way for you to ever produce a digit, because you can't make > sure 0.0000.... doesn't have a 1 lurking there somewhere (unless you can > inspect how it is produced) and because if it has even one 1, the first > digit of the calculation should be one, otherwise it might be zero. Yeah, but I don't care whether my program answers 0.1111... (no 1s lurking around) or 1.0000... (a 1 lurking around), since they're the same anyway. The unaccuracy from this will be no worse than the unaccuracy that led to you not knowing whether the 1 is lurking around there in the first place. And if you really don't like this, then any multiple-representation case will cause the same problems, so if Rob is right about 3/2 having numbers with an infinity of possible representations, then you still have the unknown-digits problem too. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 23:41:32 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171CX4-000Jl5-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:41:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:41:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171CWv-000Jkx-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:41:21 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:41:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171CWo-000Jkr-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:41:14 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-239-64.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.239.64]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C2017D8DF for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:41:11 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CC9BEBE.5E5B285@dds.nl> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:55:26 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Orjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote: > > > All rational numbers can, of course, be represented in a finite number of > > bits. The numerator/denominator thingy is the way to go. (You might want > > to factorise both into a series of primes, so as to speed up > > normalisation.) > > Full factorization is hard. Normalization is easy. Yeah... Well, as long as you're only doing multiplication and division, it's most efficient to keep the numbers as a row of whole numbers representing a prime decomposition (negative exponents indicate that the prime appears in the denominator rather than the numerator). But once you start adding and subtracting, it simply won't work. By the way, you do have to make a distinction between "hard/easy" (programmer time) and "slow/fast" (program time). Often, in fact, they're opposites. Bubble sort is very easy, but awfully slow. In this case, full factorization is slow and normalization is fast (Euclid's method, if I recall correctly), although both are easy to implement the slow way, and the fast way of normalizing numbers is easy once you know it but you won't know it until you get told in an algebra lecture. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Fri Apr 26 23:57:23 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171CmL-000Jn0-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:57:17 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:57:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171Cm5-000Jmu-00; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:57:01 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:56:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.122] helo=mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171Cly-000Jmo-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 23:56:54 +0300 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-4.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.202]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3QKukH23996 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:56:46 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 171Clq-0000Vf-00 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:56:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:56:46 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020426205646.GE1144@twcny.rr.com> References: <3CC9BC94.EF75DBED@dds.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CC9BC94.EF75DBED@dds.