You have to go deep underground to find their sites and repos, but it's worth it.
>>1
An intro to CHIP-8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIP-8
Scheme is absolutely based and redpilled
>>3
Yes and MIT Scheme needs some love.
wtf I've talked to this guy, he makes lisp generals over @ lainchan
>>5
Yes that's him! I've also met him on lainchan.
Yeah, great app!
>>1
Alyssa P. Hacker
Hello there. I noticed this website in an HTTP referrer from my HTTP server logs. It's always flattering to be discussed somewhere I was previously unaware of. This website's rather similar to some other websites I've seen, but it doesn't seem to be the same website under a new name.
Unfortunately, I've not worked much on my Meta-Machine Code tool for the past several months, since it reached a state where it was usable back then, although I've given it a little work. I'm learning Ada 2012 and rewriting it in pieces, planning to have that finished by the end of this year, so I still have plenty of time.
Currently, I've taken up writing another Common Lisp library I'd planned a ways back, JSON-SUCKER; the idea is to permit efficient JSON manipulation by manipulating the string itself until proper and likely cheaper serialization is warranted, such as finding an object's key first and only then parsing what it's value is, rather than parsing the entire object and then searching for the key. This has the side-effect that it will be able to process incomplete JSON.
Is there anything you'd care to ask me?
>>1
http://www.loper-os.org/ links to it.
prince trippy has come to the thread
It's unfortunate my last message received no response, but this is a slower place, I understand. I want to correct and point out this is that place I recall.
I no longer believe I'm going to finish the Ada 2012 rewrite of my MMC tool, so I'm going to be forced to do it in Common Lisp once more before the idea has enough structure to be translated into Ada.
I've written a new Common Lisp library, this one being experimental; feel free to tell me what you think:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2019-09-19
Hello verisimilitudes.net author:
I am aware with some of your projects from lurking on the crustacean site. I consider your writing as must-read whenever it shows up there.
I have become less enchanted with that site over time -- maybe you would consider publicizing your work on here in addition to that site?
If you feel like continuing to chat, here's a question:
Do you have opinions on ECL and Clasp (excuse the conflation but I think you see what I am getting at)?
In your opinion do these implementations offer major ease of use advantages over CFFI?
The portablility tradeoff is obvious but I am sure there's a lot more to discuss...
More recently, I've been rewriting the Common Lisp and gaining structure to my idea. Now I feel as if I may be able to continue with the Common Lisp or Ada, so at least I'm making good progress. Just yesterday, I started rewriting a Rule 30 implementation in CHIP-8 and greatly improving it, for the Octo Jam VI, and I forgot some details. I may have an article documenting it available, today.
>>13
Hello. Be made aware that I've been banned from that website, so you likely won't be seeing much of my work there any longer. I'm not upset about this, because I didn't particularly care for that website to start with; I much prefer these venues, where I need no account and whatnot; I'm not anonymous with this message, but that's by choice, as I could easily enter any discussion here anonymously. Here, I can only be judged by those messages that may be connected to me, whereas on that website I was judged by my entire history; I received too many ``downvotes'', apparently making my way to receiving the most out of anyone, and was banned for it. A lack of ``downvotes'' in these anonymous venues is another nicety, as the idea is clearly broken to anyone who cares to mull it over.
In any case, I'm glad you've enjoyed my work. I would consider mentioning my work here more regularly, but I don't want to obnoxiously use this website; it's also important to stress that, with what little I've done, I've arguably taken a more general thread and made it about myself, which could be considered poor form. If you'd care to be made aware of my recent going ons, I recommend you poll my RSS feed and occasionally poll my Finger service.
Do you have opinions on ECL and Clasp (excuse the conflation but I think you see what I am getting at)?
I don't know enough about Clasp to know how its interfacing compares to ECL's FFI:C-INLINE, et al. I prefer to write portable Common Lisp, so I'm only lightly intrigued by such interfacing, anyway.
In your opinion do these implementations offer major ease of use advantages over CFFI?
I don't use the CFFI, so I don't know. I've written little ECL interfacing and I very much dislike how FFI:CLINES only works when compiled, yet doesn't properly behave with EVAL-WHEN at :COMPILE-TOPLEVEL only; to get the behavior I needed, I had to wrap it with an IGNORE-ERRORS, instead, which I found ridiculous.
The portablility tradeoff is obvious but I am sure there's a lot more to discuss...
Programming with Ada has shown me how poor Common Lisp's interfacing functionality is and more of why I've been right to seek to avoid it. Writing a system interface binding is much more arduous, because one is restricted to what each implementation supports, if one wants to avoid CFFI and other such things which add complications. In sum, it's overly complicated and I'll continue to seek to avoid it where I can; sans networking and multiple threads of program execution, there's not much good reason to write such nonstandard Common Lisp, I think, and I'll simply take care to write even those programs in a way that avoids intimately marring them from such considerations. As an example, it's usually simple to see how to write a networking program that communicates over streams and leaves the actual system interfacing that connects it to the network elsewhere, so that the majority is perfectly portable Common Lisp.
Learning Ada has made me a better programmer, I think.
But wouldn't your typical Lisp weenie be deterred by a relative lack
of interactivity when developing with Ada ?
