00:00:00 --- log: started forth/05.05.13 01:54:07 --- quit: Frek (Excess Flood) 01:58:49 --- join: Frek (~anvil@h68n2fls31o815.telia.com) joined #forth 03:12:47 --- quit: swalters (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 03:32:33 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 03:49:58 --- quit: KB1FYR|sleep (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 04:57:56 --- join: Robert (~snofs@c-f778e055.17-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se) joined #forth 05:01:26 --- nick: tiff -> Raystm2 05:29:35 --- quit: bbls () 05:58:41 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)) 05:58:56 --- join: madwork (~madgarden@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 05:59:01 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 05:59:06 --- join: madwork (~madgarden@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 05:59:12 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 05:59:18 --- join: madwork (~madgarden@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 06:28:40 --- join: tathi (~josh@pcp01375108pcs.milfrd01.pa.comcast.net) joined #forth 08:31:47 --- join: Herkamire (~jason@c-24-218-95-147.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth 08:31:47 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Herkamire 08:40:55 --- join: I440r (~mark4@rrcs-24-242-160-169.sw.biz.rr.com) joined #forth 09:07:59 --- join: snoopy_1711 (snoopy_161@p54A7BDE9.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 09:16:31 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) 09:16:52 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 09:32:01 --- join: qFox (C00K13S@82-169-140-229-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl) joined #forth 09:33:11 Hi 09:34:39 hey 09:34:43 sup? 09:34:44 :) 09:35:37 --- quit: Teratogen (Remote closed the connection) 09:42:18 thats not much m'lord 10:10:28 Hey. 10:10:31 Uhm.. 10:10:50 I forget - are you christian? 10:11:19 If not, and if you got some time, maybe you could proof-read my brainfuck paper? 10:13:19 Other news: I got some electronics today 10:13:29 Enough transistors for a computer, I hope. 10:13:44 --- join: bbls (~bbls@80.97.121.4) joined #forth 10:13:49 hello 10:14:36 Hi. 10:14:41 hi Robert 10:37:15 --- join: I440r_ (~Mark4_@209-234-161-250.gen.twtelecom.net) joined #forth 10:57:09 no, i'm anti-religious 10:57:18 hand it over 10:57:53 Hehe. 10:58:02 http://robos.org/abf.txt 10:58:23 It's a beta anyway, so please report anything that looks odd. 10:58:36 for kids? it'll require some asterixes in several (if not all) states 10:58:36 :p 10:59:14 turing complete language? 10:59:26 i like how you get to the point quick :p 11:00:24 oh... this sounds like a regular turing machine sir 11:00:57 actually 11:01:07 it lacks the ability to write a 0 or 1 11:01:52 well, it did at the point i was reading at when making that comment ;) 11:13:51 guess you're an ascii artist? :p 11:15:04 Uhm... what?:) 11:15:06 Robert> church's theorem, is that the one that says there exists a utm, we just havent discovered it yet? 11:15:16 (universal turing machine) 11:16:19 "This vaguely 11:16:19 defined assumption is refered to as Church's thesis, 11:16:21 ..." 11:16:51 Er... iirc, but I might be mistaken, it states that a turing machine is able to perform any algorithm. Or something. 11:17:51 yeah, the 'it is possible to create a turing machine for any problem" one then 11:18:29 although i do believe it's more of turing's own idea here 11:18:42 the name did derive from something for a reason ;) 11:18:50 or rather, someone :p 11:18:58 anyways, you ought to look that up 11:20:15 Hm, yes. 11:21:02 anyways 11:21:23 i'm gonna bravely asume that the rest of that document covers the size of the number? 11:22:28 Well, the last part is about high-level constructs in BF 11:23:23 alright 11:23:35 the answer to your lenghty question is pretty simple 11:23:54 if you're willing to assume finitism 11:24:53 if the universe is limited, and time as well, the number of unique numbers in this reality is limited. 