API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Quantumboost

mathlol

Quantumboost
Feb 16th, 2016
159
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 66.41 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Feb 15 19:42:25 * Kyth bashes its head on the desk. Someone arguing that "3-3*6+2" is not equal to (3-(3*6))+2 but ((3 + (-3)) * 6) + 2
  2. Feb 15 19:44:55 <Shinaobi> that's definitely something to get bent out of shape over yup
  3. Feb 15 19:46:07 <Kyth> Their theory is that the string "-3" is always always an integer literal.
  4. Feb 15 19:50:21 <Shinaobi> if this is mathematics then negative three is definitely an integer
  5. Feb 15 19:55:30 * Zooboss (Zooboss@SystemNet-270C72FD.hsd1.fl.comcast.net) has joined
  6. Feb 15 19:56:06 <Kyth> Shinaobi: Even when the - is indicating subtraction?
  7. Feb 15 19:56:43 <Shinaobi> invisible + sign, lol
  8. Feb 15 19:56:48 <Kyth> ...
  9. Feb 15 19:57:08 <Kyth> What's the precedence of invisible plus? Above or below visible times?
  10. Feb 15 19:57:08 <Shinaobi> for actually doing the work you leave that + invisible because + - looks stupid
  11. Feb 15 19:57:10 <Shinaobi> and is confusing
  12. Feb 15 19:57:22 <Shinaobi> what are you talking about
  13. Feb 15 19:57:31 <Kyth> For a second, they actually parsed it as (3 + ((-3) * 6) + 2)
  14. Feb 15 19:57:50 <Shinaobi> their mistake is order of operations
  15. Feb 15 19:57:52 <Shinaobi> not mixing up their signs
  16. Feb 15 19:58:46 <Kyth> Shinaobi: Given x <invisibleplus> y * z where do the parens go?
  17. Feb 15 19:58:55 * rzyvbh (rzyvbh@CBB27BA5.8CF8197E.D26C0A23.IP) has joined
  18. Feb 15 19:59:22 <Shinaobi> plus isn't invisible there
  19. Feb 15 19:59:29 <Kyth> Why not?
  20. Feb 15 19:59:38 <Shinaobi> because x [empty fucking space] y looks like xy
  21. Feb 15 19:59:41 <Shinaobi> only written poorly
  22. Feb 15 19:59:44 <Shinaobi> and xy means x * y
  23. Feb 15 19:59:59 <Kyth> But - always gets tokenised as <plus><minus>?
  24. Feb 15 20:00:08 <Shinaobi> why do you keep saying tokenised
  25. Feb 15 20:00:15 <Shinaobi> are you bringing programming into this
  26. Feb 15 20:00:35 <Kyth> Because programming actually has the tools to describe this, whereas math apparently doesn't.
  27. Feb 15 20:01:28 <Shinaobi> nnnoooo
  28. Feb 15 20:01:53 <Shinaobi> like full disclosure I'm not a math major; if you want me to like, write a proof for you I can't do that
  29. Feb 15 20:05:06 <Shinaobi> x <invisible> plus y * z will never occur, because convention has decided against it; x <invisible> plus negative y * z can, and especially in complex multi-step work it's important to keep track of that negative
  30. Feb 15 20:06:21 <Shinaobi> so reframe it as adding a negative, because that's also what it is
  31. Feb 15 20:07:08 <Shinaobi> and with that in mind you free yourself some to rearrange things to fit whatever your needs are
  32. Feb 15 20:07:58 <Shinaobi> because [negative two plus three] and [three plus negative two] are the same
  33. Feb 15 20:08:10 <Kyth> addition commutes, yes.
  34. Feb 15 20:08:24 <Shinaobi> but [two minus three] is not the same as [three minus two]
  35. Feb 15 20:08:42 <Shinaobi> (unless you're speaking in absolute values but that's neither here nor there and there's a notation for that anyway)
  36. Feb 15 20:09:27 <Kyth> Wait, so you do substitution of variables at the *token* stage, like the C preprocessor?
  37. Feb 15 20:10:01 <Shinaobi> I don't know programming, and programming does not come before math
  38. Feb 15 20:10:21 * Skelethin has quit (Client exited)
  39. Feb 15 20:10:25 * Skelethin (Skelethin@SystemNet-8E915579.client.mchsi.com) has joined
  40. Feb 15 20:11:58 <Kyth> Huh, wolfram alpha says that 3-3*6+2 somehow gets turned into 3 + (-3 * 6) + 2
  41. Feb 15 20:12:00 <Kyth> Ow
  42. Feb 15 20:12:03 * Zoo (Zooboss@SystemNet-270C72FD.hsd1.fl.comcast.net) has joined
  43. Feb 15 20:12:25 <Shinaobi> it's utterly correct
  44. Feb 15 20:12:48 <Kyth> Owwww.
  45. Feb 15 20:12:50 <Shinaobi> it's unwieldy looking, but unless you don't know what the symbols mean it's very clear what's going on
  46. Feb 15 20:13:01 * Zooboss has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  47. Feb 15 20:14:11 <Kyth> Clearly math notation was... well, it *wasn't* designed.
  48. Feb 15 20:15:57 <Shinaobi> math isn't a product packaged up and worked on by a small and focused team to accomplish a narrow and limited purpose
  49. Feb 15 20:16:38 <Shinaobi> so it's got some of the hallmarks of "this was worked on a bit at a time" because you know
  50. Feb 15 20:16:48 <Shinaobi> hundreds of years of development that still has not stopped
  51. Feb 15 20:17:44 <Shinaobi> (there's a discussion to be had over how much utility that development has for the modern world, like seriously what do you do with hyper-advanced mathematics) but you're winding up that sneering disdain thing you keep on fucking doing
  52. Feb 15 20:18:01 <Kyth> It's like the thing where sin^2 x somehow means (sin x)^2 but sin^-1 x is the inverse of sine.
  53. Feb 15 20:18:24 <Shinaobi> because sin^2(x) is squaring the sine function
  54. Feb 15 20:18:26 <Shinaobi> not squaring x
  55. Feb 15 20:18:44 <Shinaobi> otherwise it would be written as sin(x^2)
  56. Feb 15 20:18:47 <Shinaobi> as it is
  57. Feb 15 20:18:56 <Shinaobi> did you sleep through first year calculus
  58. Feb 15 20:18:57 <Kyth> I'd expect sin^2 x to be sin sin x
  59. Feb 15 20:19:08 <Kyth> Or else sin^-1 x to be 1/(sin x)
  60. Feb 15 20:21:03 <Shinaobi> did you sleep through first year calculus
  61. Feb 15 20:21:30 <Kyth> Er, depending on what you mean by "first year", no.
  62. Feb 15 20:22:18 <Shinaobi> the inverse sine function is not the same thing as 1 divided by the sine function
  63. Feb 15 20:22:24 <Kyth> Yes. That's the point.
  64. Feb 15 20:22:56 <Shinaobi> and why they're not written the same
  65. Feb 15 20:23:25 <Kyth> Except that the principle that gives you sin^2 x == (sin x)^2 should give sin^-1 x == (sin x)^-1, surely?
  66. Feb 15 20:23:55 <Kyth> Unless they happen to both be functions that have superscripted numbers in the name or something.
  67. Feb 15 20:24:08 <Shinaobi> wrong
  68. Feb 15 20:24:15 <Shinaobi> sin^2(x)
  69. Feb 15 20:24:19 <Shinaobi> remember the parentheses
  70. Feb 15 20:24:22 <Shinaobi> they're important
  71. Feb 15 20:24:31 <Kyth> They're also often left out for some reason.
  72. Feb 15 20:24:50 <Shinaobi> is not the same as sin(x^2)
  73. Feb 15 20:24:56 <Kyth> I'm not saying it is!
  74. Feb 15 20:25:10 <Kyth> But I encountered usages where sin^2(x) is the same as (sin(x))^2
  75. Feb 15 20:25:24 <Shinaobi> where
  76. Feb 15 20:25:30 <Kyth> Math textbooks.
  77. Feb 15 20:25:34 <Kyth> (high school ones)
  78. Feb 15 20:27:05 * Shinaobi taps fingers
  79. Feb 15 20:27:20 <Shinaobi> fuzzy memory
  80. Feb 15 20:28:43 <Kyth> I distinctly recall thinking it was daft then.
  81. Feb 15 20:28:56 <Shinaobi> the sine function squared (sin(x))^2 is often and usually written as sin^2(x) because it's very easy to confuse sin(x^2) with (sinx)^2 especially if someebody gets sloppy and leaves out parentheses
  82. Feb 15 20:29:16 * WolfLikesSwords is now known as Pale_Wolf
  83. Feb 15 20:29:26 <Kyth> Thus creating confusion with the existence of the inverse sine function and writing *that* as sin^-1(x)
  84. Feb 15 20:29:44 <Kyth> Given what -1 does I'd expect positive exponents to be repeated function application.
  85. Feb 15 20:29:53 <Shinaobi> "sine of squared x" is not the same as "sine of x , squared"
  86. Feb 15 20:30:05 <Shinaobi> watch your parentheses
  87. Feb 15 20:30:08 <Shinaobi> they're important
  88. Feb 15 20:30:10 <Shinaobi> violently
  89. Feb 15 20:30:20 <Shinaobi> especially when you start integrating and deriving
  90. Feb 15 20:31:10 <Shinaobi> same reason why you should get real comfortable with "3 - 3 = 3 + (-3)"
  91. Feb 15 20:32:06 <Kyth> If you replace all the numbers with letters, what does that get you, "a - b = a + b"?
  92. Feb 15 20:32:13 <Shinaobi> wrong
  93. Feb 15 20:32:25 <Shinaobi> a minus b equals a plus negative b
  94. Feb 15 20:33:00 <Kyth> Which is actually harder to follow than doing that as an implementation detail ofa ddition.
  95. Feb 15 20:33:09 <Shinaobi> if you want to relate it specifically to the example I provided earlier, a minus a equals a plus negative a equals zero
  96. Feb 15 20:33:21 <Shinaobi> It's not harder to follow
  97. Feb 15 20:33:55 <Kyth> It is once multiplication gets involved, because for that to make sense you have to do that transformation *before* you insert the parentheses.