I am not an Ada user (although I guess I could be persuaded -- I like
safety and standards, and I am willing to hit my head on the wall) but
it seems unlikely that a Slime/Cider (or even Python REPL) development
experience woul
be available for Ada.
I realize many people don't care about this but I would bet that many users of this board are attached to REPL-y development setups
As an alternative to Ada, you could try ML or OCaml as a Lisp-descended languages with serious type systems and modules, but with garbage collection, functional style, and less verbose syntax than Ada. Haskell is even further in functional purity and precision types, but it is hacky in some ways, and it doesn't have ML-style modules.
Great site.
>>14 Why were you banned from lameste.rs ?
I’m attached, loaded, synchronised, sliced, diced, shaked, baked, reverberated, etched, tied, dyed and laterally laid back into my REPL even when I’m exfoliating.
>>13
>>14
>>19
Crustacean website ? I have no memory of this website, and the link url >>19 gave seems to be an inside joke.
Could someone provide a link ?
the site in question is lobste.rs -- it's populated by refugees from hacker news
some people who got tired of that site have migrated here in turn it seems
Someone, I don't know if the creator or not, has linked to this website from Hacker News, and so that explains the burst of activity. It had until recently not been uploaded; what a shame.
But wouldn't your typical Lisp weenie be deterred by a relative lack of interactivity when developing with Ada ?
That's required adjustment, yes. One of the reasons I learned Ada is because it's so different from every other language I knew. I figured if I was going to learn a language with strict and static typing, an unchangeable and keyword-based syntax, a lack of metaprogramming, and other things I'm unaccustomed to, that it should be Ada. The focus on reliability and readability are also appealing to me. I follow that advice of not learning a language that doesn't change the way I think of programming.
it seems unlikely that a Slime/Cider (or even Python REPL) development experience would be available for Ada.
Ada lacks an REPL. I compensate by writing small programs and compiling them, for testing and whatnot. For those languages I know best, I don't even need an REPL, as I simply know what the code will do beforehand, but I don't believe I'm there with Ada yet, at least with the standard and predefined libraries. The base of the language is rather simple and pleasant.
>>17
I'm not affiliated with any ``startup''.
As an alternative to Ada, you could try ML or OCaml as a Lisp-descended languages with serious type systems and modules, but with garbage collection, functional style, and less verbose syntax than Ada.
I told an acquaintance I'd learn Idris at some point, but that's still a ways away. If I want to write a functional program with concise syntax, I'll write more APL. I want to stress that I've been told this same thing before, I presume by another, and that ML fails in comparing to Ada for reliability concerns, which is a major reason to use it. I can write an Ada program that doesn't allocate any memory and properly responds to memory exhaustion, whereas it's my understanding this isn't reasonable in ML.
>>19
I was collecting more ``downvotes'' per month than anyone else on the website, apparently I was collecting nearly one hundred a month or whatever and the average is six or so. My Internet points were still increasing, but I was collecting ``downvotes'' and the administrator decided to ban me after a private conversation in which I pointed out how even my well-researched and well-written posts were called ``incorrect'', because someone disagreed with it, and how this reveals the Internet point system as mistaken in theory and implementation. So, simply put, I was banned because I was ``downvoted''. I asked the administrator to point out the particular rules I was violating, but he wouldn't and merely told me to avoid ``downvotes''. I'm accustomed to using actual rules for judging things, as anonymous systems don't permit following a history around, and I understandably find the entire situation pathetic on his part. With that explained, let's not continue to discuss this particular topic, if that's fine with you, as I don't enjoy giving the venue attention.
>>24 Thanks for answering. You have my RSS aggregator, long live the web.
>>22
Thanks, for french speakers, it looks a lot like journalduhacker.net
reliability concerns
this is just larping though, I suspect most activities that you do can be glued together with a bunch of shell scripts, with roughly as much reliability requirements.
I was wondering if this discussion would change between then and now, but I suppose this was never a particularly lively venue. I may as well mention my latest work now. I've written twenty-one articles since then. My second submission to the Octo Jam VI was the smallest submission ever received, being forty octets, and able to be smaller. November was rather a month of rebuttals, due to a lack of inspiration from elsewhere, and I quite liked the idea.
Rather than finishing my MMC reimplementation in Common Lisp, I focused on implementing SHA-1 thrice, and I'm planning to research and work towards two rather comprehensive SHA family implementations with design considerations taken from the earlier. As of writing, I've mostly finished the MMC reimplementation, in any case, and merely need to work on the prime loop and keyboard table before I can begin testing and further improving it.
I particularly enjoyed how Ada allowed me to create a SHA-1 design which was: simple; easy to use; lacking failure cases; based around preventing mistakes; and efficient, in that it performs no dynamic memory allocation. The Ada went on to influence the other two implementations, not only through the naming, but through the Pad procedure, which I'm particularly pleased with. Unfortunately, I've yet to get any opinions on my SHA-1 programs.
I've abandoned plans for JSON-SUCKER, as JSON is sufficiently complicated that my idea no longer seems worthwhile. I intend to learn some lesser or merely smaller languages this year and perhaps implement them in Ada and Common Lisp. I want to begin work on my own implementation of Common Lisp this year, also.