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:46:12PM +0200, Milo van Handel wrote: > And if you really don't like this, then any multiple-representation case will > cause the same problems, so if Rob is right about 3/2 having numbers with an > infinity of possible representations, then you still have the unknown-digits > problem too. I'll give an example here. What is the number 1 in base 3/2? Well, 1, obviously. But it's also 0.10100000101... (evaluating this much yields 1.0005). And 0.111111... is 2. Do you really want to have anything to do with a base where 0.111111... is twice as big as 1.000000? (Though on an esoteric languages list, I assume the answer is yes.) -- Rob Speer From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 27 02:33:55 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171FDd-000K6u-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:33:37 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:33:15 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171FBs-000K6n-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:31:48 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:31:32 +0300 (EEST) Received: from web21402.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.232.72]) by oiva.sange.fi with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171FB4-000K6d-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 02:30:58 +0300 Message-ID: <20020426233014.97026.qmail@web21402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.120.209.42] by web21402.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:30:14 PDT Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Quowong Liu Subject: [lang] Unlambda compiler To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-663451786-1019863814=:94284" X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: qpliu@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc --0-663451786-1019863814=:94284 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Here's an Unlambda 2 to java class file compiler. (It actually just makes an interpreter.) The resulting class files have two public static methods, main and run. main is a java main, so it can be just run. run takes a Writer possibly a Reader argument that receives the program's output and provides the program's input, and runs the program. Operationally, it's like a compiler, but it reads more like an interpreter in java byte code. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ --0-663451786-1019863814=:94284 Content-Type: application/x-gzip; name="junk.java.gz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: junk.java.gz Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="junk.java.gz" H4sICIDfyTwAA2p1bmsuamF2YQDtPWt327aS3/MrUO/ZREpkWaLt3DZu0rqO 3WrXsb1+pLcnm+NSJGUzkkiGpOR4m/z3nQH4AAmAhGT5GeucxBKJGcwLgxk8 V56TTxNv2P5kTk2yTOifiTcyx33bJJY/DtyRE37ofnxCnpMtP7gM3bPzmDS2 msTodAzyPxP/wvfOyAHZdSdQBosdn7sRCUL/LDTHBL4OQschkT+IL8zQ2SCX /oRYpkdCx3ajOHT7k9ghbkxMz17xQzL2bXdwiXjg2cSznZDE5w6JnXAcEX9A f/y+d0J+dzwnNEfkYNIfuRZUbzle5BATqsYn0bljkz7FgxA7SMNRQgPZ8QGx Gbu+t0EcF96HZOqEEfwmRlpHgrBF/BCRNMwYKQ+JHyBcE8i9JCMzzkHbCvZz Lm3iehT3uR8AR+eAEni8cEcj0nfIJHIGk1ELUUBh8mfv+I/9k2OyufcX+XPz 8HBz7/ivDSgcn/vw1pk6DJU7DkYuYAa+QtOLL4F8xPBu+3DrDwDZ/K232zv+ C5ggO73jve2jI7Kzf0g2ycHm4XFv62R385AcnBwe7B9ttwk5cpAsBxFUiHhA tQRitJ3YdEdRyvhfoNgIqBvZ5NycOqBgy3GnQBsaUnBZrzxEYo7QnJBNKJwL coO4A+L5cYtchC7YS+yLakXwXLMt0vOsdous/0SOHRCSQw5GpgX6PJoggtXV Tov85kcxlny3SUjH6Ha7y93Vzr8IOTnaZDwhykPHtMGIoR20oWG00E4ZEclD a2RGUa58h9AHIIIIGA8Yg1EMNFlk6rs2GZuu1zgCk/DOPnxsAkPnrnVOwokX pbI/SdtfwjyWcUDeR5dR7IzbYETwYuraTsRMwAsmMaMrKQEWQg3fHCZF4AGU EYk0R5GvphRoaqBDaLt++0/kOGylP1EoTthEbGANmtDArO0EjmcD6wTaGnBF 217CdtpmQipwbF8JZ0UJKcWToEmAwF5C5/PEBTfDZMNkQLD9J+JDB0FfoaA8 8FP+OEVihmeTsePFBcV65thJrRhVj607Lj1n1kDIsU+wtuwRNn2TcmlaQ/MM 7BD4Ya8TJ5vVD3SPnCk0ZigbAg3gQaApxX54+cH4CKh7g5RKJIJWbvkeNEWQ j3VuhqYFso6Yf0FuXW9qjkAh2G6pf29EE5AnaD0CYpxUifQVoxXxRlwxZ+xa PjRMUGDOEJUAdV5pBcxT5iXoS2i06N0YD6NLdHNmHyApt7TORI2ZqHfdsYvO Etp4aFIDicYmYErLtUjkepYDXtIdUVPCGjmHi2Vt30uMAQzNIWMwNN9OLQnK jPI6Xq6vr66DJUCDTimA/o6AFCeA6bKFPvrTJAIuwLWMkgaVVkcdFXRmrgcy D0IH/qcIDEAQRZMxkodMLqOWoW0g5/D3HLWGZrIDgne+mOifWuT9u6PlKL4c Ucrxk5VMKe8BNyBD2x3D/6EzdsZ9aJTkgjpdlPSFHw7bmeOi5h+RT/aw2zZQ x7TDSt8f+anZgkAs36b2HMWTwKUdlR/SvtcHRccFQ0XpAL8+s2fQxdkot/ue h1YLTmAyMkNqLmCBaIUjP6b9t2VGccS0v9//BDaRkvPWGbieG0OPAdjBVsfU jROzj/1d1uYxcuhjHwTKIGb8CiHP4zh4tbJycXHRxpYDgoXepD0IX/3Y+bGz