  98. Feb 15 20:33:57 <Shinaobi> especially when you've done more complex forms of math, and realize that changing the form so that you keep the commutative property in mind
  99. Feb 15 20:34:20 <Shinaobi> lets you do more algebraically
  100. Feb 15 20:34:24 <Shinaobi> algebraicly
  101. Feb 15 20:34:27 * Shinaobi squints
  102. Feb 15 20:34:45 <Shinaobi> more complex algebra requires a more complex understanding
  103. Feb 15 20:35:51 <Shinaobi> like let me stop and walk back to a statement you made earlier
  104. Feb 15 20:36:04 <Shinaobi> what did you mean 'depends on what you mean by first year calculus'
  105. Feb 15 20:36:13 <Kyth> First year of university, or A-level?
  106. Feb 15 20:36:22 <Shinaobi> I'm not British
  107. Feb 15 20:36:22 <LouisaFairre> oh shit you're english
  108. Feb 15 20:36:32 <Shinaobi> A-level has no meaning to me
  109. Feb 15 20:36:41 <LouisaFairre> uh, it basically means 16-18 shin
  110. Feb 15 20:36:45 <Kyth> You'd go 3-3*6+2 --> 3+(-3)*6+2 --> 3+((-3)*6)+2 and that second set of parens splits up what was originally one thing. Alternatively, you're moving a minus sign past the parenthesese.
  111. Feb 15 20:36:54 <LouisaFairre> as in pupil age
  112. Feb 15 20:36:56 <LouisaFairre> so
  113. Feb 15 20:36:58 <LouisaFairre> high school?
  114. Feb 15 20:37:05 <Kyth> Secondary school, yeah
  115. Feb 15 20:37:05 <Shinaobi> then that's not calculus, that pre-calc
  116. Feb 15 20:37:18 <Shinaobi> unless you're taking advanced classes, in which case they teach you
  117. Feb 15 20:37:22 <Shinaobi> first year (of college) calculus
  118. Feb 15 20:37:35 <Kyth> Yeah, I never got past the stuff that you can do more or less as AST transformations.
  119. Feb 15 20:37:37 <Emy> uni calculus, you mean
  120. Feb 15 20:37:38 <Shinaobi> if you're taking really advanced then they'll push the second year in too
  121. Feb 15 20:37:41 <Emy> have to be careful with the word college
  122. Feb 15 20:37:44 <Emy> :V
  123. Feb 15 20:37:44 * LouisaFairre has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
  124. Feb 15 20:38:01 <Shinaobi> Emy I will break your shins with your favorite toothbrush don't cross me >8[
  125. Feb 15 20:38:15 <Shinaobi> also Kyth
  126. Feb 15 20:38:18 <Shinaobi> no you wouldn't
  127. Feb 15 20:38:21 <Emy> I don't have a favorite toothbrush
  128. Feb 15 20:38:42 <Emy> I mean, I have one I use all the time, but that's just because it's the one next to my sink
  129. Feb 15 20:39:08 <Shinaobi> if you wanted to change the form of 3-3*6+2 you would go straiiiight to 3 + (-3*6) + 2
  130. Feb 15 20:39:22 <Shinaobi> because it's dirt simple
  131. Feb 15 20:39:42 <Shinaobi> and your way applies extra and unnecessary parentheses
  132. Feb 15 20:40:44 <Shinaobi> as a matter of fact because of the beauty of commuting when you take it to 3 + (-3*6) + 2 you can start throwing stuff around because say you think that 3-18 is ugly and you'll have none of it
  133. Feb 15 20:40:58 <Shinaobi> so now it's (-3*6) + 3 + 2
  134. Feb 15 20:46:50 <Kyth> I keep trying to imagine how to write a parser that can do that, but /ow/
  135. Feb 15 20:49:59 <Shinaobi> it's just
  136. Feb 15 20:50:00 <Shinaobi> fucking
  137. Feb 15 20:50:02 <Shinaobi> mathematics
  138. Feb 15 20:50:13 <Shinaobi> if you're wondering how to write it look at your hands
  139. Feb 15 20:50:55 <Shinaobi> it's not ow it's easy
  140. Feb 15 20:50:59 <Shinaobi> like dirt easy
  141. Feb 15 20:51:29 <Shinaobi> it's the commutative property that's how easy it is
  142. Feb 15 20:52:10 <Kyth> It's ow because among other things you have to do that before you insert any parentheses. Does math require expressions stay as a token sequence until you actually evaluate them or something?
  143. Feb 15 20:52:30 <Kyth> The ow part is the bit where - is getting expanded to +(-
  144. Feb 15 20:53:40 * rzyvbh has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
  145. Feb 15 20:54:10 <Shinaobi> - isn't an operator
  146. Feb 15 20:54:13 <Shinaobi> it isn't plus minus
  147. Feb 15 20:54:16 <Shinaobi> it's plus negative
  148. Feb 15 20:54:50 <Shinaobi> what is so difficult about this
  149. Feb 15 20:54:53 <Shinaobi> what is so baffling
  150. Feb 15 20:54:56 <Shinaobi> why is this hard for you
  151. Feb 15 20:54:59 <Kyth> - is sometimes part of an integer literal, sometimes the subtraction operator, and sometimes *both*.
  152. Feb 15 20:55:20 <Shinaobi> I was friends with comp sci majors and computer engineering majors
  153. Feb 15 20:55:25 <Shinaobi> they didn't have these problems
  154. Feb 15 20:55:46 * Happerry has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  155. Feb 15 20:56:02 <Shinaobi> like they'd also be fine with 3-3*6+2 because they understand order of operations
  156. Feb 15 20:56:12 <Shinaobi> they know what they're actually supposed to do
  157. Feb 15 20:56:22 <Shinaobi> so they can just do it
  158. Feb 15 20:56:32 * rzyvbh (rzyvbh@CBB27BA5.8CF8197E.D26C0A23.IP) has joined
  159. Feb 15 20:56:35 <Kyth> Yes. The precedence table says that 3-3*6+2 becomes (3-(3*6))+2
  160. Feb 15 20:56:44 <Kyth> (assuming left associativity)
  161. Feb 15 20:57:10 <Shinaobi> no
  162. Feb 15 20:57:11 <Shinaobi> mathematics
  163. Feb 15 20:57:13 <Kyth> The negative translation says that (3-(3*6))+2 becomes (3+((-3)*6)+2
  164. Feb 15 20:57:14 <Shinaobi> order of operations
  165. Feb 15 20:57:20 <Shinaobi> mathematics is not c+
  166. Feb 15 20:57:24 <Shinaobi> it has never been c+
  167. Feb 15 20:57:28 <Shinaobi> it will never be c+
  168. Feb 15 20:57:29 <Kyth> No.
  169. Feb 15 20:58:31 * Happerry (Happerry@SystemNet-649416F4.cascadeaccess.com) has joined
  170. Feb 15 20:58:32 <Kyth> It doesn't even have to be high school math to get that!
  171. Feb 15 20:59:10 <Shinaobi> also why do you keep adding so many parentheses
  172. Feb 15 20:59:11 <Shinaobi> it's disgusting
  173. Feb 15 20:59:16 <Shinaobi> and clutters up the math
  174. Feb 15 20:59:22 <Kyth> To eliminate the need to care about order of operations
  175. Feb 15 20:59:28 <Shinaobi> you don't need to do that
  176. Feb 15 20:59:47 <Shinaobi> because (-3*6) + 3 + 2
  177. Feb 15 20:59:54 <Shinaobi> you don't even need to care about direction
  178. Feb 15 21:01:07 <Kyth> Only if at some point you transform everything to be made exclusively of commutative operations.
  179. Feb 15 21:01:09 <Shinaobi> you need to understand the commutative property, understand that subtracting a positive integer is the same as adding a negative integer
  180. Feb 15 21:01:35 <Shinaobi> and that subtracting a negative integer is the same as adding a positive integer
  181. Feb 15 21:02:02 <Shinaobi> and when and where you need to make use of that to solve a problem
  182. Feb 15 21:02:04 <Shinaobi> you do it
  183. Feb 15 21:02:19 <Kyth> Except that you're defining the *notation* to be aware of that equivalence.
  184. Feb 15 21:02:25 <Kyth> Not just addition.
  185. Feb 15 21:02:29 <Shinaobi> no I'm defining you to be aware of it
  186. Feb 15 21:02:33 <Shinaobi> you you you you you
  187. Feb 15 21:02:34 * Jemnite has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  188. Feb 15 21:02:42 <Shinaobi> you're putting the pen to the paper
  189. Feb 15 21:02:45 <Shinaobi> you're working with the numbers
  190. Feb 15 21:02:50 <Shinaobi> you're solving the equation
  191. Feb 15 21:03:01 <Shinaobi> perhaps you're manipulating the expression
  192. Feb 15 21:03:27 <Shinaobi> you
  193. Feb 15 21:04:29 <Shinaobi> and if you, Kyth
  194. Feb 15 21:05:22 <Shinaobi> are so monumentally dense that you are incapable of comprehending that three plus negative three gets you to 0 in exactly the same way that three minus three does
  195. Feb 15 21:05:30 <Shinaobi> I guess I just can't fucking help you
  196. Feb 15 21:05:33 <Kyth> How addition works is not the issue!
  197. Feb 15 21:06:03 <Shinaobi> especially not on the user cocking fiction irc channel
  198. Feb 15 21:06:44 * Strypgia has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  199. Feb 15 21:06:52 <Kyth> It's the /notation/, not the nature of addition and subtraction.
  200. Feb 15 21:08:08 <Shinaobi> are you incapable of understanding that 3 + -3 and 3 - 3 are the same
  201. Feb 15 21:08:09 * LYNX_Mageknight has quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  202. Feb 15 21:08:09 * Zoo has quit (Ping timeout: 124 seconds)