>>27
I suppose that's a valid criticism, but even were it playing pretend, it would still be worthwhile for its educational value. Anyway, I'm fascinated by making reliable programs and Ada makes it reasonably easy. My mentioned SHA-1 uses no dynamically-allocated memory, only local subprogram storage, as an example. With my design, it should also entirely lack failure cases, unlike other designs, and it's so nice to have something which must always work; I must note that my Word_Block type is a subtype of Word_Array, and so it's possible to get a Constraint_Error if the bounds are incorrect, but it's sufficient to point out that this isn't so extreme and even making the types incompatible wouldn't prevent someone determined from causing the error, and so if you simply only use Word_Block you'll simply always be free from this concern.
... is just larping
As I understand it, LARP is specifically done in-the-flesh, but people use the term on anonymous forums to refer to... disingenuosity?
>>26
It's always nice to see non-English speaking programming communities. Programming seems to be dangerously tied to the English language.
Serendipitously came across this page: http://verisimilitudes.net/2019-11-12
The domain name looked familiar :^)
Here's the reimplementation of my Meta-Machine Code targeted at CHIP-8, written in Common Lisp, released on the third anniversary of its announcement:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2020-07-07
There's still work to do, but I'll do so with less stress now. I want to pursue other work, such as writing one of the many Common Lisp libraries I've envisioned, continuing with my Ada programming, etc.; I'd like to start implementing languages this year, but my novel machine text system, Ellision, may steal away much of my time in stead of such.
I don't want to write a long post, so I won't. Feel free to ask any questions concerning this work.
>>1
This guy has always annoyed me. Whatever site you find him he's just self-promoting his articles, while at the same time acting like aristocracy. That's why he got banned from lobste.rs: https://lobste.rs/s/o9ndzz/masturbation_language_2017
>>33
Isn't it the fascist mod from Lainchan's /λ/?
>>34
I didn't know he's a mod, I just through he creates the Lisp thread, as to promote his site.
>>33-35
I do agree that he lacks humility, and this is a major character flaw. In his defense I will say he's only about as fascist as Singapore, and the Lisp thread series predates his website by a good bit (it predates lainchan as well if I remember correctly), and he's willing to talk about anything programming related if you catch him on IRC. Further, I don't think his hubris was the only reason he was banned from Lobste.rs (although it surely didn't help), but more for his disagreement with pretty much every value of the community that uses that site. You just can't hate the web, UNIX, and virtually all other modern computation in a community basically designed for the promotion of these things for another example see the following: https://dev.to/shamar/i-have-been-banned-from-lobsters-ask-me-anything-5041 The reason I say this is because he has four times as many comments as posts, and his stories typically had fairly positive feedback in contrast to his comments: https://lobste.rs/threads/verisimilitude
You just can't hate the web, UNIX, and virtually all other modern computation in a community basically designed for the promotion of these thing
Not a literal Luddite but definitely WWW hate here, http://n-gate.com . The site owner is still part of these communities. If you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all, is good for moles and sleeper agents in closed gardens, lol.
You just can't hate the web, UNIX, and virtually all other modern computation in a community basically designed for the promotion of these things
You actually can, you just shouldn't end your message with "and if you disagree with me, the supreme genius, you are an imbecile moron". You've got to be a troll or really obnoxious to get banned from lobste.rs, and the verisimilitudes guy is certainly in the latter category.
>>37
Sure, but I think you understood what I meant.
>>38
I don't think that's the case, his hubris seems to be limited to being very adamant about his opinions rather than explicit egomania (although that doesn't exclude the presence of egomania in a more subtle form). Also Shamar was pretty polite in my opinion, and he was still removed: https://lobste.rs/threads/Shamar
I run n-gate. I've never had a lobste.rs account. It seems to be a web forum devoted to discussing lobste.rs users. Nothing worth reading.
Incidentally, is it just me or is lobste.rs slowly turning into another Hacker News?
Most stories are 90% the same as those of Hacker News, and the discussion quality in most of them are not that much better.
>>41
To a certain degree, it' inevitable. The invite-system only prevents spam-ish behaviour until a certain point. But at least it's not a libertarian/startup stronghold.
>>39
Also Shamar was pretty polite in my opinion, and he was still removed
I think that was a mistake too, but he was wierd. Imagine someone having to ephasise, parts of his sentence, making the impression that you're shouting a message like a doomsday prophet.
>>40
I'm failing to believe you but Poe's law and keep the good work up. I do think lobste.rs is a circle jerk though, the anon who could invite me is a big hugbox goer.
>>40
When will we see a Jerkcity crossover?
>>43
*hugs you*
>>45
This post triggers me, *inaudible confused snake noises*.
*inaudible confused snake noises*
But why a snake?
I'm a tad disappointed at the lack of any questions. I wasn't aware anyone was aware of the Lisp General threads and didn't know I'd only recently started linking to my website instead, so that I could more easily update the resources, but suppose it's not so surprising; it predates Lainchan, yes, by a few months. I've recently finished an implementation of SHA256 in Ada, in preparation for a comprehensive SHA, as with APL and Common Lisp. I also intend to release another little CHIP-8 game to elaborate during the Octo Jam VII, in a few days. I'm in communications with the hoster, so I may finish some games ahead of time, and still get them featured anyway, in a post-session. CHIP-8 is a reasonably nice little machine code, and I've ideas for some interesting games, and how to achieve them well, but I won't drone on further for now.