cg5sroxNG3qsldSEVtIQJ/vSPo/HI0C28uQJdKl+GJPUdz3fKDyZxO4Inz1J XB4zdYyhnvzzhCqtxuWjb4maIJnQv4jI9hfLoREFhWUY8IONtQFSJi55TTrQ /ZGfKWAbWvxZfA4PXrxoZqXxM2TqaWCpD+7H5gZ9++0JIyp0p6D7AlUpACOM RKFVSxU41cYPUBAEbEd/gu03lrBTXGo2uUL4yTuiNlTtxSOvsZT5ocRrvSJL 5AWtdqMAC61oEnr5s2/ZN5QyNJcARAJGFjkNz7kgO4COdUcNxMUhQ2pp6dfE m4xGs9AYQahnMS8/O5mJQK1RBISitKJJP6LPGhB04AOmxEZzeQ2QZnCbEMJd 7kK4SCxkEZnLHjV4vryYNtotanqvoXQP4uQv+4OGFbTI1sHp1u7m0VELCWhR ztn/JQzRJHDCOhT7v/3X9tZxFRYqKNTBZhyHe6BWiqggKQn6k+OdH1tk6SiD XtKug2JS4wTxllBJ5DtwnZEdVck4L8v6DmnhYrsYQxTxjhVuUNEjXaymVoql hear1Vos9Oneszh1u/pmmH1Fie3TqAcs0oHeCj0pY6P8CgkG9Essml3i6oC+ Pz5Za3S+WObA6Zt9zIgmcXODrDwfm2euBR6zUNRorHIlXM8PT5MESSy5ts4j +1QoWii7dUCVnJaFcAccmRefBr4/KpcFvJ0vkJt28/KmZTlRdDoYmWeRSEXW lHIAfHRKRSEWz9tNXp4+ywAEcvKCNE4YQNQF6KELi8uld6i5NFKrScHY7xIt ma0FnHll4mQPJNTwcomTzDSnpsysvHlLUJyiSz918W0ZzVrDkAEwJ1hXZ6k+ 9hL9cqGuUjeHYTBk6hviQ+u8+DDtUrryx4bk8aSEtw9G6EBYgjHnxhOhfCMh ppUS0Morzb8azVJXiybY9rEfSPnInkIg+DpjJHuK+OB5zgv/xmBvDKFz7JIf kt6x4FXwTXuCtSMGAcpQQhkyKJQMPBxAuulUhSVUGKxnZz06uH+9SGljo+xT seOwoFLXa2NC2Si5TWTEgpiqU4bDj8wfQ3APEekEIlkHk8kBjQ2WSljxwxwy lU7x5bfCr1TxxTIRJBSg3oZVJgvCZoc8+/vZK6G+zJiyqAiEJpKV6fu1THO1 xPM1GVo1GVeoKX0JPRVtQsB4izz7386zVtJsaIvZkEho+OxV8u2/4ZuAZ5jh kUYbOZ4ow3MkwxPp4nEzPD0ZHlcXzzTD816GZ6qLx8rwbMnwWLp47AzPWxke WxdPmOE5lOFpUzxePR4nw7Mtw+Po0vOrDPpXXehfZNC/ABztBJq5M6rF9FWG 6asuHW2Jn6hwhvipdIj4uZJTxE9li/9W7wPauRzLIb4ogf+QSODiHIesgEvo vNCoyNOnIJU3kF/LXVSNxPrwYiirm2S2+L9x/jW3dKhaJE6CzXYG5mQUi2Wr MtdsBJAlDKnA5uuovlV01mnYg+LZcxzbsRtpB1GOZdJeDV5BSMMbWN7ocrMX mlIcTpyNEsjf+WuOAKwAO4gm+fpV8pzvMlLhpli44KSO84HrmSMaYKSJMhjK vzZqi+70tnffHm7vQOmf6ku/2z7+Yz8p3u3Ulz86Puzt/Q6Ff6wvu7f5bntz 7+3xXwfbiN2oh8DkGkpuSAVCY600Hc9E2EiGMlrs/fFlgLMvbGzENmOzW/hl FH6tlk2Iq4Lm/jsQ/dPMJ8GbIEwwMRTFsDWFflNu7okBJO9zIDY8+eEj8fuf NgRbpvUKppwaxCvhMVNPsS0D4iQfT+oyPm6UC+BoKyvTg9zxzAkbioGPRAKc Xyy1+ZKHSQlLrVIkObPAGqpX56I6GWGqJRuxGSVsgi8T0XMmXjSLmYTDYbkW IWiqTiaDKmTGHHaA0POaJ2WgshZpX0YzO8bTaOScmaPNZNoty/WSwek29G0T Bzmlra5Z9tMpMR1BRrQ8x2zQNm27AWW5h5kDaEfu/zlpVy/3/cwPofe5Hj8n G/fPCaOj/qX4LHNTOCrm4QBfI33URNAzJ264kuy30UiE1EwgQXrNNlT9HmXd aGKUxMQnhpK+F7se3ynjR+kZKYjcO/KvZB4yJZZz+BWtRhrFARsiq90Cq4rw T8olfhKDcV+UbF7tUvm3CrcqZ1XpJW+KV5GkOs+qT5lxrVpQ+m45W7dtVFUU GXNSdL0CFnuMlI8fqBjbzucJRNWNXDyLokCZGS2gR8FPOQPiaOnUzqsmExZZ r1Cegqkd0UzGwTO3/yIdsi/2Ej1I8swYvrk0Im67yW/aT7TPzWjP+YLTVGSm HsNtewys2NNDqkkXPdV2G0+N9fUScNanYTjR3YA/Pyew2Wz2p/JsNn5oi2B1 fMIlBzjnYzn+gGQUyEcqEvmJlH4qUFoWaqZy4kAqqMCN60RAcnS5CAouMadC FdDj/obvG0vYQlTDIQmVbOEJk4OKoqIGKISM7hmS1yQE2T8AHpb+XqrI/5KS W39gybZWyc1DLLslL5tPjmPDa+Q/QZtpG1vaxaGLZEpyY2kjYaiq1u1/H3R1 eYGyOIS99Eyj7AmV0MqSPPEtCpPOlWNxXCiyMjK9sxXWrrRo2to+OO7t7+FY wlLmGSIN0N5+BpxV7vor8DjFooHk6K+j4+13ReLZMJMG8AEEbscQvm1vUgy7 KQkHODjFHN+GBhpc7grgYOk6hY/+POwdbx/yLPOeli05nAFRb69Hq2/sytBt NN/rqGLv4EQmiJ6XI9JCg9Cujt56R1DZ26IYuNrYNNoMeEQp8LRrCUHUi7Yu KChCUk+nAbCze3JEPdNgNInOdWt4u320RZnsaTEkSlhbrAiKgDgWqVk8I67Z 04E4Fhs/bbyHEwiqxs4sPoDDVTID5g5oKT0b+G3zLetb+qZN/EDHfaZV/oyr AN9otZLecSasLS2y3u/3OPm+1yHr3SZrjbiGT6MGLJ7V8EEhvXpNnNA6w4mW 2k72Tv883N/b/avYcFmr09MX4jh8++ehFMNu0ew1edjaf0ub8pZvO4ryNFwe 4LIp9QJJrhvjh0kACCycLgAUvX4jnyDBmTY6HlRyiY1sMX2zcrwnIxFrY9gx FGsRcYFCgdLqORNuqVg+jJSHQi2SJQ/ccrXkR7bUpzjbgp+avAJrpQuMGvzK tP2DFo3ZuIhSXnDrD82CGIu1sggPQzsdEGNGkJMDAYAb5pMOjaJJKmYOFRB5 WKYLlwzYcEGZajmiOIEGzaU4acUXRyn0wDXmawsTSyhJiralcpkWh1gc+Rwn 9i1CAQ0S0IqmEkA3jLkeNGN4bA2FeRzI6egLOlb7mhXCoYHiUGLy9MULbuIl gUqfVRHhB1U0pJiWlzfkdP1cniLKhxXK3Wr1aHGy+jtRnLqBp5rUbclZBs8A i6P0L7lRevZeHBfHFZIdg66oy2jmVuIlYLrzF9gTq2YcElS6sxdpp15Gl+HD zJouwi0Mq9DtC6wCaYHS8unUMhIQ9uQf0mmRDvlWKElGvmXShdxGujC05Qf8 skqsOsnMO18Mky1yHPmmfdrhJErbBbPGDTlo/1/JCtGpP3SiwLFccyQujhTE lo0m54u1mTrSWAd6QKyHqxabRyUpV+Ci22dcUNDubAJYp6CgM+riNXhPx9mT pe5ZT1bFcS3z/S4lg7lGXtGJJa+iJVOI2M9srSFa/FrZ4jNXJxRdLxdlRicU jOjkFfuu53ewM9CJMDKHL3ZKN+yUfkqcUmEXzfyuCePxBbmmNLS/e66pS9uN GZpj3IDG2yxIMkzC5HQ/kyRcpq8wS2nzgXPeAz6n//NIxHhawJFH1gzHiqK5 MYcByDUafLorJRmyKWhCbPS1HmedGZs9CWZzVKzjPHNiZp4zeSo20NbCwa4W P3A2D/1aXUYhkKnuPzKxsh6EHxmb2afSaSDOi5Tngwt8/MjzUZZplVw56qlX gzy2xSXEItUlyrPn0kH/ekPVMNZ0ZK3aWJUKF+iQGq0+eIXxVjEjGjD6VW68 8yos1dixpgHkgmbmyw9p8t6sSITaNmRmIpK+eNPFcZgZDPfhRjH8aAnkXTPF MengyMOLaKidyAMa9LkyNrlajI9CQ9CtlRqmqmr0nouuj/nwexBu6cifQePg RaE4WxJNV6T//ay6kyy1aImwaxs1V1anYXPF6xt3XljSwNOPdEU3t2UV5Tyk qKG65W5RAZHqhat6MVW9sFQvbNULR/XCjFVvAtmLfLdgnG+JK9EWKfc4K3d2 q2ywZFHgh9CbEpeULCgTYW6n/OvZIqGEgdsLcrodCt53sXgJA1fwmfvsFuMV qsQkVElGvWq7fVVMgtVtRrEfOg2mydr4QWoW07JZTL9Ls5g+QLOY6plF+uxb