  203. Feb 15 21:08:17 <Kyth> That's also not the problem.
  204. Feb 15 21:08:23 <Shinaobi> that's the notation
  205. Feb 15 21:09:07 <Kyth> Is "a + -b" well-formed?
  206. Feb 15 21:09:42 <havocfett> yes
  207. Feb 15 21:09:42 <Kyth> (it has to be, otherwise you can't say it's equivalent to "a - b")
  208. Feb 15 21:09:52 <Kyth> In which case unary - has to be an operator.
  209. Feb 15 21:09:59 <havocfett> What
  210. Feb 15 21:10:03 <Shinaobi> math
  211. Feb 15 21:10:04 <Shinaobi> is
  212. Feb 15 21:10:04 <Shinaobi> not
  213. Feb 15 21:10:06 <havocfett> This isn't a programming language
  214. Feb 15 21:10:07 <Shinaobi> fucking
  215. Feb 15 21:10:08 <Shinaobi> c
  216. Feb 15 21:10:09 <Shinaobi> plus
  217. Feb 15 21:10:22 <Kyth> Then what *is* the - in "a + -b"?
  218. Feb 15 21:10:26 <Shinaobi> negative
  219. Feb 15 21:10:31 <Shinaobi> it means negative
  220. Feb 15 21:10:31 <TenfoldShields> a negative sign
  221. Feb 15 21:10:47 <Kyth> But it's not an operator the way + is?
  222. Feb 15 21:10:47 <Shinaobi> three minus three is "3 - 3"
  223. Feb 15 21:10:51 <Shinaobi> three plus negative three
  224. Feb 15 21:10:55 <TenfoldShields> It means that the number in question is less than zero
  225. Feb 15 21:11:04 <Shinaobi> is "3 + -3"
  226. Feb 15 21:11:22 <Shinaobi> if parentheses make you hot it's "3 + (-3)"
  227. Feb 15 21:11:35 <TenfoldShields> why is this even a debate.
  228. Feb 15 21:11:53 <Kyth> If negative can work on variables then it can also be "3 + -(3)"
  229. Feb 15 21:12:02 <Shinaobi> cause Kyth was abysmally failed by his math teacher I GUESS
  230. Feb 15 21:12:07 <TenfoldShields> I....sure
  231. Feb 15 21:12:10 <havocfett> It can be, yes
  232. Feb 15 21:12:55 <Kyth> Which works the same as, say, !
  233. Feb 15 21:13:02 * Tempera1 (Tempera@SystemNet-629D0C46.bpb.bigpond.com) has joined
  234. Feb 15 21:13:14 * AcatalepsyBeta has quit (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
  235. Feb 15 21:13:14 * Tempera has quit (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
  236. Feb 15 21:14:56 * rzyvbh has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  237. Feb 15 21:14:59 <Shinaobi> how are you relating factorial notation to this
  238. Feb 15 21:15:15 <Shinaobi> because that's representing like
  239. Feb 15 21:15:22 <Shinaobi> 5*4*3*2*1
  240. Feb 15 21:15:29 <Shinaobi> for arbitrary instance
  241. Feb 15 21:18:20 * LilithPrime has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  242. Feb 15 21:20:34 <Kyth> Gah.
  243. Feb 15 21:20:50 <Shinaobi> do you just not know a lot of math
  244. Feb 15 21:20:58 <Shinaobi> you can admit that
  245. Feb 15 21:22:58 <Kyth> For some reason now it seems logical that introducing for example & as infix exponentiation, preceding multiplication, would result in "2&5!" being 768
  246. Feb 15 21:23:19 <Kyth> Shinaobi: I evidently don't even know how the notation works!
  247. Feb 15 21:23:34 <Kyth> (I'm not even sure math notation can be represented in the same structure as normal programming languages are now)
  248. Feb 15 21:24:28 <Shinaobi> as I have violently and with annoyance stated before
  249. Feb 15 21:24:35 <Shinaobi> they are not the same
  250. Feb 15 21:25:00 <Shinaobi> assuming that they are is pants-on-head
  251. Feb 15 21:25:22 <Kyth> Math notation is a human language that for some reason people pretend is remotely logical.
  252. Feb 15 21:25:33 <Shinaobi> oh here we are
  253. Feb 15 21:25:39 <Shinaobi> I thought you'd grown a bit today but nope
  254. Feb 15 21:25:41 <Kyth> How the fuck wolfram alpha works I can't fathom.
  255. Feb 15 21:25:47 <Shinaobi> this same fucking sneering disdain
  256. Feb 15 21:26:07 <Shinaobi> listen Kyth
  257. Feb 15 21:26:33 <Kyth> The key thing to remember with math notation, I guess, is that you can't do *anything at all* with it until you know the properties of every element used.
  258. Feb 15 21:26:36 <Shinaobi> you don't fully understand mathematical notation
  259. Feb 15 21:26:51 <Shinaobi> what that means
  260. Feb 15 21:27:05 <Shinaobi> is exactly what it says
  261. Feb 15 21:27:08 <Shinaobi> it's shaped like itself
  262. Feb 15 21:27:40 <Shinaobi> you can't draw more conclusions from that statement
  263. Feb 15 21:28:49 <Shinaobi> you can't say "I don't understand this, therefore it is illogical"
  264. Feb 15 21:29:36 <Shinaobi> that's the way of stupid idiots, and the reason it's their way is because it entirely closes the door to the critical question of why
  265. Feb 15 21:29:56 <Shinaobi> for you that appears to just be
  266. Feb 15 21:30:19 <Shinaobi> "I never took calculus and I've let a lot of my algebra slip away"
  267. Feb 15 21:30:57 <Kyth> There's no underlying pattern. I can't draw *any* conclusion on what log^2(x) means based on what sin^2(x) means despite being typeset identically. It could be repeated application, it could be square the result, it could be something else entirely.
  268. Feb 15 21:31:41 <Shinaobi> do you know what a logarithm is
  269. Feb 15 21:31:45 <Kyth> Yes.
  270. Feb 15 21:33:24 <Shinaobi> are you sure
  271. Feb 15 21:33:24 * Tempera1 has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  272. Feb 15 21:33:47 <Kyth> But even given the information that sin^2(x) means (sin(x))^2, I can't conclude that log^2(x) means (log(x))^2. It might mean log(log(x)) or something else entirely.
  273. Feb 15 21:33:53 * Tempera (Tempera@SystemNet-629D0C46.bpb.bigpond.com) has joined
  274. Feb 15 21:34:18 <Emy> I don't remember ever seeing a log with a superscript instead of a subscript
  275. Feb 15 21:34:33 <Shinaobi> that's because nobody writes it like that
  276. Feb 15 21:34:35 <Emy> However, that said, the fact that you don't see the pattern doesn't mean the pattern doesn't exist
  277. Feb 15 21:34:37 <Shinaobi> they just write 2log(x)
  278. Feb 15 21:34:53 <Kyth> I wasn't specifying the base there.
  279. Feb 15 21:34:53 <Shinaobi> and it's why I asked Kyth if he knows what a logarithm is
  280. Feb 15 21:35:11 <Shinaobi> because a logarithm is an operation fundamentally different from a sine function
  281. Feb 15 21:35:12 <Kyth> Are log and sin in any way the same type of thing beyond being typeset similarly?
  282. Feb 15 21:36:39 <Shinaobi> do you not know the answer to that question
  283. Feb 15 21:36:47 <Shinaobi> nevermind that math is not programming
  284. Feb 15 21:36:48 <Shinaobi> you
  285. Feb 15 21:36:58 <Shinaobi> silly
  286. Feb 15 21:36:58 <Shinaobi> fool
  287. Feb 15 21:37:00 <Kyth> I thought they were slightly the same type of thing.
  288. Feb 15 21:37:37 <Shinaobi> and you evidently think that log and sin are identical too
  289. Feb 15 21:37:45 <Kyth> No.
  290. Feb 15 21:37:45 <Shinaobi> this is why we don't pay you to think
  291. Feb 15 21:40:42 <Kyth> I thought they were both the same type of operation: they have inverses, take one argument that's a real number and produce another real, and are typeset similarly.
  292. Feb 15 21:42:39 <Emy> Here's the dealio from what I remember, despite being a bio major. sin^2(x) means (sin(x))^2 because when you're working with trigonometric functions, you end up with a lot of cases where you square the function, including in... oh, most trigonometric identities you might use to rewrite one trig function in terms of the others. So this specific use is for convenience when working with trig functions.
  293. Feb 15 21:43:00 <Kyth> But in anything else it renders the fragment ill-formed?
  294. Feb 15 21:43:05 <Emy> On the other hand, sin^-1(x) is from a more general rule, where f^-1 is the inverse function of f
  295. Feb 15 21:43:12 * You are now known as Quantumboost
  296. Feb 15 21:43:16 <Kyth> Yay for exceptions :|
  297. Feb 15 21:45:18 <Emy> I prefer arcsin to sin^-1 for writing the inverse function because it doesn't let people make the mistake you were doing by trying to apply the specific abbreviation for squares of trig functions to the inverses
  298. Feb 15 21:45:59 <Shinaobi> fuck that, takes up too much space
  299. Feb 15 21:46:19 <Emy> Unless you make the notation for squares of trig functions much more cumbersome, you either have the possibility for one type of error or the other
  300. Feb 15 21:46:31 <Shinaobi> sin^-1(x) is clearly and widely understood, and unless you get particularly sloppy in your notation it's never going to be confusing
  301. Feb 15 21:46:49 <Emy> Yeah.
  302. Feb 15 21:47:01 <Shinaobi> (lest you walk into the edge case where you've got (sin^-1(x^-1))^-1
  303. Feb 15 21:47:08 <Shinaobi> or something similar but slightly less obnoxious
  304. Feb 15 21:47:24 <Kyth> Does f^x mean anything for x != -1 except in the case of f == sin and x == 2?
  305. Feb 15 21:47:36 <Shinaobi> function of x
  306. Feb 15 21:47:55 <Kyth> What, as in f^x == f(x) ?
  307. Feb 15 21:48:06 <Emy> As long as you know the formatting for trig functions, it generally works out.
  308. Feb 15 21:48:16 <Shinaobi> is f a variable now
  309. Feb 15 21:48:29 <Kyth> You can't apply a variable if it contains a function?
  310. Feb 15 21:49:01 <Shinaobi> f(x) is commonly read as "f of x"
  311. Feb 15 21:49:16 <Kyth> When f is a function, yes. If it's a number then you get multiplication.
  312. Feb 15 21:49:22 <Shinaobi> f(x) = is a way of saying "the function of x is"
  313. Feb 15 21:49:26 <Shinaobi> is f is a variable
  314. Feb 15 21:49:28 <Shinaobi> f isn't a number
  315. Feb 15 21:49:30 <Shinaobi> it's a letter
  316. Feb 15 21:49:48 <Shinaobi> generally you don't use f as a variable for this reason
  317. Feb 15 21:50:20 <Shinaobi> it's commonly used to mean "function"
  318. Feb 15 21:53:54 <Kyth> How is that a problem? "f = \integral x+2 dx" is perfectly reasonable (admittedly that it's a weird way of writing "f(x) = x^2 + x + c")
  319. Feb 15 21:54:41 <Shinaobi> because f(x) = f + xz
  320. Feb 15 21:54:45 <Shinaobi> is obnoxious
  321. Feb 15 21:55:29 <Shinaobi> and can easily mean "f times x = f + (x times z)"
  322. Feb 15 21:56:22 <Shinaobi> so you don't do it to avoid that and situations like it because even at the basic babby algebra level it's a stupid potential problem to have
  323. Feb 15 21:57:04 <Shinaobi> and with more advanced and complex topics and concepts it can make mutual understanding nigh impossible
  324. Feb 15 21:57:36 <Kyth> Well, if you're going to use f to mean two different things, yes, it's an issue!
  325. Feb 15 21:57:53 <Shinaobi> because mathematician A and B can't communicate with each other now because A is trying to tell B something with his work that B can't understand because B is reading A's work in a way that A did not intend
  326. Feb 15 21:58:02 <Shinaobi> but which common convention says is totally valid
  327. Feb 15 21:58:10 <Kyth> ...
  328. Feb 15 21:58:11 <Kyth> Why.
  329. Feb 15 21:58:25 <Kyth> Why would you use the same token to mean two different things in the same scope?
  330. Feb 15 21:58:57 <Shinaobi> NOT PROGRAMMING
  331. Feb 15 21:59:32 <Emy> Beep boop if only everything were sensible and logical like me and programming
  332. Feb 15 21:59:56 <Kyth> Or to put it another way, why is it legal to use f as a variable in the body of a function *called* f?