11:25:59 although i can not tell you what that highest number would be (nor could anyone else, for else you would consume space that might otherwise be used to produce more numbers), i can tell you that that's it. 11:26:01 :) 11:26:31 as for the rest... it looks like a general turing machine. i dont mean to bash it or anything... 11:26:45 "the rest"? 11:27:19 we had this on our second college of the cognitive science course as a teaser, in lego (which was, btw, pretty cool :p) 11:27:28 well, the language you're describing 11:27:36 The thesis, in Turing's own words, can be stated as: 11:27:37 Every 'function which would naturally be regarded as computable' can be computed by a Turing machine. 11:27:56 indeed 11:28:02 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%27s_thesis 11:28:57 i was just hoping turing wasnt called church in a supersecret reality 11:28:58 :p 11:29:07 Well, Church-Turing. 11:29:12 ok 11:29:24 well its a pretty solid theorem 11:29:36 impossible for man to prove or disprove 11:29:37 I'm used to think of it as Church's thesis (no offense, Turing) 11:29:43 No. 11:29:50 Disproving could be possible. 11:29:57 only in theory 11:29:58 If you found a solid counterexample. 11:30:04 and only if time and space are in fact limited. 11:30:14 under those conditions, it can be rejected 11:30:29 but i do believe that the theorem covers the fact that the turing machine is given enough space and time. 11:30:34 so there is no way to break it 11:30:48 CS 101, and by that i dont mean computer science ;) 11:31:00 Hehe. 11:31:12 this is exactly the kind of stuff i'm supposed to learn 11:31:12 Well, I don't say that I think it can be broken. 11:31:20 oh wait 11:31:22 But until you prove it... 11:31:23 it can be broken 11:31:25 just not by us 11:31:35 Only JESUS CAN 11:31:38 from some...'thing' existing outside this reality 11:31:52 that is the one and only option, as far as i'm concerned 11:32:22 other then that, i consider a computer (or even a neural network, if you wish) the closest thing to a UTM 11:32:45 aside from the fact that it has addressable memmory, which you can simulate like with your language 11:33:04 oh i hope i'm not going past a point you were trying to make? 11:34:07 Nah, this thesis is very relevant. 11:34:26 And I'm about as off-topic as I could get, anyway 11:34:34 alright :) 11:35:18 well... i think i answered the largest number question 11:35:46 i came up with that theory a few weeks ago, i asked a proffessor and he told me i rediscovered finitism, so dive into that if you wish :) 11:36:10 (he teaches philosophy, amongst others, probably :) 11:36:14 Hehe 11:36:58 as far as the turing machine... well at some homework assignment we were in fact asked to create a turing machine 11:37:01 I'm not sure I get your point, though. 11:37:03 on paper 11:37:08 well 11:37:44 the point is that if time and space are in fact limited, whatever the limit may be, then at some point there will not be enough time and space to nominate a new number, one way or the other 11:38:04 take the term nominate very broad btw, any possible way to express a number in fact 11:38:07 But that breaks the definition of the turing machine. 11:38:24 either by name, by signs, by a number of items, etc. 11:38:28 no 11:38:47 the turing machine was in fact defined as having endless amount of time and memory 11:38:54 How can it be given "enough" time without a large enough amout of time? 11:39:01 irrelevant 11:39:13 its a theoretical hypothese 11:39:59 it has yet to be proven that time and space are in fact or are in fact not, endless. 11:40:11 which is impossible, well at least time is. 11:40:14 for us 11:41:34 if space is limited, it _can_ be proven. if it is not, then it can obviously not be proven :) 11:44:08 Refering to the Church-Turing thesis or the proposition that N is the largest number that X instructions can produce? 11:44:30 both, i suppose 11:44:45 although i dont limit it to instructions 11:45:07 N is the largest number you can uniquely describe/create/express 11:45:13 using any means possible. 11:45:18 in this universe/existence. 11:45:22 Ah. 11:45:45 at some point, in limited time/space environment, you run out of possibles. 