YQyBGkfog8vi+KEhljUJIz9ku4u5LJU+bSf7fkv7d7Szf5W9XFtir7IPrlDC mR8sPlG/ulXUWMTKc/rkFaiqNEZE9YvnJkWTPrwNnQhPYYh4bau2WeNK8kQo /PZi3IDFPaamIK7we/qUcMCGHNhgwEXofwRcdLUgA5oE1XuPJXvtqMpSW87Q SMoU1LqW5tLlEev0ozlyLcxlStspq1+2Vra4e7Jw+oFEPPy2f1TBD/WKogcR 8MXK6IX4XwJlCFAY7vjSMAk/fP6Xlilt08NPuu+guLOQCiLdEi41liTOZFte C5VQh5XHoVnfJ9mlmlPPim+ot4VGCjqiGjqi2eiI6uhwFXS4NXSIIWIlHW4d HVMFHdMaOsSYpJKOaR0dloIOq4YOazY6rDo6bAUddg0d9mx02HV0OAo6nBo6 nNnocOro+FVBR5pwKQnJMzI9SpLyFaR8VZAS1FASzEZIoKajCIZ1+7STe9Z+ hr1l8uPXZ6LrZolmMQbLcbCq38i3/evF3vhRBsj44eIOwmIPmSwz6amW9esl G+lHJ+nQon42QcyOriopkQAUIs/5a9XIVdLPInOWjNj63EVK9tVlz6VEifXr Eiq8r9woQuvBVRB61VSRLbqMtEX5tEEpGpXm4or0M1OAWL3zpi7clSwQrJRO uXqpP6OSqtOIHnHlpYiaxBk1xIleU68VFPM2Cb+q7uAXYUSZErwYr67vjnVd sX51C6K6zvXWud0Z5KPnbhftajUNbFGy5Q/Y4z9Xyz0Z6lL+KatGmoNKoA0p NCXyHGI5Y/2lVggyY8dtnc/ahRRrY9M/UVVtqfmcKw1C4oP0bbi2C9H0sNlC 8oXa7WMPdz97OCVHSa+WTo3Wr8Eu0PzYyT12chWyNVPZnn7pXs0o7r/bKXat d8nnFLttHYdTNfOUfm7XYNYHrCO/MBeQtC18fkHHYT/Jv2VfV54TD9wzvb4E 5wnzWaT0lhR6c0V8ntz9gk/YwpvyVJRPL4BIr2xh/9I7V8IoJvGFny7F4Zfe eLRoOpLGH3SMSyomoeul71aL7/IXa9yLylUUXEVsdFk4IYWvLylSMl/hPUfW twIdCbM/v87qla0sIvlrnpor7OvgR0oSzFpbSaplV+QokYIY9GdMJSUECRf4 6iv4UvJW4i+pRHt2XKAg2Uvl0pPpT8dlD1FJQ4/RkNvMPJP0BWrWEnlQxEVF y1aAQKtjTRFaqjMO4ssWGjC9eghHl1x6eVGn3NqcKZvWwIr5c9MYxudyytjq 45Vs9XHB2KodmXgwRYudFdFSnTgxz5J61kRWElOaAZDNBa+kc8EzMKbdcy+y PvVeqWItL2ktLKSbuiHeiVRbFRfILUkUgwqjx9biF7pxf+aVDM9LnQY4lfTo 17YfvP67vHcFswa20hLewQ8aTrxOT4WlTyYB/T0JJLDdAnCX1vM6q5CeSJ4+ NwrPDRkyrAr+lt508BmYwJkf+7Rt8e9L/Nm0dywQ8BpDSjXXNt0GXyAcwrFO yjLpYu1J5fS2GnnthrZ0c/nUStcoABtFIjMURlFnKukaFdI15NJVbEy6ylZO 5bqQ6/UGV6hR0x9c38IqzPFrHDX2Ov3Q9KzzbhRaqr6nULHJKnYHp641DjxH FExH1/coBMJy3sAP6nrZ+73uTUM9d2jF20Kl8305gtlrvOq2bZ0aH/V8DTXW DsgsXM+1Nd6Enh99742sNtYaPruBUyHqx76+A+dy35v6bYqv3oDutMHqDQal zzDGxiRpG3KkbXapmEaUzRwOwlUF2NrRve1EsVbFOs7TniGvMCCv0GR5cYnF nTP4uxl0FrVkaGnJSnrCged7OECiZZ33PFiot/c7HyzMJ5w1i3d0XYWju5PN 7ea758VmXPeoe55xbiTtD49wUPRaOkPOr2n3e/fLXG9obHLRg4yrd2aQ8f51 QvcqY/2OE73H0cJHPd/ZGOVxtFAAe3C+Vy6cx9HC+5T93zmXfo/SkbtmsFca LdQblJk/QVqtSpBWnuPCQn84CZIDIXDrdkQ8x7FJ7JO+QyI/jOEHLi6NLMez 6VLU0HZCbvnh88Jl1cmCG/7942oRaUZW0BYToXb6xEyO1x1HUeFC1FWyjFfC ZRhfrDb/cw0vSX1D70pdXi4uJOWrYc3MtFHrNVatTNroAXHs6sEK5pTglXi9 wHRDXPDakT0f+bNXR6n1E0oLZ9PhoRJ+XF6Zy2oqH/FF0a81nrWfCRVU1o6f rHYp4ZXg3wpsfJYzoV5lXM3LL3Pw8nkxnJgKfczLyq9zsGIuSCuWnBVLeaZE NSvWHKxYi+HEVjSSOTmx52kri+HEkXPizMmJMwcnzmI4ceWcuHNy4s7BibsY ToZyToZzcjKcg5PhYjiJ5JxEc3ISzcFJtBhOpnJOpnNyMp2Dk+liOAnknKhP 9qnm5OscnATzc8KH7+mtztBB0b2+6ssMG3ivoB8sNcubUhIU2hMp89w+wV2T eEsXUHTZbqORbcnTEYHyo+PD3t7vLXYto+oI75sYKirIjg0ZlW6dvOLlPWxz JTMgjX1P7HivX/jjvZ6T0o4GUtzAIG6kKMJC46NbuX7uQHLJvuKW3yydxNMZ si0o0xbbW5s9cIvIOty+DOW2BRohV5k8LYDgEleBr7qq5wlS4YWhADBUAKsK gFUZAHgvGm1LfFd948XPvTtw+O/7fODwtUlPOaYyg4QqT2hd6O5pzWG9hdf7 vWpF90SBxetF95QFjb30i9QS3UtMT5yr20qswvC5al+VQOFPyVV/g1Esl6Mi WKw4q/xq5N9VM9UylsXXXH3MUtqH6+m6YonLLAqvPKee6r7q9gKl2Vat1BFZ kU4/zMJFqc1URV5M0nUlcvarTunn2S/xX1fBtfhALe87631a6vmnshKKIsij 22uzgm+SzOHXRWYO1O+9dr02DgY3QJ55KnEdKYNZmSazEorMAF4oIn0zVuQG 8EIJokhN6FnPj4nAvUkE+CLpmaVMJw8+GH1MEe6iVu5tinBtmpmze+XisysH 5uxImeeFI2Vm91XpVZ/4l/2vdleLyKvmPqMJP6kztM6JxB9mveytpV3zh95Z d38rsXcehlxXaJ1HLfcnti4xcEuRsVWOjPkzjLITi4RLxvF+o9dcEG216KM8 bJ4EZRDh+KE84hbPPMqiZsRaxlQROiP7heOlU4jiMVCEP15JeppSMQa36kJw Sz1sb1HUineKwN2Sxu24aEMnzr5D/fotjalo1zyTS6/YpsrRVu8bHzMktQDu RIb04CPuxzzoLmrlMQ8SmHsw/tC6z/7wuoR3VxrebbnDBc5Q3u30ZhGDG9Y1 ZkiloHCmXPKuGPFcvYf6MI6yLu4D/3c925ivFRRQcMnkjY4T2FUzaMIbxdHL Vec5F3Foz47ZdZm5rZ61sh8nre5NCPLgY5B75r7uQvzzPdjE7SWE1xP8PRDN PLABlJpgRCVX+5YmLYbzTVpwIctQMueQXbNQectC1QQDhS3NNGjMLgzrYphh xRTCUDGFMFRNIQwfpxCurearTvtXZmPDx8mKGcF1I+PhfY6Mr0t48w0N6C4o u0MO5n6OucuEXpb48H6OZM0RXM05pji8reGU6MoRTHTFCKZcozFHjaqRnYro aObIas57vYRLp+qusOpmY1JGPSLJPVr0WrBMEvQaq4rxrXyULLkIKwOVX4yl PyAW1QWTUUUwGamXsUSKODNSLTGPFCvMI9UC80ix+zRS7T6NHnwke9Xp05sk PLqV8JR/nnaDHdqwqtezy+4DK+P+HkLf6KGEvt/ZToZ7G7deV8JRVnp0XSue 9TQu+KICbbPF5XekF9Cyt2imTZ633AvcaP9YpEuDuMc+5g73MURXjapDkmfQ EjssJ7owy2q6c85dIazHDvmadaas+eZ628eRprLcigK6zpGmRYQk0sMJHkZM Mpc3vdnQgDDVFMcAi+Nz5DuJFu71MiW5VrMxzLlU+9hB3tnFLN9rbKfJg9yv Gaw9PLqze+zOjJk1+ujFHr3YHfNiJYt+9Er33Svp6vGB+KIHtgj1ds7MWbQr vClnep0VyRuVkf7S8ZS3bmfXS9oCz1UUhF3nvB6khXWz/757w1rY7Gp0S8vz p89e5Uu+SBePwsxXfJXXK03r1itNVeuV8B6QB78CSH+Y/u4L4OZG26e3ta7z q2RdJ382rMWfC2ulywjbuPrPalvnr2nZIgb5ckPxpCxE0dJeJhjUNbtAvRQw UCwFDFRLAQPFUsBAuhQQb8V53Jl7T7OxxznfmxoMuis7Z/lFERK9X/2+gOCm