  333. Feb 15 22:00:48 <Shinaobi> NOT PROGRAMMING
  334. Feb 15 22:02:20 <Kyth> ... that sounds like math is so much not programming that "do these two things have the same name" isn't a valid question!
  335. Feb 15 22:03:52 <Kyth> ... is "(\integral x+2 dx)(y)" meaningful, for that matter?
  336. Feb 15 22:03:59 <Shinaobi> you're acting like you're making a fine distinction that you aren't fucking maki-
  337. Feb 15 22:03:59 <Shinaobi> no
  338. Feb 15 22:04:05 <Kyth> Why not?
  339. Feb 15 22:04:11 <Shinaobi> you're acting like you're making a fine distinction that you aren't fucking making
  340. Feb 15 22:04:24 <Shinaobi> you aren't treating math and programming as similar
  341. Feb 15 22:04:30 <Shinaobi> you're treating them as exactly the same
  342. Feb 15 22:04:52 <Shinaobi> and expressing snide dismissal when you're proven wrong
  343. Feb 15 22:04:53 * Icarus has quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  344. Feb 15 22:05:11 <Shinaobi> if you want me to give you a high level explanation of the exact and particular ways that math and programming are not the same I can't do that
  345. Feb 15 22:05:20 * Swordo (stuffy@D5473018.62481F5A.8C0EBC76.IP) has joined
  346. Feb 15 22:05:20 <Shinaobi> I was never a math major
  347. Feb 15 22:05:45 <Shinaobi> I have always approached math as a tool to be used to solve problems, and that approach limits my potential understanding
  348. Feb 15 22:06:08 <Shinaobi> because I do not need to understand that much of it
  349. Feb 15 22:06:57 <Kyth> "(\integral x+2 dx)(y)" has an obvious interpretation, namely it's the same as the expression "\integral x+2 dx" evaluates to, with every x replaced with (xy)
  350. Feb 15 22:07:01 <Kyth> *with (y)
  351. Feb 15 22:07:28 <Shinaobi> for me, programming was something I sort-of learned for a semester and then proceeded to allow to drift out of my head because I expected that it was a tool I would never ever need to use
  352. Feb 15 22:08:00 <Shinaobi> I understand neither of these things so well that I can explain to you, who understands one of these things apparently not at all
  353. Feb 15 22:08:10 <Shinaobi> how and in which ways they are different
  354. Feb 15 22:08:19 <Shinaobi> I can't give you an instruction manual
  355. Feb 15 22:08:51 <Shinaobi> I can just tell you to stop doing the stupid fucking thing you insist on doing like the thickest fucking roomba
  356. Feb 15 22:09:03 <Shinaobi> Stop treating mathematics like programming Kyth
  357. Feb 15 22:09:03 <Shinaobi> they
  358. Feb 15 22:09:04 <Shinaobi> are
  359. Feb 15 22:09:06 <Shinaobi> different
  360. Feb 15 22:09:13 * Kyth no longer understands math /at all/.
  361. Feb 15 22:09:39 <Shinaobi> you never did
  362. Feb 15 22:09:48 <Shinaobi> you just thought you did
  363. Feb 15 22:10:27 <Shinaobi> and you know what they say about ass-you-me-ing
  364. Feb 15 22:11:04 <Swordo> Shinaobi
  365. Feb 15 22:11:07 <Swordo> i got tamamo
  366. Feb 15 22:11:09 <Swordo> twice
  367. Feb 15 22:11:19 <Swordo> unfortunately she's a berserker so :(
  368. Feb 15 22:11:26 <Shinaobi> for a second I was excited
  369. Feb 15 22:11:35 <Swordo> also Fran twice again
  370. Feb 15 22:11:38 <Shinaobi> because at NP 2 there's enough heal on her NP that she can healbot
  371. Feb 15 22:11:39 <Swordo> and kiyo five times
  372. Feb 15 22:11:42 <Swordo> fuck you kiyo
  373. Feb 15 22:11:49 * VernZZZ has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  374. Feb 15 22:12:02 <Emy> f/go has a very unkind gacha
  375. Feb 15 22:12:18 <Shinaobi> nah it's pretty simple
  376. Feb 15 22:12:20 <Swordo> yeah
  377. Feb 15 22:12:26 * Quantumboost stares at f(x) = f + xz
  378. Feb 15 22:12:31 <Swordo> I just want 5 star saber no. 4
  379. Feb 15 22:12:35 <Swordo> is it so much to ask for :(
  380. Feb 15 22:12:41 <Shinaobi> and the trick to it (makes lots of rolls) is very plain
  381. Feb 15 22:12:54 <Shinaobi> so that's where DW put the paywall
  382. Feb 15 22:13:04 <Emy> Naturally.
  383. Feb 15 22:13:12 <Shinaobi> and by god animu waifus
  384. Feb 15 22:13:15 <Quantumboost> I am intrigued yet slightly horrified at the notion of a function described in terms of adding the function /itself/ to something else
  385. Feb 15 22:13:21 <Shinaobi> people will spend ALL OF THE MONEY to climb that wall
  386. Feb 15 22:13:26 <Shinaobi> Quantumboost: what are you talking about
  387. Feb 15 22:13:33 <Shinaobi> that just f timex x
  388. Feb 15 22:13:39 <Shinaobi> equal to f + x times z
  389. Feb 15 22:13:48 <Quantumboost> okay yes that would be the sane interpretation
  390. Feb 15 22:14:03 <Shinaobi> it's also obnoxious
  391. Feb 15 22:14:12 <Quantumboost> but my mind can't stop noticing the possible other interpretation that it has come up with
  392. Feb 15 22:14:16 <Shinaobi> and you could remove even the potential for ambiguity
  393. Feb 15 22:14:20 <Shinaobi> by just replacing f with like
  394. Feb 15 22:14:23 <Shinaobi> j
  395. Feb 15 22:14:47 <Shinaobi> no reason to use a letter that conventionally means something totally different
  396. Feb 15 22:15:53 <Quantumboost> well yes
  397. Feb 15 22:18:30 <Shinaobi> like I think that's actually a good example of why you're careful with your chosen variables when you're constructing equations from like
  398. Feb 15 22:18:32 <Shinaobi> word problems
  399. Feb 15 22:18:40 <Shinaobi> or when solving Actual Problems What Math Is Good For
  400. Feb 15 22:18:57 <Shinaobi> the problem is problematic enough, no reason to make things harder on yourself
  401. Feb 15 22:18:57 <Kyth> Why is the notion of a function-valued variable weird?
  402. Feb 15 22:19:05 <Quantumboost> what if the function is taking an input though
  403. Feb 15 22:19:08 <Quantumboost> and its output
  404. Feb 15 22:19:13 * Mary is now known as SleepScya
  405. Feb 15 22:19:26 <Quantumboost> is also a function, and you want to describe its output in terms of the function itself
  406. Feb 15 22:19:37 <Quantumboost> that sounds like a thing that should be valid somehow
  407. Feb 15 22:19:42 <Quantumboost> but I'm not sure when you would ever use it
  408. Feb 15 22:19:43 <Kyth> Recursion?
  409. Feb 15 22:19:52 <Quantumboost> no, no
  410. Feb 15 22:20:06 <Quantumboost> that would just be describing one of a function's outputs in terms of its output from a different input
  411. Feb 15 22:20:11 <Shinaobi> I'm 5-6 years removed from calculus
  412. Feb 15 22:20:18 <Kyth> Oh, function-valued functions.
  413. Feb 15 22:20:18 <Shinaobi> I could field that question then but honestly
  414. Feb 15 22:20:22 <Shinaobi> I can't do it now
  415. Feb 15 22:20:25 <Shinaobi> or at least not elegantly
  416. Feb 15 22:20:30 <IcePickLobotomy> Uhh.
  417. Feb 15 22:20:41 <IcePickLobotomy> Maybe work problems?
  418. Feb 15 22:21:05 <IcePickLobotomy> I.E. You move X amount of Water Y feet. How much work was done
  419. Feb 15 22:21:13 * Shinaobi squints
  420. Feb 15 22:21:16 <IcePickLobotomy> Or maybe I'm completly off base
  421. Feb 15 22:21:24 * Kyth also thinks it makes perfect sense to have a notation for integration where "∫ f(x) dx" is written ∫(x -> f(x))
  422. Feb 15 22:21:29 <Shinaobi> Quantumboost you might just be talking about derivatives and integrals from a sideways angle
  423. Feb 15 22:21:52 <Quantumboost> maybe
  424. Feb 15 22:21:58 <IcePickLobotomy> Yeah. Might be that that's what I'm studying atm, but I feel like that's intergrals, or something close to it.
  425. Feb 15 22:22:21 <Shinaobi> actually I'm more confident of it the more I consider it
  426. Feb 15 22:22:52 <IcePickLobotomy> Part of it, no offense, but I'm not 100% following what Quantum is trying to get at exactly
  427. Feb 15 22:22:58 <Shinaobi> particularly, you're talking of relating the two functions in terms of one or the other
  428. Feb 15 22:23:01 <Kyth> Sounds a bit like currying to me.
  429. Feb 15 22:23:19 <Quantumboost> I would think that a function that gives another function as output isn't a typical subject of calculus operations though
  430. Feb 15 22:23:34 <Kyth> Unless you consider integration to be a function.
  431. Feb 15 22:23:39 <Quantumboost> at least that doesn't sound like integral/differential calculus from when I actually took it
  432. Feb 15 22:23:58 <Quantumboost> I may also just be high
  433. Feb 15 22:24:01 <Quantumboost> on abstraction
  434. Feb 15 22:24:17 * Arkalest (chatzilla@59687C69.F3FE3706.EB586D0.IP) has joined
  435. Feb 15 22:24:20 <Shinaobi> the integral of an equation whose bounds aren't explicitly defined
  436. Feb 15 22:24:20 <IcePickLobotomy> Closest thing I can think of along those lines would be things like velocity and accleration, where the derivitives of the previous function is sued to create the function of the later part.