>>47
Anthropomorphic ssssssnakes are known for having an permanent lissssssp in their asssssssscent.
You just can't hate the web, UNIX, and virtually all other modern computation in a community basically designed for the promotion of these things
Ultimately, you're right, but have you taken a look at HN/Lobsters recently? Every second article is about how the industry is morally bankrupt or built on complex pillars of sand. I'll admit, I used to enjoy reading those doomsday prophets too, but now it just strikes me as dishonest. It's kind of smug self-depreciation, as if the world could be saved if only the high priests of HN could save it. The really biting alternative blogs like LoperOS et al are hardly seen.
Also agree about Versimilitudes/Lisp/Prince Trippy. My impression talking to him on IRC is that he can be overly serious and unyielding in his convictions, but always presents his comments in good faith.
>>49
I've been keeping track of your blog, have fun with your octojam submission!
Every second article is about how the industry is morally bankrupt or built on complex pillars of sand.
I think most of this is just people wishing we could return to the late-1990s and early-2000s before the dot-com bust when things were simpler and products served their users rather than the other way around. It's not a rejection of the internet and UNIX but of change, and further they seem to rarely offer anything actionable, and even less often which goes beyond just a shallow changing of consumer preferences.
>>51
Wait I'm adding stomp integration.
>>49
That's pretty funny
>>50
If you're going to go against modern computing, you should at least have something interesting to say instead of just shallow and derogatory shit like "Rust is the effeminate man's Ada". It's no wonder he wasn't liked on HN, because he would just bloviate about his favourite hipster languages with no actual substance.
>>54
Hate to doublepost, but I should also add that this is why people should generally stay anonymous. Once I found out who he is I couldn't stop seeing him as a clown even in places like the Lisp General.
Rust is the effeminate man's Ada
I know I should feel guilty but I laughed out loud.
>>55
Interesting, I actually started thinking the opposite after reading his blog. He's definitely an interesting character.
>>57
I spoke to him once and he was very friendly. He's opiniated, sure. He's a Lisp hacker.
The absolute state of Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24286065
[MixedName – Bilingual baby name finder] 591 points
Zero effort code, 255 comments, every one a variation on "let me tell you about the time I also racemixed/took the intersection of 2 sets".
>>59
You know this and still visit the site anyway?
>>59
You need to go back.
>>60-61
Once in a blue moon someone posts a interesting article or write-up (for me to bookmark and then never read).
It's okay as a link aggregator, I know never to look at the comments but sometimes curiosity gets the best of me and I can't wait for n-gate.
(not him btw)
My procrastination meant I finished but two games for the seventh Octo Jam, the same amount I finished last year, but these were more complex and more fun than last year's, so at least I managed those. Documenting these are amongst my current latest articles. I also wrote an article reflecting on this Octo Jam and what I did, including how I came across a rare flaw when using mine MMC, which has made me realize that an alternative internal representation I've before considered is the only reasonable option.
Whilst rewriting the CHIP-8 targeting again would be best, I'm too tired for that, and instead will simply hunt down the flaw and correct it. My future targetings will use this new, higher-level internal representation, and be better for it. Before I move to a real machine code, I'm considering either the LMC or MIX as the next targeting, as these have qualities which make them particularly nice for such experimentation, and I've also given a great deal of thought to the interface I want to present for an accumulator machine, which will be fun.
I'll pursue this in tandem with adding more commands to the CHIP-8 targeting. The large amount of pure machine code available for CHIP-8 that I've documented left me wanting for an easy means to associate names without the possibility of making a mistake, and I've envisioned a command enabling this:
The command will accept a name, and scan the program space for instructions supporting such an association and having an equivalent value; so, I'd be able to name an address with a label and then tell it to search out associations, and it would only seek out the XYYY instructions, 0XXX, 1XXX, 2XXX, AXXX, and BXXX.
This is a command I'd wanted in the old implementation, but was going to be too difficult to add. I expect to use a newer reimplementation of the MMC targeted at CHIP-8 in the next Octo Jam. To anyone who cares to watch it, the after-jam Octo Jam stream can be viewed here; it's shorter than those preceding it:
https://invidious.snopyta.org/XIN3hi85IoE
If you're going to go against modern computing, you should at least have something interesting to say instead of just shallow and derogatory shit
I don't think I'm boring. I strive to consider and reach novel solutions to problems, rather than merely doing the same as others are content to. Rather than claim we should respect all language encodings, or that we should just make everything UTF-8 Unicode because awful systems can't cope with more than one system encoding, I recognize both options are horrible, and that storing text as character streams is stupid; this is what mine Elision system will be.
Rust is the effeminate man's Ada
That's based on simple observation, and I stand by it. It may be found amusing I was even impotently threatened by someone for this joke over IRC, a long ways back.