z938HlxO+wG6HIsobPCKAl7wlRcLcQDVt0boNPvgpo+ELTXqaz4SNrh/J8Ly RXR70jkD5OCWUsM2pIYUZfGiNT5blB3MKpz64ldfisBuTlYEkblh+ZP48f6a 672/pljfQs4U//Owd4xnitO/yZ8rdiE7m7u7x38c7p/8/gc53icuR5TMit3S AIeOybp1Busm5kq+fiVq472rxvddHz12cwMbgqlSW1OaK33rxhPwt120Qh/M q2SXzFgVdgkowDQ7bGsoGYxApAScJvSSLRI68SQsjFVgUeXmVfkwxuKOBZNs Hq0cOeFq7l75JDI9q5RaJOqgH5qedb5W0R8XKqjYNaHsjKtvVnXAocm0WzYW R6PXvdbudrE9yM7uyRH0Xu/3exXXUsg80Te5YvpdSh2THR+2cUrWvvN4NjPS dGoLjCbqk6oae1+/KXtPn6l3BhV5ke0Nrb3S2Ohz6urOpK5b1nT95oFcZy91 dSbPF5TqSlXDOhCDFLQjkz1nRvotaiYVZSR1iWgwnEQWc4m5auCo3gTmvZxc MVCkHJfWMMYr3zuuNTBUE9FneksGg7IFijWtfj4x3mbbrQ87NYc4FlZf3biT 1voCDZOXritYLLM6Oc0cllhhgHddHLURwQziUEpBnRepegHsYrYhMF9kt1SI aTmskJG/XF9fXS/HuEeXUeyM2xDgtoMQiBp5jaUg9M9Cc0xi3yd992ypFFYm AfbAhLRFOmbWv4ydDx/pnyjlLfZ/g5+bYWhe8ixG8WQwAAYwPyHLmUS2swMI 018v4DdFqAVsFICNKmDWF7Ix3eWkZ8Rpmxb3vR7eKMDj+HS3xf+YB4PBY9Dg YbWAYZXjYVWLh7UC/BoHv6YFv16AX+fg17XgXxbgX3LwL2vg2UgAs4Aj/N7K v85gOLnR8EAClBeYbgiOhf2FvFBdge0MzMkoThiLLtzYOqd8JS8YjyXg8hhw hsyXIfLVSD4LKD6LCD4rwU2RBFNCgakmwBIQWCK8pRaCKAKJAJTgjgDuiOCO EtwVwF0R3FWCDwXwoQg+VIJHAngkgkdK8KkAPhXBp0rwQAAPRPCgAF60vHSS pih+eLicvmplV2rLWihF0hXtl/rp5c/MQX9W+WYKbYjQBoM2GLRRBb0qQq8y aOZYP6t8Kms5av6zd6386kQ1HlEEyZWUy+xdK7ncU41BFENy5eQye9dKrthU YbDUrFgZJ1YNI/nlD0WTxqfL2ctWfkmEEpEoEHbpybLFxGFVScNW82JnvNg1 vAyreBnmvAzreBmKvLBjL5eHjJdhFS+Bmpcg4yWo4SUQSWDT28sBIyGoJEG0 LTZ3vRwwywqqDCtSMxBlDEQ1DERVyohyZUR1yohESbCzjpYjJomoShKRKAl2 rsRyxCQRVUpCdDbsUIPliDmbqMrZTKtEMM1FMJWJIMM0duJz3/6w+hECdvpy o/xqDV9hPtjzYufMCVlK86H7sSkUXS8XpYPnkVAwapu23WDfuZdJghGHkyS/ SHILSFCm4DNx/X3sWmTquzYZm0NnBxPDDLqx60JPhbkg/UKzRojWjmJIb86I Z46d7AfI2ArdABK2JgXPUyNMz7AoTS0xhyknmSfHOz+2Emxsjgn/LyV4Of4a PHlBBbaBH5JGL3ZCE8oQFzAxvtpu8gySKuK2z81oz/kS449yogf0QE5GoQC6 QX82AcRj5YtlwaxoyQ8d0ORrThJPnzIUoHZ8UWKwWcCSq1I2/ZDQjwaAlsLI +yevqiVI71uz1howHabWEDUKyt+nc0OgdQfSWsh1c0Lj89C/iMj2F8sJYtf3 SnaQ5NcJsSyVblEMt6WbNOP/0ul0jIQUHHawLCeKTgcj8yySTyulCs1hUNan Lsq2CqLLQeQqqYLrcGTF0NL6E/Anp5Y/8YrzvRrKfMf8RKlNJ97jCnqlVxX7 tkOb5A7wUmyPW/tvtyvatZNijTaBv73UZAuykCPe/vfW9sFxb3/vqAK962dk C2i2djePALa3n2EqISqbbuppdW03La9tvPv9T46F9ssg0YDTRzU23Ggk/UMz 7Tg6H5ttkMB7czTJidWybhFXV4GrzupFTIYCk15rMCpbgwxCYV4SPKfVzKw1 1mRAI8c7i8tLbJO6u5ygJuO+E576g9OcIDkQZ7A5eAbE6DuNzf7IUXCMTXEm 9rghRoTFYcYGe9bMQxmJ0a01usaLDKrNJDGrjEQLWVNYyNj8ckrDJF1E6xWI WBAl17OaJXwq5wbHfNnocgadQdQ69ly7VK+V8lpgf4DGBh5yYkh8f53Pz/lt TIw3b35sPjXW1znPlL+fGNyrOorWGEVrc1CUmsFk7c2b7svmUzpCX3bRSaHJ mvi6grRszCqRFu1XmBdJ2g6dMCgRhM8+0GIf0xbVJApx5WVfdPnSswiPra6h eyXNcA4BstEoyIHMkO+W6NKgzitOo8l0Zx8wDzeK5bqlcn1FOaNUzlKUWy2V s8VyyehvsWAXp3HzB8iSAKjVRjbpDNTNSHVNJa2SVNdU0ipJdU0iLZlU1xxN qa6aC5Jq7+ZMtatpql1NU+1qmmpX21TXFyXUGzTVVU1TXdU01VVNU13VNtWX +lL99uT/AdjBPNBYQQEA --0-663451786-1019863814=:94284-- From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sat Apr 27 23:59:29 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171ZHc-000OTq-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:59:04 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:58:57 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171ZGi-000OTj-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:58:08 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:58:01 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171ZGa-000OTd-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:58:00 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-233-98.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.233.98]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C259A1EF87C for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:57:57 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CCB11FA.7C71437@dds.nl> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:02:50 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <3CC9BC94.EF75DBED@dds.nl> <20020426205646.GE1144@twcny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Rob Speer wrote: > What is the number 1 in base 3/2? > > Well, 1, obviously. But it's also 0.10100000101... (evaluating this much > yields 1.0005). You sure? I came to the approximation 0.10100000100100010100000000010000001000010000001 (I think it's the most accurate underestimate possible with its number of digits, take out the last zero for the most accurate overestimate), but I see no pattern in this, so I'm not completely sure whether there actually is some string of digits that converges to exactly 1. In such a stange base, you never know... I wonder if perhaps, in base 3/2, some rational numbers might have non-periodic representation? > And 0.111111... is 2. Do you really want to have anything to do with a > base where 0.111111... is twice as big as 1.000000? So 1.000000...