11:45:51 there lies your limit 11:45:57 I get you now. 11:46:00 :) 11:46:25 Thanks for the feedback ;) 11:46:34 but like i said before, the turing theorem requires the unlimited time/storage 11:47:15 its based uppon that, if i'm not mistaken. it doesnt 'break' if time/space are in fact limited, you simply have to remove the infinite parts ;) 11:49:17 and np, i like this type of philosophy :D heck, its what i study, basically 11:51:15 oh yeah and, minimalistic languages rule ;) 11:52:05 hm and let me think 11:53:15 :D 11:53:46 i believe, but am not certain, that the smallest turingmachine can only write a 0/1/b(lank), and move to the right ('up'), etc 11:54:21 i think it can be smaller 11:54:38 You know, I was tempted to make a small turing-like machine with a tape recorder and some digital magic. 11:55:02 hehe 11:55:06 use lego 11:55:18 textbook example, and i meant that literally ;) 11:58:15 doesn't math imply the assumption that you have both infinite amounts of space and time? 11:58:29 t's not just that 11:58:29 calculating it would take too much time, but the laws of mathematics do not 11:58:29 allow it to be calculated! 11:58:36 i think that this is wrong 11:58:51 bbls> it implies, but is not proven 11:58:53 a function is a mapping from one set to another according to a set of rules 11:59:09 (operators) 11:59:20 agreed, but at the point where you cannot appoint a new number in a unique way, does the number in fact exist in our reality? 11:59:42 there are infinitelly many natural numbers 11:59:54 there is a proof for this (i think) 12:00:03 well, thats where the theory makes you try to believe otherwise 12:00:11 therefore there must exist a unique way to express them 12:00:14 yes its called deduction 12:00:23 induction, sorry 12:00:27 used to dutch terms 12:00:37 (in dutch its still inductie though ;)) 12:02:06 anyways, induction is great 12:02:15 but it is flawed in practice 12:02:31 the coffeecups defense is nice but it is also easily rejectable 12:02:54 "no matter how many coffeecups you have, i can always imagine that number of coffeecups plus one more" 12:03:20 for a finite time you get a maximum finite number of combinations therefore the function can be solved using exhaustive search 12:03:28 the issue at hand is that in a limited space/time reality, at some point you CANNOT imagine the new number 12:03:42 and thats ... just it :) 12:04:01 what makes you to assume that this is a limited space/time reality? 12:04:36 what makes YOU asume its not? 12:04:48 it simply makes more sense to me that there is a limit 12:06:42 you assume a limit of time 12:07:00 you assume its unlimited 12:07:06 it's more unreasonable 12:07:15 you can't have something that 12:07:17 is not observable 12:07:23 my assumption is no more unreasonable as yours, sorry 12:07:29 all existing things are observable 12:07:37 if the time ends you can't observe it 12:07:43 so an end of time does not exist 12:07:49 but untill time in fact ends, neither of us can prove ourselves right 12:07:55 sure i can prove 12:07:58 read above 12:08:03 it is observable from outside this reality 12:08:21 that would mean to assume that there is an outside reality 12:08:25 which is faulty logic 12:08:30 hypothetically 12:08:33 since it assumes the fact that the inner reality 12:08:35 it doesnt matter for the thoery 12:08:40 is insulated from the outside one 12:08:42 it just makes it easier to understand and accept 12:09:01 bbls it does NOT matter whether there is in fact an outside reality beyond ours 12:09:02 which is of course not possible since our reality is simulated/emulated inside the outer reality 12:09:10 it matters 12:09:12 it is merely an example to show it could be observed if there is one 12:09:15 no, it does not. 12:09:16 since simply can't exist an outer reality 12:09:34 by outer reality you mean a reality containing our reality 12:09:39 it doesnt matter, it is entirely irrelevant 12:09:43 but in order to be able to differentiate them 12:10:09 then you must assume that you can isolate the inner reality so that entities inside can't communicate with the outer entities 12:10:16 a reality we cannot exit from due to physical laws currently unknown to us. 12:10:28 whatever you want to call it, i really dont care for that type of philosphy 12:10:39 but this is obviously false since the inner reality is subject to the laws of outer reality 12:10:50 therefore there can't be an end of time 12:11:58 i'm not sure whether you're simply receiving other ascii chars then the ones i'm sending... 