It sickens me when people genuinely believe Rust is somehow the first programming language to make safety a goal, when it doesn't even do that. Articles from groups which should, and do, know better imply this, and they do this maliciously. It's similar to how articles will mention ``open source'', and always avoid mentioning Free Software, because just the thought someone may grow curious and look is dangerous to the agenda. My one hundredth article, 2020-09-24, is about this lack of knowledge regarding computing history, with people believing whatever lies fools will tell them, and it's very disconcerting.
It's no wonder he wasn't liked on HN, because he would just bloviate about his favourite hipster languages with no actual substance.
I've learned that Hacker News and Lobsters aren't venues for substantive conversations. They don't last long, names encourage people mentioning irrelevant posting history, and, worst of all, most conversations in these link aggregators involve what others are doing elsewhere. A forum such as this supports long conversations, without names, and about people actually doing things, which is in heavy contrast.
It's akin to the differences between creators and mere fanatics.
Hate to doublepost, but I should also add that this is why people should generally stay anonymous.
I'm often anonymous, but it was rather inevitable I was going to grow that identity I'd fostered into something more. It's a shame that I could've tarnished the Lisp General at all, but expanding this identity beyond Lisp has generally lead to better things.
>>57
I see this manner of reaction as that more common towards what I've done with the identity, and I'll also add that it's nice to read someone enjoys reading my work.
I've learned that Hacker News and Lobsters aren't venues for substantive conversations.
I'm going to have to be skeptical of your criticisms when you've been banned from both platforms.
That after-jam Octo Jam stream isn't actually shorter, there was merely an issue on mine end in downloading it the first time.
>>64
I wasn't banned from Hacker News, I merely don't use it anymore. The OpenBSD Ada binding I wrote made it to the front page, but I'm inclined to believe the title hit hipster bingo more than anything else; there's no dearth of interesting topics which get many upvotes and little conversation there. I'd rather not discuss either of those venues much more, but, as for that other, is it so surprising? I wasn't the most obnoxious there, with my self-promotion, merely the most honest about it; I don't want to drag irrelevant others into the conversation, but anyone who uses that website should be able to think of at least one other person who's much worse with how he does it. In any case, it's not the people, per se, but the very structure of those forums which I find so rotten.
Now, need we discuss either poor venue further; I'd much rather discuss something more interesting.
I'm inclined to believe the title hit hipster bingo
Why does this sound more fun then it really is.
Can't wait for glorious software ecosystems lisp hackers will create with x100 the productivity of blub.
>>65
What variadic tuple-based functional programming frameworks for Ada you recommend?
>>68
The way this has been phrased makes it seem as if it be not a real question. I don't recommend using frameworks and such things. I write the libraries I need. Ada subprograms can't accept a variable number of arguments, but can accept arguments of varying sizes. A tuple here could be an array, record, or private type, based on what's needed. Enumeration and array types are particularly nice in Ada, and better usage of enumeration types have bled into mine other programming because of it. I suggest looking at mine OpenBSD Ada binding for something which may be relevant to this:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2019-07-27
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12019-07-27
My procrastination meant I finished but two games for the seventh Octo Jam, the same amount I finished last year, but these were more complex and more fun than last year's, so at least I managed those.
Your games seem pretty fun this year, (certainly a more fun than last year) too bad the commentator mistook Advanced Asphyxiation for a graphical demo.
Happened already, on threads about Rands.
I'm wondering if there might be some sort of contradiction between intelligent end-points and server side computation. That is to say would a focus on intelligent end-points discourage the use of server side resources to pre-compute information relevant to the clients in a manner that saves overall resources. Taken to the radical extreme aspiring to the virtue of intelligent end-points might push one to relatively inefficient distributed systems.
I also wonder if some insight might be gained by seeking to generalize the proposition beyond computing systems, and shifting focus from the objects to the relations. For example perhaps communications in a business should maximize information density by crafting communications protocols which reduce book keeping cost.
Perhaps analogies from this domain could then be transferred back to the original domain, for example what can be concluded about the reduced book keeping cost of universal in contrast to means-tested benefits. Perhaps that our compound data types should be standardized, and that protocols should be established on this basis.
>>72 disregard that post please
>>73
Read it long ago.
This is merely a notice I've released the Little Man Computer targeting:
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12020-12-26
http://verisimilitudes.net/2020-12-26
I wrote a doubly-linked list library, D, for use in this program, and now it lives on its own, and will be updated at my leisure and all of that. This has been a successful enough test of the new and higher-level internal representation of mine MMC model, although I still need to add some commands; one command which would've been particularly arduous to add to my satisfaction, moving a block of code to a new address, becomes trivial under this.
The newest CHIP-8 targeting uses parallel arrays to maintain internal order. This LMC targeting uses a doubly-linked list holding tagged data instead. Labels are no longer names with a true boolean, but point directly into the list structure, and this is resolved as needed, which means it's much harder to accidentally write a bug which leaves such names in an improper state; while this means there could potentially be performance issues, this won't actually happen in practice, and could be trivially cached when redrawing the entire display, where this the case.
I've been giving great thought to how a recollection system would be written, and there are many nice tricks I could do to make this very easy, such as making name deletion which stores the information O(1) time and space complexity, because it wouldn't actually remove the name, simply requiring dead names to be treated specially by the rest of the machinery instead, but I'm still far from this.
