| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> girls are evil
<1> you are evil?
<0> muchly
<0> but girls called erin are eviler
<2> hmm
<1> I know some girls who like it talking to guys rather than girls
<2> serishema: wherent you a girl, too ?
<0> yes
<0> Mathis_: that would work if i wasnt attracted to guys
<2> hmm
<0> Mathis_: but i am so they are evil too
<0> murrs
<1> its not attraction they are motivating that
<1> instead its just talking
<2> hmm - im gona keep it ^^
<0> i want to be not attracted to them, cos then i'm safe
<2> not atracte to who ?
<0> anyone
<2> im kinda lost in odd conversation
<0> being attracted to people bring hurt, hurt ****s
<2> hmm
<2> if all people decided to hurt only microsoft world would be a better place
<1> serishema: you're ugly?
<1> fat maybe?
<0> there are pictures of me floating around somewhere, you be the judge of that
<1> the ones with "wide load" written on the ***?
<0> i don't care about your speculation as to my physical appearance
<1> I am asking you, not speculating
<2> serishema: hmm - http://pics.livejournal.com/serishema/pic/00003y99/g9 <- who needs to speculate
<0> well there you go draw your own conclusions
<2> guess its save to asume the pics floating around arent worksave
<0> ronny: the ones that were are not..
<0> however they have since been deleted so unless people made copies of them i shall say nothing of them
<2> well - thats a ****ty thing to happen to anyone
<0> i don't particularly care if there are topless pictures of me on the internet
<0> girls have boobs, people should get over it; i did
<2> hmm - boobs rock - they got many cool features
<0> yes like hurting randomly at cirtain times of the month, and causing back pain
<0> that said i do like to play with them (on other girls) sometimes
<2> hmm
<2> sounds like ms boobs
<2> ms boobs - now with random paine, unexpected flating and random on-touch-surprises
<0> and security vulnerabilities no doubt
<2> http://serishema.livejournal.com/7594.html <- nice text - looks semilar to the stuff i read in "write great code vol 2"
<0> heh, i wrote that a while ago
<0> i haven't updated that thing in ages
<2> hehe
<2> hmm
<3> serishema: gimme an example of a union in C
<3> i forgot union :(
<2> im for writing only O(N!) algorytms
<0> nn: same syntax as a struct
<3> serishema: but referencing inside it?
<0> union { | char al; char ah; short ax};
<0> something along those lines, i never use them
<2> re ;P
<3> ah gotcha
<0> that post was really written in responce to zeii hastling me about trying to write a game in java.
<4> sweet: http://www.pandora.com/
<3> wow.. cleaning up this code brought it down to 900 lines
<3> loll
<0> i should try and code something and distract myself
<5> Hey serishema
<0> hilo
<5> So back to my idea from earlier this morning, ignoring the eight or nine hour school distraction between:
<5> since we can obviously formally analyze/prove digital logic circuits, perhaps we can show how we can use pathways or behaviors of atoms, electrons and photons in order to build up functional units that will (to the best of their ability) avoid the needless loss of energy
<5> (yes, I know this is getting rather off topic)
<0> it's freenode.
<5> (but it is easy to see the computational equivalencies)
<0> kanzure: we can't actually proove digital logic circuits. Are you familar with the boolean satisfyability problem?
<5> No, what is it?
<0> determining whether a boolean expression can be satisfied or not.
<5> I thought that we can prove digital logic circuits formally? See the relationship back down to set theory and then those 20,000 somewhat steps to show how 2+2=4 (starting with 3 or 11 axioms)
<0> unfortunately, it's unsolvable just like the halting problem
<5> serishema: Interesting, has it been proven to be unsolvable?
<0> kanzure: yes any good computer science textbook should have the proof
<5> hmm
<0> write rather
<5> serishema: lesbian and logician?
<6> eh, we all care so much
<0> kanzure: i don't believe in ***ual orrientation.