+1.000000...=0.111111...? I don't even want to know how general arithmetic operators would work then... Well, actually I do want to know. But I don't want to actually apply them. > (Though on an esoteric languages list, I assume the answer is yes.) I think that in a language having such a horrible number system, programmers would try to circumvent it and implement numbers independently of the system-provided ones (bignums and such), so I don't think this classifies as esoteric, merely annoying. From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 28 03:36:44 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171cg3-000PEr-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:36:31 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:36:24 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171cfd-000PEk-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:36:05 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:35:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.122] helo=mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171cfQ-000PEe-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:35:52 +0300 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-4.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.202]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3S0ZiH09624 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 20:35:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 20:35:43 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 171cfJ-0000Rq-00 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 20:35:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 20:35:44 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) Message-ID: <20020428003544.GD1514@twcny.rr.com> References: <3CC9BC94.EF75DBED@dds.nl> <20020426205646.GE1144@twcny.rr.com> <3CCB11FA.7C71437@dds.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CCB11FA.7C71437@dds.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: rob@twcny.rr.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 11:02:50PM +0200, Milo van Handel wrote: > Rob Speer wrote: > > > What is the number 1 in base 3/2? > > > > Well, 1, obviously. But it's also 0.10100000101... (evaluating this much > > yields 1.0005). > > You sure? I came to the approximation > 0.10100000100100010100000000010000001000010000001 (I think it's the most accurate > underestimate possible with its number of digits, take out the last zero for the > most accurate overestimate), but I see no pattern in this, so I'm not completely > sure whether there actually is some string of digits that converges to exactly 1. > In such a stange base, you never know... I wonder if perhaps, in base 3/2, some > rational numbers might have non-periodic representation? Ah, there's the ambiguous ... - I was rounding, not implying that the decimal repeats. But then, I'm not entirely sure that you can round reliably in base 3/2. I believe that most of the representations of rational numbers _are_ non-periodic. Consider that any time you come across a 1 in the representation, you have the option of putting the 1 in on that digit or waiting a digit or two. So any time the representation was in danger of repeating, you could choose a different way to express it. It's already clear that you can't tell whether something is rational or irrational in a non-integral base - consider base pi. > > And 0.111111... is 2. Do you really want to have anything to do with a > > base where 0.111111... is twice as big as 1.000000? > > So 1.000000...+1.000000...