Rather than maintain an array storing the program, it's stored as instruction objects, names, and integers; it's only pressed to its numerical representation when saving. This should make other commands, such as automatic name association, much easier to write. I'm still working and experimenting, but I like it better than the last model, and it seems fine, so far.
Alyssa P. Hacker
Rather than maintain an array storing the program, it's stored as instruction objects, names, and integers; it's only pressed to its numerical representation when saving.
The new D library and this seem pretty /cozy/ to me, low stress without compromising on principles. The latter makes me wonder if you've considered persistent recollection at all (e.g. saving deltas to disk)?
Unfortunately, there's little draw in but a shell of an interface that must be filled in before use.
I've been trying to think some about your recollection system. It seems to me the system could be a little more than a shell with regards to efficiently implementing CHANGE and RECALL on objects with assessors. CHANGE could have SETF style semantics and interface. You could then have a NEW-MEMORY procedure which takes an optional INVERSE procedure, it establishes a new group of entries in the history to be undone at once, which would be filled with calls to CHANGE between it and the next call of NEW-MEMORY or RECALL. Groups would then be either a record of variables to old values CHANGE'd or an inverse function. The RECALL system then mutates the variables to the old values or calls the inverse function and then pops off the last element of the history. The inverse function could be of course replaced by an encoding in the history for a more efficient representation.
You would still need to implement a history representation with assessors used by the rest of the program if you want something different than the default (e.g. undo in region), and the inverse functions to RECALL for more complex operations, but the base case would be covered and you would have the capabilities to cover the remaining cases on an as needed basis, I think. This should allow without any new declarations the recollection of the name deletion scheme as described.
There is still opportunity to optimize further, by combining words which are partial contiguous subsets from either end, and each combining can be weighed against every other to determine the optimal configuration. This will be done later.
In Elision does this indicate a willingness to reify roots and cases (even Chinese characters have radicals)? You lose some of the efficiency of a compression scheme without the constraint of semantic significance, but you gain easier semantic analysis and addition of new words derived from roots and cases but not yet in the dictionary.
>>77
Excuse that this reply isn't better. I've been tired lately.
The latter makes me wonder if you've considered persistent recollection at all (e.g. saving deltas to disk)?
No. That belongs in the operating system. On this note, a recollection system is equivalent to these version control systems, but of course better in every way. There's no particular reason why it should only be possible to recall earlier changes from one session, rather than all sessions, and having such a system in place makes it obvious the VCS is unnecessary. That is, these should be the same things, in the same sense IRC and email should be, because the only distinctions are the queer disjoint features and intent.
It seems to me the system could be a little more than a shell with regards to efficiently implementing CHANGE and RECALL on objects with assessors. CHANGE could have SETF style semantics and interface.
The issue is how I can't transparently intercept everything, so it's more explicit than I'd want. Ultimately, I should just implement an MMC recollection system at some point, and then reflect on it to continue.
You could then have a NEW-MEMORY procedure which takes an optional INVERSE procedure, it establishes a new group of entries in the history to be undone at once, which would be filled with calls to CHANGE between it and the next call of NEW-MEMORY or RECALL.
That NEW-MEMORY name is unworkable. I chose CHANGE and RECALL so they'd be equal lengths.
Groups would then be either a record of variables to old values CHANGE'd or an inverse function. The RECALL system then mutates the variables to the old values or calls the inverse function and then pops off the last element of the history. The inverse function could be of course replaced by an encoding in the history for a more efficient representation.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear the history should be traversable both ways.
In Elision does this indicate a willingness to reify roots and cases (even Chinese characters have radicals)?
Yes. I'd like to store infinitives and have declining rules and a list of exceptions, for languages such as Latin and Esperanto; this would result in text being stored as a list of such infinitives and other bases, with the particular rule to apply attached with the particular usage. For English, this may be less reasonable, and at least the initial version of that targeting will simply have a code for every possible word; English may benefit more from separate tables which hold such information, with which to perform analysis.
I learned Latin to improve mine English, and it slowly but certainly showed me how deformed and sickly it has become.
You lose some of the efficiency of a compression scheme without the constraint of semantic significance, but you gain easier semantic analysis and addition of new words derived from roots and cases but not yet in the dictionary.
It's not necessarily less efficient, if the quantities align correctly.
That NEW-MEMORY name is unworkable. I chose CHANGE and RECALL so they'd be equal lengths.
Perhaps RETAIN then, it seems far more consistent with your other names, and the semantics are still correct. This does not matter as it is too explicit for your liking, and if I understand correctly you would like CHANGE to be like this RETAIN except operating transparently on visible mutations in its scope rather than with the explicit addition of a journaling mutator. I suppose the objects with visible state could have the journaling mutator be set as their writer. This would make recollection transparent to the caller, and would allow for your scope based interface. Was this more along the lines of what you were thinking?
Perhaps I didn't make it clear the history should be traversable both ways.
This was clear to me but I still proposed a scheme which did not take this into account. Even if RECALL was implemented in terms of CHANGE my proposal does not have a clear buffering mechanism for the calls to CHANGE occurring during repeated calls to RECALL. The interface seems like it would become more complicated here as well since there are multiple ways to handle recollection at this point (e.g. tree undo, and Emacs undo). I think I now understand a bit better your claims to the necessity of a shell of a system.