  437. Feb 15 22:24:22 <Shinaobi> is another equation
  438. Feb 15 22:25:46 <Shinaobi> 'aren't explicitly defined with real numbers' is I think the more correct way to phrase that
  439. Feb 15 22:26:10 <Kyth> Shinaobi: Indefinite integration is not all that distant from being a function from functions to functions.
  440. Feb 15 22:27:06 <Kyth> (admittedly functions of one variable to functions of two variables. Whether this holds for any number of unbound variables I don't remember)
  441. Feb 15 22:27:48 <Shinaobi> whatever you're trying to assert you failed to correctly phrase it
  442. Feb 15 22:30:59 <Quantumboost> even if integration is a mapping from a function-space to a function-space, I have a feeling that doesn't actually mean that defining a function which maps from a function-space to another function-space would necessarily have anything to do with integral/differential calculus
  443. Feb 15 22:33:06 <Kyth> I don't think you can integrate the actual act of integration, no :P
  444. Feb 15 22:33:17 <Quantumboost> this requires science
  445. Feb 15 22:34:18 <Quantumboost> ...or possibly philosophy
  446. Feb 15 22:35:27 <Kyte> what is all this tlak about
  447. Feb 15 22:35:40 <Kyth> (integration is a function from (function from numberlike to numberlike) to (function from (numberlike,numberlike) to numberlike) so trying to integrate integration is a type error)
  448. Feb 15 22:35:41 <Kyte> I'm going through the backlog to find the start point and I can't fucking find it
  449. Feb 15 22:35:44 <Shinaobi> wasting time
  450. Feb 15 22:35:45 <Shinaobi> wasting so much time
  451. Feb 15 22:35:53 <Shinaobi> don't waste your time I already wasted mine
  452. Feb 15 22:37:19 * havocfett has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  453. Feb 15 22:38:51 <Kyte> no, no I want
  454. Feb 15 22:38:51 <Kyte> to try
  455. Feb 15 22:38:55 <Kyte> I know programming
  456. Feb 15 22:38:58 <Kyth> "(∫ x+2 dx)(y+1)" makes sense in that context, although since there aren't enough variables the result is "c -> (y+1)^2 + 2(y+1) + c"
  457. Feb 15 22:39:07 <Kyte> I think I kinda understand Kyth's brain a bit
  458. Feb 15 22:39:16 * lifeofgesture (Mibbit@SystemNet-95BBCD20.hawaii.res.rr.com) has joined
  459. Feb 15 22:39:16 <Kyth> *aren't enough arguments
  460. Feb 15 22:39:42 <Kyte> if you showed me "(∫ x+2 dx)(y+1)" I'd assume a multiplication of an integral and an addition
  461. Feb 15 22:40:13 <Kyte> otherwise it'd be written as g(y) = int(x+2 dx), g(y+1)
  462. Feb 15 22:40:20 <Quantumboost> I had to stare at that for a while to realize you're talking about treating the result of the integral as a function on 'x' rather than the integral just being on a separate contextually-defined x that is multiplied by (y+1)
  463. Feb 15 22:40:53 <Kyte> yes that's why people define suboperations into helper funcs
  464. Feb 15 22:40:56 <Kyte> like g(y) in this case
  465. Feb 15 22:41:06 <Kyte> *also I messed up it's g(x)
  466. Feb 15 22:41:10 <Kyte> there's three levels
  467. Feb 15 22:41:15 <Kyte> h(y) = g(y+1)
  468. Feb 15 22:41:25 <Kyte> g(x) = int(x + 2 dx)
  469. Feb 15 22:41:25 * lifeofgesture has quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  470. Feb 15 22:41:34 <Kyte> and the base level of the operation
  471. Feb 15 22:41:51 <Kyte> y
  472. Feb 15 22:42:47 * havocfett (havocfett@SystemNet-7C3DCDC7.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined
  473. Feb 15 22:43:08 <Kyte> general convention is that you won't compose functions in a single line
  474. Feb 15 22:43:19 * Kyte pokes Kyth
  475. Feb 15 22:43:22 <Kyte> don't make me talk to myself
  476. Feb 15 22:43:24 <Kyth> Yeah, it's a weird way of writing "g(y) = int(x+2 dx), g(y+1)".
  477. Feb 15 22:43:33 <Quantumboost> very weird and confusing
  478. Feb 15 22:44:55 <Kyte> *z = h(y) = g(y+1), g(x) = int(x+2 dx)
  479. Feb 15 22:45:14 <Kyte> so what brought all this up?
  480. Feb 15 22:45:17 <Kyth> And because I copy pasted I copied your typo :|
  481. Feb 15 22:45:23 <Kyte> yep
  482. Feb 15 22:45:43 <Kyte> apart from apparently you not knowing basic precedence rules (from what I saw in the backlog)
  483. Feb 15 22:46:01 <Kyte> and fundamental differences between elemental functions
  484. Feb 15 22:46:14 <Kyte> and that not writing part of the math is obviously going to lose you informtion
  485. Feb 15 22:46:49 <Kyte> [02:46] <Shinaobi> fuck that, takes up too much space // asin is shorter than sin^-1 :V
  486. Feb 15 22:47:07 <Shinaobi> arcsin isn't V:
  487. Feb 15 22:47:10 <Kyth> It's actually longer if you have proportional fonts and superscript.
  488. Feb 15 22:47:41 <Shinaobi> and when you're not typing it's eminently less work to just do the little -1
  489. Feb 15 22:48:10 <Kyte> nah
  490. Feb 15 22:48:11 <Kyte> I prefer asin
  491. Feb 15 22:48:14 <Kyth> Kyte: I tend to default to treating math notation like a programming language, with the corresponding approach to defining what a given sequence of symbols means.
  492. Feb 15 22:48:17 <Shinaobi> to each their own
  493. Feb 15 22:48:20 <Kyte> even writing it down
  494. Feb 15 22:48:22 <Shinaobi> even when they're WEIRD :V
  495. Feb 15 22:48:31 <Kyte> and I've had to write a lot of math
  496. Feb 15 22:48:42 <Kyte> Kyth: that is fundamentally wrong
  497. Feb 15 22:48:51 <Shinaobi> it begins
  498. Feb 15 22:49:02 <Kyte> a programming language encodes far more than notation
  499. Feb 15 22:49:31 <Kyte> including rules for dealing with or outright disallowing ambiguous cases
  500. Feb 15 22:49:33 <Ford_Dylandy> I mostly just don't think too much about math and just do it :v
  501. Feb 15 22:49:44 <Kyte> people don't need those
  502. Feb 15 22:49:46 <Kyte> they aren't computers
  503. Feb 15 22:49:49 <Wuffles> 2+2=fish
  504. Feb 15 22:49:50 <Kyte> they can exercise common sense
  505. Feb 15 22:49:51 <Kyte> and convention
  506. Feb 15 22:50:02 <Kyte> your approach is fundamentally flawed
  507. Feb 15 22:50:15 <Kyte> because people don't expect to talk to an idiot pretending to be a machine
  508. Feb 15 22:51:36 <Wuffles> yuck math
  509. Feb 15 22:51:40 <Quantumboost> it's approximately as sane as taking Chinese, running it through a per-word translator, and then complaining when the grammar is nonsensical >_>
  510. Feb 15 22:52:38 <Kyte> Kyth: why do you have such a ass-backwards way of dealing with math anyways
  511. Feb 15 22:54:37 <Wuffles> He has a unique way of dealing with everything
  512. Feb 15 22:55:07 <Wuffles> I still remember the hours long discussion he had with ES and Aleph about colors
  513. Feb 15 22:55:12 <Kyth> Kyte: Because if I'm having to consciously think about it, that's the most immediately available mental toolbox, and it does odd things when given math notation.
  514. Feb 15 22:56:36 <Kyte> your mental toolbox is unfitting
  515. Feb 15 22:56:39 <Kyte> and broken
  516. Feb 15 22:56:41 <Kyth> Like, it tries to go as far as possible given something like "sin^2 x" without having to look up the specific meaning of a trig function.
  517. Feb 15 22:56:42 <Kyte> it's a bad toolbox
  518. Feb 15 22:56:44 <Kyte> go get a new one
  519. Feb 15 22:57:06 <Kyte> it sounds to me like you didn't get educated in math properly
  520. Feb 15 22:57:17 <Kyte> for you to rely in such shitty methodology instead of what you should know from school
  521. Feb 15 22:57:18 <Kyth> Probably
  522. Feb 15 22:58:23 <Kyte> Wuffles: good thing I don't look at this channel too often then
  523. Feb 15 22:58:30 <Kyte> because it's already aggravating as hell whenever I see his damn username
  524. Feb 15 22:58:31 <Kyth> Note that I found the trig thing annoying before I got most of these concepts. Without defaulting to that toolbox, it's still daft; my original logic was that it's inconsistent with the superscript -1 being inverse thing.
  525. Feb 15 22:58:49 <Wuffles> That was ages ago in the Nobody Dies chatroom
  526. Feb 15 22:58:53 <Kyte> people write things as it's convenient
  527. Feb 15 22:59:05 <Shinaobi> did nobody dies have its own chatroom
  528. Feb 15 22:59:08 <Kyte> -1 means "reverse" in various contexts
  529. Feb 15 22:59:12 <Wuffles> Yes
  530. Feb 15 22:59:13 <Shinaobi> I think I joined like
  531. Feb 15 22:59:17 <Shinaobi> four months before it died
  532. Feb 15 22:59:18 * linkhyrule5 has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  533. Feb 15 22:59:21 <Shinaobi> or was it a year
  534. Feb 15 22:59:35 <Shinaobi> those two periods of time are very different why can I not tell
  535. Feb 15 22:59:36 <Kyte> they actually introduce you to the idea of f^-1(x)
  536. Feb 15 22:59:41 <Kyte> before you even see sin^-1(x) and such
  537. Feb 15 22:59:51 <Kyte> thus it becomes part of your math education
  538. Feb 15 23:00:28 <Swordo> Kyte: who, ES?
  539. Feb 15 23:00:31 <Kyte> because flipping between... what's the names in english for the source and destination spaces of a function?