=0.111111...? I don't even want to know how general > arithmetic operators would work then... Well, actually I do want to know. But I > don't want to actually apply them. -- Rob Speer From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Sun Apr 28 23:36:21 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171vOC-0002fm-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:35:20 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:35:13 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171vMa-0002fa-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:33:40 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:33:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com ([192.108.102.143]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171vMS-0002fU-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:33:32 +0300 Received: from myrealbox.com amirlb@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [62.219.228.69] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with Novell NIMS $Revision: 2.88.1.1 $ on Novell NetWare; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:33:27 -0600 Message-ID: <3CCC6B3A.1060707@myrealbox.com> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:35:54 +0200 From: Amir Livne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311 X-Accept-Language: en-us, he MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <20020425044609.A76818@esoteric> <20020425221333.B77969@esoteric> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: amirlb@myrealbox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Markus Kliegl wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how non-natural-number bases would work. > Let's take base 2.5 for example: > 1 is 1, 2.5 is 10, 6.25 is 100 like in natural-number bases. But for > more complicated numbers, it seems to differ quite strongly. > I guess we don't have a finite alphabet (like 0-9 of base 10), but > really an infinite alphabet (the interval from 0 to 2.5 exclusive). > So, 2 would be '{2}', and 2.4 would be '{2.4}'. More interesting then in > something like 4, which would be '{1}{1.5}' (where I enclose the > individual digits of the number in braces). > It becomes more interesting when we use floating-point numbers: > 2.5^-1 = .4; 2.5^-2 = .16; 2.5^-3 = .064; ... > So, 2.9 in base 2.5 is '{1}{0}.{1}', but also '{1}{0.4}'; so, the > alphabet is probably more like 0 and the interval from 1 to 2.5 > exclusive. Right? It's kinda nice, except it's a little redundant: you don't need ranges for these irregular bases, only the integers 0,1,2,3. If you have multiple choices about the representation of the number, choose the one which is the highest in the "lexical order" that goes from the left digit to the right digit. For example (I can't think of something with only 0,1,2,3), look at 10.5 dec: if can be either 200 or 34, and in this case we'd prefer 200 as the representation. It also works for numbers. This way, we would only have one method for representing each number, and it would be the "simplest", at least in my opinion. Addition won't be slower, because you can apply the regular algorithm with carrying. -- Bad spellers of the world UNTIE! lightstep (Amir Livne) From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 29 00:05:36 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171vr8-0002lq-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:05:14 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:05:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171vq3-0002lX-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:04:08 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:04:01 +0300 (EEST) Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171vpw-0002lR-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:04:00 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-219-28.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.219.28]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFB68A5479 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:03:47 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@rebecca.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CCC674D.9C81A0A1@dds.nl> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:19:09 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <20020425044609.A76818@esoteric> <20020425221333.B77969@esoteric> <3CCC6B3A.1060707@myrealbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Amir Livne wrote: > It's kinda nice, except it's a little redundant: you don't need ranges > for these irregular bases, only the integers 0,1,2,3. If you have > multiple choices about the representation of the number, choose the one > which is the highest in the "lexical order" that goes from the left > digit to the right digit. For example (I can't think of something with > only 0,1,2,3), look at 10.5 dec: if can be either 200 or 34, and in this > case we'd prefer 200 as the representation. That's 12.5 dec... > It also works for numbers. > This way, we would only have one method for representing each number, > and it would be the "simplest", at least in my opinion. Addition won't > be slower, because you can apply the regular algorithm with carrying. Really? Then what's 1+2 base 2.5? 