English may benefit more from separate tables which hold such information, with which to perform analysis. [...] It's not necessarily less efficient, if the quantities align correctly.
I was thinking this as well actually. I'm glad I seem to be understanding Elision even if I lack the linguistic depth to fully understand how best to implement it.
I learned Latin to improve mine English, and it slowly but certainly showed me how deformed and sickly it has become.
I suspect it's largely a myth that only young people can learn languages well; regardless, I feel the need to learn a language before my myelination is complete. English being a creole of Old English and a koine of creoles, and being the global lingua franca encouraging further creolization leads me to believe it can not be trusted. I think there may have been some benefits to this process, namely the imprecision of the language might have encouraged simplification of ideas as in analytic philosophy (also pragmatism and simple engineering (think American vehicles)), but this does not mean one should want to speak a language which discourages precision! At the minimum I must learn English grammar as my country seems to think it fit to deny human beings the birth right of language similar to that story of the Indian king who trapped infants in a cage to prevent exposure to language under the deluded notion that such an act would lead to the development of the gods' language rather than the apes he would come to find.
Excuse that this reply isn't better. I've been tired lately.
Don't feel overly obligated to reply. Progress has assured me that I am a fool.
On this note, a recollection system is equivalent to these version control systems, but of course better in every way. There's no particular reason why it should only be possible to recall earlier changes from one session, rather than all sessions, and having such a system in place makes it obvious the VCS is unnecessary. That is, these should be the same things, in the same sense IRC and email should be, because the only distinctions are the queer disjoint features and intent.
I really like this idea by the way (I think it's a rather old one), just forgot to reply.
>>79
Not to derail things too much, but my understanding is that kids are far better at learning languages through socialization, while concerted and intentional language-learning behaves similarly to learning in general, where age's main role is through its interaction with neuroplasticity (which is subject to individual variation and is thought to be a function of myelination). Everything I've seen suggests that people can usually become proficient in languages after childhood, but will have difficulty with accents.
Regardless, I think you've got the right idea in trying to learn what you can while you can.
t. some random passerby
The SBBS Emacs client no longer works for me; I believe Tor posting has been blocked for some reason, and it has other flaws. I don't have much yet to show since my last message, but posting about it should be welcome, considering the recent discussions on this forum:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2021-04-24
This does not matter as it is too explicit for your liking, and if I understand correctly you would like CHANGE to be like this RETAIN except operating transparently on visible mutations in its scope rather than with the explicit addition of a journaling mutator.
That seems correct, yes.
Was this more along the lines of what you were thinking?
I've stopped thinking about it like this lately, as Common Lisp is unsuited to it. It doesn't matter how it works, only that it works transparently and perfectly. A general approach likely requires a global event log.
I think I now understand a bit better your claims to the necessity of a shell of a system.
Yes; the program should be cracked open, so that other programs may easily provide such things.
I was thinking this as well actually. I'm glad I seem to be understanding Elision even if I lack the linguistic depth to fully understand how best to implement it.
I've recently entirely rewritten this article, by the by:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2018-06-06
English being a creole of Old English and a koine of creoles, and being the global lingua franca encouraging further creolization leads me to believe it can not be trusted.
One nice quality of this is, from what I know, that English provides extreme word choice due to it, which can make learning another language feel so restrictive.
At the minimum I must learn English grammar as my country seems to think it fit to deny human beings the birth right of language similar to that story of the Indian king who trapped infants in a cage to prevent exposure to language under the deluded notion that such an act would lead to the development of the gods' language rather than the apes he would come to find.
I'm curious as to which country that is, but don't feel inclined to tell me. I've been robbed of time by my schooling, but one thing I did learn from it's that I must take mine education under my power in order to learn, and I've been learning continuously since then. I've had few teachers who were better than a book.
Don't feel overly obligated to reply.
As can be told by the delay, I didn't.
Progress has assured me that I am a fool.
I don't feel I've made much progress yet, but several months still remain in this year. I've recently changed how I schedule in an attempt to better use my time. I expect to make some decent progress by it.
The SBBS Emacs client no longer works for me; I believe Tor posting has been blocked for some reason, and it has other flaws.
Care to share? I'd gladly try to fix the issues.
>>83
I get an HTTP error when trying to use it over Tor, whereas I previously didn't. It sometimes fails to parse the posts, as well, and I've already made the following change to sbbs--insert-sxml-par after debugging when I began using it:
;(sbbs--insert-link text link)
(insert text)I get an HTTP error when trying to use it over TOR
I don't think it has anything to do with sbbs.el. It does work through I2P.
>>84
This issue should have been fixed in the last few commits.
AFAIU the issue was that the SXML markup was not parsed recursively, i.e. it always assumed that markup looks like (b "text"), and never (b "some " (i "other") " text").
>>82
I've been attempting to reduce my internet usage lately, somewhat successfully.
One nice quality of this is, from what I know, that English provides extreme word choice due to it, which can make learning another language feel so restrictive.
You are correct about word choice in English of course. I don't believe there is any language with more words. This is doubtlessly useful in your attempts to align final stops among other things or others' attempts to write poetry (although the English have always been known more for essays than poetry).