  540. Feb 15 23:00:35 <Kyth> What does f^2 mean for non-trig?
  541. Feb 15 23:00:42 <Kyte> squared func
  542. Feb 15 23:00:42 <Kyth> domain and range
  543. Feb 15 23:00:50 <Kyte> k thx
  544. Feb 15 23:00:56 <Kyte> you often have to flip between the two in trig
  545. Feb 15 23:01:00 <Kyth> What, *everything* has that little oddity?
  546. Feb 15 23:01:18 <Kyte> there's no sensible operation that can be represented as ^2 except squared
  547. Feb 15 23:01:37 <Kyth> repeated application, ie f^2(x) is f(f(x))
  548. Feb 15 23:01:40 <Kyte> no
  549. Feb 15 23:01:42 <Kyte> that's never done
  550. Feb 15 23:01:50 <Kyte> or at least I've never encountered it
  551. Feb 15 23:02:04 <Kyte> well
  552. Feb 15 23:02:10 <Kyte> I think I've seen it in some challenge problems
  553. Feb 15 23:02:20 <Kyte> but they clearly spell it out for you
  554. Feb 15 23:02:42 <Kyte> "assume f^x(y) is f(y) applied X times with the result of f(y) being fed as y into the next application" or somesuch
  555. Feb 15 23:02:48 <Kyte> because it's incredibly unintuitive
  556. Feb 15 23:02:48 <Kyte> and rare
  557. Feb 15 23:02:51 <Shinaobi> it's done in sequential derivatives sometimes I think
  558. Feb 15 23:03:02 <Kyth> It matches f^-1 being the inverse.
  559. Feb 15 23:03:04 <Kyte> you very very very rarely double-apply a func
  560. Feb 15 23:03:11 <Kyte> so?
  561. Feb 15 23:03:20 <Kyte> parsimony was never a requirement
  562. Feb 15 23:03:30 <Kyth> So it's still weird.
  563. Feb 15 23:03:32 <Kyte> it's not
  564. Feb 15 23:03:45 <Kyte> the -1 is the exceptional case
  565. Feb 15 23:03:53 <Kyte> and it's a matter of convenience
  566. Feb 15 23:03:54 <Kyte> in fact
  567. Feb 15 23:03:58 <Kyth> Yes. There's still an exception.
  568. Feb 15 23:04:11 <Kyte> yes
  569. Feb 15 23:04:12 <Kyte> so?
  570. Feb 15 23:04:13 <Kyte> again
  571. Feb 15 23:04:15 <Kyte> parsimony was never a requirement
  572. Feb 15 23:04:18 <Kyte> people can read context
  573. Feb 15 23:04:45 <Kyte> a ^-1 attached to a function is inverse function, a ^-1 attached to a variable is power of -1
  574. Feb 15 23:04:46 <Kyte> it's easy
  575. Feb 15 23:04:54 <Kyth> Is it reasonable, given f being a function, to write "g = f + 1"?
  576. Feb 15 23:04:59 <Kyte> no
  577. Feb 15 23:05:07 <Kyte> not at all
  578. Feb 15 23:05:31 <Kyth> and yet "g = f^2" is.
  579. Feb 15 23:05:37 <Kyte> you're eliding important information
  580. Feb 15 23:05:42 <Kyte> is g a variable or a function
  581. Feb 15 23:05:55 <Kyte> is f receiving the same function as g or not
  582. Feb 15 23:05:59 <Kyte> you can do it
  583. Feb 15 23:06:00 <Kyte> some do
  584. Feb 15 23:06:13 <Kyte> but that only happens after they've clearly defined f in first place
  585. Feb 15 23:06:14 <Kyte> and even then
  586. Feb 15 23:06:20 <Kyth> I did say f is a function.
  587. Feb 15 23:06:20 <Kyte> it's still super sloppily written
  588. Feb 15 23:06:28 <Kyte> people do write sloppily
  589. Feb 15 23:06:31 <Kyte> it's a thing that happens
  590. Feb 15 23:06:37 <Kyte> the actually correct answer there
  591. Feb 15 23:06:41 <Kyte> is to ask for clarification
  592. Feb 15 23:07:05 <Kyte> I haven't actually seen g = f^2 either
  593. Feb 15 23:07:10 <Kyte> I wouldn't consider it reasonable either
  594. Feb 15 23:07:17 <Kyte> I could assume it's just squared
  595. Feb 15 23:07:24 <Kyth> "f(x) = x+1, g = f^2", then.
  596. Feb 15 23:07:43 <Kyte> but the weird syntax would make me wonder if something else has been defined to give it meaning
  597. Feb 15 23:07:53 <Kyte> no
  598. Feb 15 23:07:56 <Kyte> just write it sanely
  599. Feb 15 23:08:00 <Kyte> for starters
  600. Feb 15 23:08:05 <Kyte> you still don't tell me
  601. Feb 15 23:08:10 <Kyte> if g is a function or a variable
  602. Feb 15 23:08:19 <Kyth> What is the difference?
  603. Feb 15 23:08:24 <Kyte> ...
  604. Feb 15 23:08:25 <Kyte> uh
  605. Feb 15 23:08:41 <Kyte> ok this is actually hard to explain because I only understand it intuitively
  606. Feb 15 23:08:42 <Kyte> but, like
  607. Feb 15 23:08:48 <Kyth> Or rather, type error. "if g is a function or a number" would be better.
  608. Feb 15 23:08:57 <Kyte> no
  609. Feb 15 23:09:02 <Kyte> g is not a number
  610. Feb 15 23:09:04 <Kyte> 2 is a number
  611. Feb 15 23:09:08 <Kyte> g is a variable
  612. Feb 15 23:09:17 <Kyte> a holding space for a value
  613. Feb 15 23:09:24 <Kyte> this is actual programming 101
  614. Feb 15 23:09:27 <Kyte> so if you don't understand this
  615. Feb 15 23:09:50 <Kyte> then you're not only making bad assumptions based in the wrong context, your context itself is badly constructed in first place
  616. Feb 15 23:10:07 <Kyte> anyways back to the math
  617. Feb 15 23:10:15 <Tempera> I just want you two to know that this entire argument looks like you're just one person arguing with themselves.
  618. Feb 15 23:10:15 <Kyth> Then is g a variable containing a function or containing a number?
  619. Feb 15 23:10:23 <Kyte> Tempera: I know it's awful
  620. Feb 15 23:10:46 <Kyth> f is a variable containing a value that happens to be a function.
  621. Feb 15 23:10:50 <Kyte> nobody outside academic circles or super advanced shit does higher-order math
  622. Feb 15 23:11:01 <Kyte> to the point where functions are actually used as values
  623. Feb 15 23:11:17 <Kyte> the problem here is syntactical
  624. Feb 15 23:11:38 <Kyte> does "g" represent a "function (mistyped because it's missing its parameter list)" or a "variable"
  625. Feb 15 23:11:44 <Kyte> keyword here is represent
  626. Feb 15 23:12:14 <Kyte> *syntactical is actually not the right word. uh... lexical? I dunno
  627. Feb 15 23:12:18 <Kyte> I am an engineer
  628. Feb 15 23:13:27 <Kyte> anyways, tired of this
  629. Feb 15 23:13:34 <Kyth> In "f(x) = x+1, g = f^2" the notion is that g represents a function. More precisely, f^2 is itself a function and g is representing that value.
  630. Feb 15 23:14:03 <Kyth> Which is probably a wonky way of looking at what "f^2(x)" is doing.
  631. Feb 15 23:15:01 <Kyte> if g is a variable
  632. Feb 15 23:15:04 <Kyte> then the entire thing is meaningly
  633. Feb 15 23:15:07 <Kyte> *meaningless
  634. Feb 15 23:15:12 <Kyte> because x is never defined
  635. Feb 15 23:15:20 <Kyte> g is a value
  636. Feb 15 23:15:55 <Kyte> not a range of possible values depending on input.
  637. Feb 15 23:16:07 <Kyte> a function is not a value
  638. Feb 15 23:16:11 <Kyte> you acn't stuff it into a variable
  639. Feb 15 23:16:16 <Kyte> well, not in this kinda math
  640. Feb 15 23:17:00 <Kyte> there's higher-order math where you start operating on the functions themselves and you start using monads and shit and that's way beyond me beyond "they're neat and enable some interesting stuff in programming"
  641. Feb 15 23:17:30 <Kyth> Read "f^2(x)" as "g(q) = (f(q))^2, g(x)"
  642. Feb 15 23:18:06 <Kyte> wut
  643. Feb 15 23:18:07 <Kyte> why
  644. Feb 15 23:18:16 <Kyte> you're just making things way more complicated for no damn reason
  645. Feb 15 23:19:02 * ES_Corp (chatzilla@SystemNet-44D8F633.cable.virginm.net) has joined
  646. Feb 15 23:27:11 <Kyth> Kyte: It's also a strange form of function composition, mixed up with monads. The idea is, if a function takes a y produces an x, then you can reasonably define that operations that *take* an x can be performed on it, but instead of producing the z that the operation would normally produce, it produces a function that takes a y and produces a z.
  647. Feb 15 23:27:14 * Bromeliad (Bromeliad@SystemNet-C8113B21.dyn.optonline.net) has joined
  648. Feb 15 23:27:34 <Kyte> don't care it's weird and nobody uses it outside nerds
  649. Feb 15 23:27:39 * Brom has quit (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
  650. Feb 15 23:28:18 <Kyth> Kyte: It's that higher-order math thing :P
  651. Feb 15 23:29:50 <Kyte> yes
  652. Feb 15 23:29:52 <Kyte> which like I said
  653. Feb 15 23:29:54 <Kyte> it's nerd stuff
  654. Feb 15 23:31:53 <Kyth> The C# compiler has a partial form of that. If you have a Nullable<int> (usually written "int?") you can do arithmetic on it like a regular int and the right thing happens automatically.
  655. Feb 15 23:34:13 <Kyte> it's not
  656. Feb 15 23:34:16 <Kyte> they just fake it
  657. Feb 15 23:34:23 <Kyth> Yes.
  658. Feb 15 23:34:37 <Kyte> the c# type system can't actually deal with it
  659. Feb 15 23:34:43 <Kyte> eric lippert talks about it
  660. Feb 15 23:34:45 <Kyth> Hence "partial form of that".
  661. Feb 15 23:35:26 <Kyth> They special cased that one.
  662. Feb 15 23:37:37 <Kyte> it's not even partial
  663. Feb 15 23:37:38 <Kyte> it's just faked
  664. Feb 15 23:37:40 <Kyte> fake is not partial
  665. Feb 15 23:38:52 * Omicron has quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  666. Feb 15 23:39:02 <Kyth> Either way, it makes perfect sense for squaring a function to be lifted like that.