3 is higher than the base, so you have to carry, but that would result in {1}{0.5}... From esoteric@oiva.sange.fi Mon Apr 29 00:19:54 2002 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171w5F-0002ql-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:19:49 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list misc); Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:19:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oiva.sange.fi) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171w4s-0002qf-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:19:26 +0300 Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list lang); Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:19:19 +0300 (EEST) Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by oiva.sange.fi with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 171w4l-0002qZ-00 for lang@esoteric.sange.fi; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:19:19 +0300 Received: from dds.nl (xs241-219-28.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.219.28]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E764337C34 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:19:16 +0200 (MET DST) Sender: root@pandora.tiscali.nl Message-ID: <3CCC6AEE.26D59EFE@dds.nl> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:34:38 +0200 From: Milo van Handel Organization: Milo-Soft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.3-5 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lang@esoteric.sange.fi Subject: [lang] Re: [kayak] prime numbers (coming at last) References: <3CC9BC94.EF75DBED@dds.nl> <20020426205646.GE1144@twcny.rr.com> <3CCB11FA.7C71437@dds.nl> <20020428003544.GD1514@twcny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: lang-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lang@esoteric.sange.fi X-list: lang X-listar-version: Listar v0.129a Sender: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi Errors-to: misc-bounce@esoteric.sange.fi X-original-sender: mwq@dds.nl Precedence: bulk X-list: misc Rob Speer wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 11:02:50PM +0200, Milo van Handel wrote: > > Rob Speer wrote: > > > > > What is the number 1 in base 3/2? > > > > > > Well, 1, obviously. But it's also 0.10100000101... (evaluating this much > > > yields 1.0005). > > > > You sure? I came to the approximation > > 0.10100000100100010100000000010000001000010000001 (I think it's the most accurate > > underestimate possible with its number of digits, take out the last zero for the > > most accurate overestimate), but I see no pattern in this, so I'm not completely > > sure whether there actually is some string of digits that converges to exactly 1. > > In such a stange base, you never know... I wonder if perhaps, in base 3/2, some > > rational numbers might have non-periodic representation? > > Ah, there's the ambiguous ... - I was rounding, not implying that the > decimal repeats. But then, I'm not entirely sure that you can round > reliably in base 3/2. You can't. 0.111111 rounded is 1.000000. The point is, how can you obtain an (probably infinite, possibly unperiodic) alternative representation for 1, with absolute accuracy (but allowing for lazy evaluation). > I believe that most of the representations of rational numbers _are_ > non-periodic. Consider that any time you come across a 1 in the > representation, you have the option of putting the 1 in on that digit or > waiting a digit or two. So any time the representation was in danger of > repeating, you could choose a different way to express it. I'd like to see this proven. > It's already clear that you can't tell whether something is rational or > irrational in a non-integral base - consider base pi. Yeah, but if we have a non-integral but rational base, will that allow the periodicity rule? Also note that in any rational base, it is still true that any periodic number is rational. The question is only if the converse also holds.