<6> nope, she's bi***ual, and saying it all the time
<5> serishema: "wtf":
<6> and I really mean *all the time*
<5> serishema: but surely you believe that people have genders that you shack up with
<5> shackan: Ah, guess I shouldn't ask
<5> shackan: It *is* freenode ;)
<6> yeah, unfortunately
<0> kanzure: it's a social construct. giving people labels based on the statistics of the gender of people they like to shack up with
<0> kanzure: in an ideal world we'd just like people and be done with it
<5> serishema: but we still have to be able to communicate, I was only asking whether or not you were "lesbian and logician", which was supposedly humorous
<0> kanzure: nither actually. I failed computer science and i like guys too.
<5> because they are opposites
<6> opposites?
<5> computer science != (precisely) logics
<0> kanzure: i don't see how that is the case
<5> serishema: I do not often encounter lesbian-logicians, I mean
<0> kanzure: i'm a little bit of everything i guess
<7> serishema: so basically you don't deny that people have preferences, but don't want to label them
<0> a-priori: people can have preferences, but it should be a huge deal or become part of your identity unless you want it to.
<0> *shouldn't rather
<5> serishema: That's good-- too bad there are too few polymaths!
<5> serishema: You were just talking about Godel's incompleteness theorem, or maybe I was this morning: it shows that one cannot completely represent themselves anyway. :)
<5> (just one interpretation in one situation, of course)
<0> kanzure: that's the type of thing i was getting at
<5> type
<5> you were just trying to get away from type
<5> anyway, this is going in circles :-p
<0> yes it is, similarity can be a useful construct for perception, but it is a model and the model is not the phenomina
<5> Can't we generate models that would serve as examples where any given boolean statement is true?
<0> i'm not sure.
<0> i don't really know that much about the problem.
<5> 'erm I do not mean to say it like that
<8> What is the problem?
<0> the boolean satisfyability problem
<5> and the solution that I am suggesting
<5> is that we can, for any boolean statement that falls under the satisfyability problem,
<5> generate models that would internally hold the boolean statement true
<5> (methinks)
<8> X = Y, Y = X, ?
<5> Hmm?
<8> or well, I do not care to think today anymore. :) I'm going to sleep.
<5> g'night
<8> good night
<0> kanzure: if you were able to do that you'd have a different problem.
<0> the whole problem is to determine whether an arbitary statement can ever be true
<5> sounds like the same problem to me
<5> given some arbitrary ***ertion
<5> it can be proven in some environment or sets of models or whatever
<5> yes?
<0> actually i don't think it can.
<0> I should look this up
<0> to be more specific it's not unsoveable, just not soveable in polynomail time.
<5> of course, the models couldn't possibly be complete (thanks, Godel!)
<0> that is the only known way is to trial every possible combination of inputs
<5> serishema: Hmm. Have we proof that it cannot be solved in polynomial time? And do you know how to easily explain the NP-complete problem?
<0> there are optimizations you can do to speed it up, but it's still NP-complete
<0> kanzure: that's called cook's theorm
<5> Hmm.
<0> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook's_theorem
<9> kanzure: Solve any NP complete problem (they're been shown to be related), and you can claim lots of money and fame.
<5> Yes, yes, I know. I just haven't completely understood the problem yet.
<9> It's NP, because you have to potentially test every combination of bits.
<5> And the solution would be to prove that you would or would not have to test all combinations of bits?
<9> and each bit you add doubles the search space, so it runs in exponential time.
<0> the solution would be to find a way to not have to test every possible combination of bits
<0> that's what you'd get the fame and fortune for
<7> you'd also have to consider every possible universe of discourse
Return to
#osdev
or
Go to some related
logs:
#perl
#mysql
block .GIF attachments
#perl
GiFTui localhost ubuntu
ubuntu HDIO_GETGEO failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device
yum upgrade fc5 cannot find yum.conf
#perl
#perl
#debian
|
|