  667. Feb 15 23:39:23 <Kyte> yeah maybe but nobody does it
  668. Feb 15 23:39:32 <Kyte> because it's pointless
  669. Feb 15 23:39:38 <Kyte> and irrelevant for mot applications
  670. Feb 15 23:39:40 <Kyte> *most
  671. Feb 15 23:39:45 <Kyte> and just introduces further confusion
  672. Feb 15 23:44:25 <Kyth> It's also the nicest way to think about what "f^2(x)" actually does.
  673. Feb 15 23:48:36 <Kyte> so?
  674. Feb 15 23:48:39 <Kyte> who fucking cares
  675. Feb 15 23:48:48 <Kyte> why can't you get it through your thick head
  676. Feb 15 23:48:53 <Kyte> nobody fucking cares about parsimony
  677. Feb 15 23:49:01 <Kyte> people write things as it's convenient
  678. Feb 15 23:49:40 <Kyth> So instead math notation is nothing but one gigantic pile of special cases.
  679. Feb 15 23:50:04 <Kyte> yes
  680. Feb 15 23:50:12 <Kyte> human beings are a gigantic pile of special cases
  681. Feb 15 23:50:37 <Kyte> language is a gigantic pile of special cases
  682. Feb 15 23:50:40 <Kyth> It seems odd for *math* to be that way given it's pretty clear mathematicians like parsimony.
  683. Feb 15 23:50:43 <Kyte> it's how organic evolution works
  684. Feb 15 23:50:50 <Kyte> because nobody invented math
  685. Feb 15 23:51:04 <Kyte> jesus christ please tell me you have some kind of brain problem or whatever
  686. Feb 15 23:51:10 <Kyte> that would explain this crippling lack of basic sense
  687. Feb 15 23:55:04 * havocfett has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  688. Feb 15 23:59:11 <Pale_Wolf> He approaches literally everything in the exact same way, Kyte.
  689. Feb 15 23:59:26 <Kyte> so
  690. Feb 15 23:59:32 <Kyte> does he have some kinda brain problem?
  691. Feb 15 23:59:35 <Kyte> developmental issue?
  692. Feb 15 23:59:36 <Kyte> autism?
  693. Feb 15 23:59:37 <Kyte> something?
  694. Feb 16 00:00:19 <Kyth> So it's better to describe what's going on with "f^2(x)" as "when you see an identifier previously used as a function or that is one of {list of standard functions}, followed by a superscript two, followed by something that could be a function argument, treat it as referring to the function applied to the argument, then squaring the result"?
  695. Feb 16 00:00:36 <Kyte> jesus fucking chirst
  696. Feb 16 00:00:51 <Kyte> Pale_Wolf: no, no
  697. Feb 16 00:00:53 <Kyte> I know what this is
  698. Feb 16 00:00:57 <Kyte> it's a chatbot
  699. Feb 16 00:01:02 <Kyth> ...
  700. Feb 16 00:01:02 <Kyte> all this time
  701. Feb 16 00:01:08 <Kyte> it's been a secret government project
  702. Feb 16 00:01:10 <Kyte> to create robots
  703. Feb 16 00:01:26 <Kyte> it explains everything
  704. Feb 16 00:01:27 <IcePickLobotomy> You guys don't have to be so rude with him in the same chat you know.
  705. Feb 16 00:01:42 <Kyte> I prefer to be rude in front on him than behind his back
  706. Feb 16 00:01:56 <Kyte> talking behind someone's back is a p shitty thing to do
  707. Feb 16 00:02:03 <Kyth> And that previous suggestion is probably inadmissible because there's an implied tokenisation stage :|
  708. Feb 16 00:02:07 <Kyte> now he knows where we stand
  709. Feb 16 00:02:10 <Tempera> So is insulting someone, Kyte. :p
  710. Feb 16 00:02:16 <Kyte> well yes
  711. Feb 16 00:02:20 <Kyte> but it's not doubly bad
  712. Feb 16 00:02:23 <Kyte> *shitty
  713. Feb 16 00:02:30 <Kyte> plus, like I said, he knows where we stand
  714. Feb 16 00:02:37 <Kyte> no pretensions
  715. Feb 16 00:02:54 <Kyth> Where I stand now is "math notation is terrible but it's improper to actually say so for some reason"
  716. Feb 16 00:04:59 <Pale_Wolf> Where I stand is more along the lines of 'you never put in a half-second to learn anything and instantly decry everything you don't understand - because you never bothered to learn about it - as terrible and meriting your disdain'.
  717. Feb 16 00:05:18 <Pale_Wolf> Be arrogant or ignorant. Pick one, please. Both ain't working.
  718. Feb 16 00:05:33 <Kyte> it goes beyond that
  719. Feb 16 00:05:41 <Kyte> he's not grasping the fundamental issue
  720. Feb 16 00:05:47 <Kyte> that language, math, etc
  721. Feb 16 00:05:49 <Kyte> they're not designed
  722. Feb 16 00:06:23 <Kyte> it's not even confusing, either
  723. Feb 16 00:06:36 <Kyte> people who deal with it can understand each other perfectly well
  724. Feb 16 00:06:40 <Kyte> because they share conventions
  725. Feb 16 00:06:47 <Kyte> people don't have designs
  726. Feb 16 00:06:48 <Kyth> Pale_Wolf: And people explaining it generally results in it remaining terrible.
  727. Feb 16 00:06:49 <Kyte> they have conventions
  728. Feb 16 00:07:00 <Tempera> You should be kind of used to this, it's not like this is the first time he's done this. :p
  729. Feb 16 00:07:13 <Kyte> it's you that is trying to force the wrong paradigm
  730. Feb 16 00:07:14 <Kyte> there's no 'rules'
  731. Feb 16 00:07:17 <Kyte> there's 'convention'
  732. Feb 16 00:07:21 <Kyte> get that through your head
  733. Feb 16 00:07:35 <Kyte> is it bad? Perhaps, in some abstract and completely pointless metric
  734. Feb 16 00:07:43 <Kyth> Such as elegance.
  735. Feb 16 00:07:47 <Kyte> yes
  736. Feb 16 00:07:50 <Kyte> it's pointless
  737. Feb 16 00:07:52 <Kyte> does it impede the work of people who actually use it?
  738. Feb 16 00:07:57 <Kyte> does it induce confusion?
  739. Feb 16 00:08:06 <Kyth> I don't count, apparently.
  740. Feb 16 00:08:09 <Kyte> does it obstruct communication?
  741. Feb 16 00:08:09 <Kyte> no
  742. Feb 16 00:08:11 <Kyte> no you don't
  743. Feb 16 00:08:20 <Kyte> you're outside the convention
  744. Feb 16 00:08:24 <Kyte> and actively fighting to stay outside it
  745. Feb 16 00:10:44 <Kyth> But despite being a convention with no actual specification, nonetheless adherence *to* that nonexistent specification is mandatory.
  746. Feb 16 00:11:00 <Kyte> well
  747. Feb 16 00:11:04 <Kyte> it's not mandatory
  748. Feb 16 00:11:05 <Kyte> it's conventional
  749. Feb 16 00:11:13 <Kyte> it's what gets taught in schools
  750. Feb 16 00:11:19 <Kyte> it's what gets communicated in journals
  751. Feb 16 00:11:19 <Kyth> "taught"
  752. Feb 16 00:11:25 <Kyte> it's what gets printed in textbooks
  753. Feb 16 00:11:49 <Kyth> It gets *used* in schools with little explanation. Of course, the explanation would make it 500x longer since attempting a usably short definition is wrong too.
  754. Feb 16 00:12:01 <Quantumboost> effectively, in order to actually communicate mathematical concepts with people, you need to have a shared basis for communication
  755. Feb 16 00:12:09 <Kyte> well I can't be held accountable for your poor education but you aren't trying to learn, you just cooked up some half-assed convenient personal solution that doesn't actually match anybody else's understanding
  756. Feb 16 00:12:14 <Kyte> which will obviously create friction
  757. Feb 16 00:12:19 <Quantumboost> and the shared basis for communication to use /literally every single mathematical work printed throughout history/
  758. Feb 16 00:12:23 <Quantumboost> is what is taught in schools
  759. Feb 16 00:12:32 <Kyte> if it works for your personal case more power to you but it's not our fault you can't properly communicate with the rest
  760. Feb 16 00:12:51 <Kyth> Kyte: It works if and only if you don't look at it closely.
  761. Feb 16 00:13:10 <Quantumboost> if you don't have that, you will have to predefine your /entire/ basis for communication with each individual person you want to communicate with before you can get to what you actually want to express
  762. Feb 16 00:13:32 <IcePickLobotomy> ^
  763. Feb 16 00:13:34 <Kyte> well it works badly
  764. Feb 16 00:13:38 <Pale_Wolf> Do you really think you - and you alone, of centuries of an entire species of people including many orders of magnitude smarter than you - are the only one to look closely at the way humans interact?
  765. Feb 16 00:13:55 <IcePickLobotomy> I was going to say something along those lines, but Quantum said it faster and bettr than I could have
  766. Feb 16 00:14:02 <Kyte> in the end this all boils down to your apparent refusal to learn society's ways
  767. Feb 16 00:14:52 <Kyth> Kyte: People generally come across as "It's your fault if you don't understand me, and your fault if I don't understand you"
  768. Feb 16 00:15:03 <Kyte> well
  769. Feb 16 00:15:08 * Pyrion (Pyrion@SystemNet-69EF3932.rathcmtc01.res.dyn.suddenlink.net) has joined
  770. Feb 16 00:15:08 <Kyte> you are the minority
  771. Feb 16 00:15:11 <Kyte> and at that
  772. Feb 16 00:15:24 <Kyte> a minority that has free access to actually learn the majority's
  773. Feb 16 00:15:41 * JakeGrey (jake@5D4F123D.12845CB5.ED8F3410.IP) has joined
  774. Feb 16 00:15:49 <Kyth> A majority which defaults to "You already know this, so I won't explain it to you"
  775. Feb 16 00:15:57 <Kyte> you should know this
  776. Feb 16 00:16:00 <Kyte> you can know this
  777. Feb 16 00:16:05 <Kyth> Pale_Wolf: I mean, a gigantic pile of nothing but special cases is not something you can do much with.
  778. Feb 16 00:16:10 <Kyte> there's a million online resources available right here!
  779. Feb 16 00:16:15 <Kyte> well not literally right here
  780. Feb 16 00:16:15 <Kyth> Hahaha
  781. Feb 16 00:16:18 <Quantumboost> Kyth: yeah you can
  782. Feb 16 00:16:18 <Kyte> but right here in the internet
  783. Feb 16 00:16:23 <Quantumboost> we're doing so
  784. Feb 16 00:16:25 <Quantumboost> right now
  785. Feb 16 00:16:31 <Kyte> you're talking english
  786. Feb 16 00:16:34 <Quantumboost> ^
  787. Feb 16 00:16:38 <Kyte> the prom queen of special-cased language
  788. Feb 16 00:16:53 <Kyth> I don't try and actually parse it manually, though.
  789. Feb 16 00:16:58 <Kyte> how do you deal with irregular verbs?
  790. Feb 16 00:17:00 <Kyte> you just learn'em
  791. Feb 16 00:17:05 <Kyte> well you don't parse math manually
  792. Feb 16 00:17:15 <Kyte> doing so is slow, cumbersome, clumsy and actually likely to create mistakes
  793. Feb 16 00:17:22 <Kyte> that's why you're taught math
  794. Feb 16 00:17:23 <Kyth> Such as thinking it's possible at all.
  795. Feb 16 00:17:24 <Kyte> it's read
  796. Feb 16 00:17:30 <Kyte> just like any other language
  797. Feb 16 00:17:34 * Tempera has quit (Ping timeout: 123 seconds)
  798. Feb 16 00:17:44 * Tempera (Tempera@SystemNet-629D0C46.bpb.bigpond.com) has joined
  799. Feb 16 00:18:25 <Kyth> The whole "no parsimony" thing gives the distinct impression that each common function is a distinct syntactic construct. Like, if there was a grammar, there would be separate productions for each one.