12:12:02 it DOES NOT matter. 12:12:09 sure it does 12:12:10 we are talking about this reality 12:12:12 time is infinite 12:12:39 time in this reality could be, but cannot proven to be infinite. 12:12:49 sure it is 12:12:59 if something is not observable then it does not exist 12:13:01 you're 'sure it is' is getting old :\ 12:13:13 the end of time is not observable so it doesn't not exist 12:13:19 so if at some point time ends, we stop existing 12:13:26 and why does that mean time is endless? 12:13:37 because the end of time does not exist 12:13:42 therefore it must be infinite 12:13:56 oh yeah, how could i forget such a strong argument. 12:13:58 i'm done here 12:14:23 the end of time does not exist because it is not observable 12:14:51 theoretically it could be observed from outside this reality 12:14:53 --- part: tathi left #forth 12:15:08 but i've shoved to you that there is no such thing as ouside reality 12:15:13 no, you have not 12:15:24 since it would imply that you can isolate this reality from the outer one 12:15:40 in order to have that you must have no way to pass information between them 12:15:47 you've merely given the 'other reality' defense, which simply doesnt apply here. 12:15:48 therefore you can't have an outer reality 12:16:06 thats where you're wrong 12:16:08 because any two realities that have a communication channel are in fact one and the same 12:16:40 would you say the story on a videotape could be considered a reality of its own? 12:16:46 is it not possible for us to look into that reality 12:16:55 sure it is, you look at the video 12:16:58 while it is simply impossible for the characters in that movie to look into us? 12:17:02 and you can modify it with a video editor 12:17:14 you're grasping straws here. 12:17:32 if we edit the video as a reaction of one personage 12:17:43 then that personage controls a part of the the outer reality 12:18:20 and what tells you you are not exactly like such a character? 12:18:36 therefore if we don't like a line as told by one of the personage and we remove it, then that personage controller for a moment the "outer" universe, therefore we have a communication channel and therefore just one univers4e 12:18:48 qFox i might be an emulated character 12:18:59 but it's not impossible to influence the outer reality 12:19:02 doesnt change a thing 12:19:18 emulated, simulated, whatever-ated, you're still inside the reality 12:19:27 unable to view the outside 12:20:04 claiming that the inner reality can't modify the outer reality means that the outer reality is indifferent to the output of the inner reality. since the inner reality would have been built with the purpose of observing something, it's obvious faulty logic 12:20:05 and for the last time, it is irrelevant. ffs. it does not matter as i'm talking about OUR reality, with OUR physical rules and OUR limits, whether they exist or not. 12:20:23 what i'm trying to point is that there is no "OUR" 12:20:28 ok. fine. you know what. you win. i'm done here. 12:20:50 ok, i feel very comfortable with the outcome of this discussion :) 12:20:52 you're either not openminded enough, or too stuborn to even want to give it a try 12:21:09 i'm very openminded by you use faulty reasoning 12:21:20 whatever floats your boat 12:21:23 i don't claim that we might not live in a matrix 12:22:00 i just claim that if we do live, then we don't live isolated and therefore there are not two universes but just one (since there is a communication channel) 12:23:12 if we would be isolated then the entities in the outer universe couldn't observe use 12:23:24 (because there would be no communication channel) 12:23:52 *observe us 12:27:15 Robert> anyways, regardless, my answers remains the same. 12:27:33 * Robert is starting to think that the number of european radio amateurs is infinite. 12:27:34 he's given me no valid arguments to prove me wrong as far as i can see 12:27:51 well... that i dont know ;) 12:29:11 * Robert has been writing cards to them for the last few hours 12:29:41 been busy trying to figure out moving dp's 12:29:54 and trying to get myself to start packing :p 12:30:25 dp? 12:30:31 oh, msn display pictures 12:30:47 And... where are you going? 12:30:54 dormatory 12:30:58 finaly 12:32:13 --- nick: Raystm2 -> nanstm 12:32:22 bbls> ppl with your type of logic are the ones that remain to claim that the chinese room argument is a valid argument against the possibility of "turing complete" ai on a digital (or otherwise) computer. (where in fact it merely applies to us humans itself, meaning the argument is null and void :) 12:32:57 not really meant offensive, but take it any way you wish 13:35:44 --- quit: I440r_ ("Leaving") 13:37:55 --- join: I440r_ (~Mark4_@209-234-161-250.gen.twtelecom.net) joined #forth 13:38:47 --- quit: I440r_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 14:33:06 --- quit: bbls () 14:51:47 HI ALL 14:52:53 err, sorry for the caps lock :( 14:57:08 * Robert forgives crc. 15:00:34 thanks Robert 15:00:44 :) 15:00:49 How are things? 15:00:58 Not bad 15:01:16 The rf8 betas are getting cleaner, and I'm still slowly hammering away at the docs 15:02:31 Neat, neat. 15:03:16 * crc currently expects to have a stable release of rf8 by July 1 15:07:20 What kind of applications have been done for the native version? 15:10:15 I've done a few database apps 15:10:42 How about I/O support? 15:10:58 Hard drive, keyboard, screen, serial, parallel 15:11:24 There was some limited 16-bit soundblaster support for a while, but that's been gone for ages 15:11:42 "screen", as in 80x25 or graphics modes? 15:11:58 Both 15:12:33 rf8 doesn't have graphics capabilities but I did a 7.6 with 800x600x256 color graphics 15:12:43 Ooh, that's neat. 15:13:37 I want to get the graphics back in rf8 at some point 15:14:20 Any file system support? 15:14:53 And how about memory, any protection? Multitasking? 15:15:15 no file system 15:15:22 no memory protection 15:15:34 Some crude cooperative multitasking support 15:15:45 --- join: Topaz (~top@cerberus.saywell.net) joined #forth 15:15:50 * crc sees no need for memory protection in a native forth 15:15:50 Oh, OK. 15:15:52 Hi, Topaz. 15:15:56 heya 15:16:08 I would like to get the multitask code to be more reliable and flexible 15:16:13 crc: Well, with a simple system, no. 15:17:02 actually, RetroForth/L4 will have memory protection and real multitasking 15:39:53 --- quit: qFox ("this quit is sponsored by somebody!") 15:42:41 --- quit: Topaz (Remote closed the connection) 15:49:28 --- quit: I440r ("Leaving") 16:04:17 --- join: zol1 (~l@p549DE5F2.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 16:04:31 g'day 16:07:29 Hi zol1 16:08:02 Hi. 16:36:29 --- part: KB1FYR left #forth 16:39:16 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 16:59:54 --- quit: KB1FYR () 17:00:40 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 17:08:40 --- quit: KB1FYR () 17:09:30 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 17:11:48 --- quit: KB1FYR (Client Quit) 17:12:35 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 17:19:33 --- quit: Robert ("One transistor, two transistors, three transistors, four transistors, five transistors, six transistors, seven transis...") 17:26:29 --- quit: KB1FYR () 17:27:32 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 17:29:03 --- quit: KB1FYR (Client Quit) 17:29:45 --- join: KB1FYR (~Alex@196-220.suscom-maine.net) joined #forth 18:15:40 --- part: zol1 left #forth 18:49:11 --- join: Robert (~snofs@c-f778e055.17-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se) joined #forth 19:10:18 --- quit: crc () 20:03:39 --- join: swalters (~swalters@2416457hfc118.tampabay.res.rr.com) joined #forth 20:47:36 --- quit: nanstm (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 21:05:05 --- join: Raystm2 (~vircuser@adsl-69-149-63-42.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 21:13:01 --- quit: Herkamire ("off to bed") 22:49:21 --- join: Sonarman (~cleetus@adsl-64-171-255-209.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) joined #forth 23:08:27 --- quit: Raystm2 ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby") 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/05.05.13