  800. Feb 16 00:18:58 <Ford_Dylandy> holy jesus are you guys still talking about this
  801. Feb 16 00:19:00 <Kyte> so?
  802. Feb 16 00:19:03 <Quantumboost> more or less
  803. Feb 16 00:19:05 <Quantumboost> to both
  804. Feb 16 00:19:06 <Kyte> once again
  805. Feb 16 00:19:09 <Kyte> who fucking cares
  806. Feb 16 00:19:27 <Kyte> (and the answer "Kyth" is inadmissible)
  807. Feb 16 00:19:33 <Kyth> And the math I was taught didn't get further than things that *are* largely describable in terms of transformations on an AST.
  808. Feb 16 00:19:50 <Kyte> fine
  809. Feb 16 00:19:54 <Kyte> but it doesn't work afterwards
  810. Feb 16 00:19:58 <Kyte> learn to do things properly
  811. Feb 16 00:20:00 <Kyth> Or pattern matches, in the case of calculus.
  812. Feb 16 00:20:02 <Kyte> less bitching
  813. Feb 16 00:20:15 <Kyte> and seriously are you a robot or what
  814. Feb 16 00:20:20 <Kyth> Sure, just write the notation I like and assume everyone else reads it the way I do.
  815. Feb 16 00:20:24 <Kyte> what's with this seriously weird way of thinking
  816. Feb 16 00:20:37 <Kyte> no
  817. Feb 16 00:20:39 <Kyte> we can assume that
  818. Feb 16 00:20:45 <Kyte> you cannot
  819. Feb 16 00:20:58 <Kyte> there's a very distinct "us vs you" situation here
  820. Feb 16 00:20:59 <Kyth> That's what you do. You assume people understand you and get mad at them for not doing so.
  821. Feb 16 00:21:05 <Kyte> of course we do!
  822. Feb 16 00:21:23 <Kyte> because you're fucking ignorant
  823. Feb 16 00:21:27 <Kyte> uneducated
  824. Feb 16 00:21:27 <Kyth> You take care to encode as little as possible in the part of the message that the transport you are using is capable of conveying, then expect people to reconstruct it.
  825. Feb 16 00:21:31 <Kyte> and if you were willing to learn
  826. Feb 16 00:21:36 <Kyte> we wouldn't have a problem
  827. Feb 16 00:22:17 <Kyte> yes, because nobody has the patience to deal with special snowflakes
  828. Feb 16 00:22:21 <Kyte> you're a goddamn adult
  829. Feb 16 00:22:25 <Kyte> you can learn by yourself
  830. Feb 16 00:22:29 <Pyrion> ...wtf did i walk in on? o.O
  831. Feb 16 00:22:35 <Kyte> or you can actively seek out somebody that actually teaches
  832. Feb 16 00:22:50 <Kyth> As I just said, the standard human method of communication seems to be, take care to encode as little as possible in the part of the message that the transport you are using is capable of conveying, then expect people to reconstruct it.
  833. Feb 16 00:22:56 <Kyte> I can't actually teach you english grammar
  834. Feb 16 00:23:00 <Kyte> my grasp of it is intuitive
  835. Feb 16 00:23:12 * horngeek has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  836. Feb 16 00:23:18 <Kyte> I can't actually convey what you're desperately missing
  837. Feb 16 00:23:35 <Kyte> (replace english grammar with anything else, this is hypothetical speaking, remember)
  838. Feb 16 00:24:04 * Disconnected (Connection reset by peer)
  839. **** ENDING LOGGING AT Tue Feb 16 00:24:04 2016
  840.  
  841. **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Feb 16 00:24:21 2016
  842.  
  843. Feb 16 00:24:21 * Now talking on #svuserfiction
  844. Feb 16 00:24:21 * Topic for #svuserfiction is: Sufficient Velocity User Fiction Channel | This just in: The subforum is (still) seen as a hive of scum and villainy, water is wet.
  845. Feb 16 00:24:21 * Topic for #svuserfiction set by GoldenLark (Mon Feb 15 11:46:49 2016)
  846. Feb 16 00:24:26 <Kyte> no this is a bit deeper than that
  847. Feb 16 00:24:33 <Kyth> There were no lessons in that kind of decoding.
  848. Feb 16 00:24:35 * Quantumboost has quit (NickServ (GHOST command used by everettTraversal))
  849. Feb 16 00:24:35 * You are now known as Quantumboost
  850. Feb 16 00:24:48 <Kyte> god
  851. Feb 16 00:24:50 <Quantumboost> Pyrion: Kyth thinks that the way that standard mathematical notation works is incoherent and silly, which is correct, and that that means he shouldn't bother to learn it, which is only correct if he doesn't want to talk to other people about math ever
  852. Feb 16 00:24:51 <Kyte> I wonder
  853. Feb 16 00:24:57 <Kyte> how would you deal with japanese
  854. Feb 16 00:25:18 <Kyte> did you know japanese often skips pronouns completely?
  855. Feb 16 00:25:28 <Kyth> And have loads of differing forms that mean exactly the same thing except that if you use the wrong one it's rude.
  856. Feb 16 00:25:29 <Kyte> you have to guess the subject entirely from context
  857. Feb 16 00:25:34 <Kyth> Ugh
  858. Feb 16 00:25:38 <Kyte> this actually makes translating kind of hard
  859. Feb 16 00:26:02 <Kyte> man seeing you try to learn jp would be actually p entertaining for a few minutes
  860. Feb 16 00:26:04 <Pyrion> standard mathematical notation is even more incoherent and silly when you're stuck trying to represent it in 7-bit ascii :(
  861. Feb 16 00:26:13 <Quantumboost> this is also true
  862. Feb 16 00:26:35 <Kyte> Pyrion: wow my condolences to you
  863. Feb 16 00:26:40 <Kyte> not even 8-it
  864. Feb 16 00:26:41 <Kyte> *bit
  865. Feb 16 00:27:57 <Kyth> Kyte: I had enough of that with latin. Latin has a different set of stupid: words have suffixes to indicate the part of the sentence instead of using position, so it's acceptable to reorder words for stylistic effect, but the suffixes are actually ambiguous.
  866. Feb 16 00:28:17 <Kyte> I know spanish
  867. Feb 16 00:28:20 <Kyte> :V
  868. Feb 16 00:28:35 <Kyth> It's possible to construct presumably non-pathological sentences in latin where the difference between subject and object is entirely contextual.
  869. Feb 16 00:28:40 * TashaKalina (Tasha@SystemNet-D0081528.pools.vodafone-ip.de) has joined
  870. Feb 16 00:28:53 <Arkalest> yeah it's a p. awesome language
  871. Feb 16 00:29:17 <Quantumboost> really what it all amounts to is
  872. Feb 16 00:29:31 <Quantumboost> you're not going to manage to get everyone to use your conlang of choice
  873. Feb 16 00:29:38 <Arkalest> ^^
  874. Feb 16 00:29:49 <Kyte> I still want to know
  875. Feb 16 00:29:51 <Emy> Everyone will be speaking esperanto any day now
  876. Feb 16 00:29:54 <Kyte> what's up with you
  877. Feb 16 00:29:56 <Kyte> like
  878. Feb 16 00:30:03 <Kyth> Even more fun is when people attempt to interpret channels you *aren't sending*.
  879. Feb 16 00:30:08 <Arkalest> LAnguages grow and evolve as a result of a million different factors- Environmental, social, etc.
  880. Feb 16 00:30:15 <Kyte> are you bad with body language too?
  881. Feb 16 00:30:21 <Kyth> And it's impossible to tell if they're doing that or just projecting their own feelings onto you.
  882. Feb 16 00:30:22 <Kyth> Kyte: Yes.
  883. Feb 16 00:30:24 <Kyte> this is way out of my range of experience
  884. Feb 16 00:30:28 <Kyte> seriously
  885. Feb 16 00:30:30 <Kyte> 100% no joke
  886. Feb 16 00:30:35 <Kyte> realtalk
  887. Feb 16 00:30:37 <Kyte> do you have something?
  888. Feb 16 00:30:42 <Kyte> something a doctor would diagnose?
  889. Feb 16 00:30:46 * Omicron (Mibbit@SystemNet-E5482233.w86-229.abo.wanadoo.fr) has joined
  890. Feb 16 00:30:53 <Kyte> or whoever relevant person is, I guess
  891. Feb 16 00:30:58 <Kyth> (I think my parents do the latter, for instance, but will never, ever, admit it, because they generally do it when they're mad at me)
  892. Feb 16 00:31:13 <Kyte> I am burning with curiosity on what produces this kind of thinking
  893. Feb 16 00:31:19 <Kyte> thought process, rather
  894. Feb 16 00:31:43 <Quantumboost> that sounds pretty solidly like an Autism Spectrum Disorder, but I might be projecting there
  895. Feb 16 00:31:51 <Kyte> I want to say autism
  896. Feb 16 00:31:53 <Pyrion> schizoid personality disorder?
  897. Feb 16 00:32:03 <Kyte> but the vultures sjws of this channel would descend on me
  898. Feb 16 00:32:04 <Quantumboost> and am not a psychologist, just an Aspie
  899. Feb 16 00:32:25 <Kyte> so I've tried very hard to not say it for the past hour and half
  900. Feb 16 00:32:27 <Kyth> Quantumboost: It's a redundant projection. You could just use a regular lamp :P
  901. Feb 16 00:32:29 * Pyrion has both, which basically means missing social cues and not giving a fuck :v
  902. Feb 16 00:33:05 <Quantumboost> not enough dimensions
  903. Feb 16 00:33:13 <Quantumboost> photons only really work in 4-space far as I know
  904. Feb 16 00:33:24 * NevinDroid (androirc@SystemNet-EE8C01C5.mobileonline.telia.com) has joined
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!