I've recently entirely rewritten this article, by the by: http://verisimilitudes.net/2018-06-06
I read this when first re-released, and I have read it again now. I see the elegance in the constant word size in unifying handling of the two cases, restricting word creation to prevent degeneration, and allowing constant access to the words relative to the next highest semantic unit. For some reason even still I'm not entirely enthralled by the idea, perhaps due to confusion over the best way to transfer and combine auxiliary dictionaries, and the extent to which this is done (or worse, would be done despite your intentions) for example by a single author. I personally don't often make new words, being content to twist definitions, but I do know of some that do.
I'm curious as to which country that is, but don't feel inclined to tell me. I've been robbed of time by my schooling, but one thing I did learn from it's that I must take mine education under my power in order to learn, and I've been learning continuously since then. I've had few teachers who were better than a book.
I live in America, in a border state (in the civil war sense), but this place is not what it once was. By the time I went to school phonics had already been replaced with whole language learning, arithmetic with number sense, and grammar intensive study with immersion and language video games. I'm now enrolled as a math major at a state university and it's clear the rot has continued to infest even these highest institutions. Textbooks don't give proof as this is too complex for the products of American education. Problems will be assigned, but worry not, the professor will strip away any insight necessary in office hours. Every course starts from ground zero because what use is abstract algebra in number theory, or probability theory in mathematical finance (I've probably had ten introductions to induction)? Why not split what used to be a first semester abstract algebra or real analysis course into two semesters, etc. etc. (sorry about talking so much off topic, as you can tell I'm rather bitter about the whole thing, likely due to not yet having overcome it)
At this point my only hope in not dying a fool is to find some way to take my time back, and to try my best to use what I've been left with better, as you say. I've always preferred books as well, I need to focus more on finishing them rather than jumping to the next one in my pile.
>>87
For any other readers (as verisimilitudes doesn't use PDF's if I recall correctly) this has a good summery of what has happens to mathematical education since 1989: https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Gelfand.pdf (and it's not as if it was getting better before 1989)
While this concerns high-school level mathematics, its effects are equal on lower-division undergraduate math classes of universities, and to a lesser extent on upper-division undergraduate courses.
>>82
It has become increasingly difficult to simply post here, and I see why:
http://textboard.org/prog/273/6
I've been attempting to reduce my internet usage lately, somewhat successfully.
As have I, although without much reason.
You are correct about word choice in English of course.
I've been delighted to learn that Latin also exposes a great deal of choice. I can choose between active and passive voice, of course, but I can also choose between, say, "apud accusative" and "cum ablative" for a preposition indicating others, and the declensions and prepositions provide so many different ways to mean the same thing. Here are four ways to write "pearl necklace"; my book hasn't mentioned the last, but I believe it's correct:
līnea margarītārum (line of pearls)
līnea cum margarītīs (line with pearls)
margarītae in līneā (pearls in line)
līnea apud margarītās (line among pearls)
The first word of each of these would of course be declined based on usage; these are nominative. Continuing with Latin has continued improving mine English. I now believe I know the etymology of absent, being derived from absunt, being the opposite of adsunt, meaning hīc sunt, meaning multiple entities being present. The word exit is Latin. We get voluntary from volunt, being the plural of vult. I'm building new associations, rather than learning an entirely new language. Latin is fun.
restricting word creation to prevent degeneration
Word creation is explicitly allowed, if only due to the reality of an incomplete dictionary, merely managed.
For some reason even still I'm not entirely enthralled by the idea, perhaps due to confusion over the best way to transfer and combine auxiliary dictionaries, and the extent to which this is done (or worse, would be done despite your intentions) for example by a single author.
They would be tied to the works using them; ideally, sharing them wouldn't be worthwhile.
I live in America, in a border state (in the civil war sense), but this place is not what it once was.
We're more alike than first thought. My mathematics education has also been pathetic, and I lazily work to correct this. I mostly only know of discrete math. I was similarly disappointed with university. My Latin courses didn't teach as well as the book series I'm reading, LINGVA LATINA PER SE ILLVSTRATA, and I'm inclined to believe a classroom with limited time is a poor way to learn a language; I take my time now, to real results and useful understanding.
At this point my only hope in not dying a fool is to find some way to take my time back, and to try my best to use what I've been left with better, as you say.
I waste most of my time, and merely avoid wasting all of it.
English may be one of the worst languages for something higher-level, as I've considered with Latin. There was something else about Elision to mention, but I don't currently recall.
>>88
verisi should consider pdf2ps unless he worries about metadata or ghostscript
ps2ascii is also useful given there's real text inside the pdf but wont format inside a terminal correctly without the ps or pdf
As have I, although without much reason.
I've regressed on this matter, partially due to an illness compromising my will. Also I have reason as I'm very much so a master of none, which the internet permits if it doesn't encourage.
I've been delighted to learn that Latin also exposes a great deal of choice. I can choose between active and passive voice, of course, but I can also choose between, say, "apud accusative" and "cum ablative" for a preposition indicating others, and the declensions and prepositions provide so many different ways to mean the same thing. [...] Continuing with Latin has continued improving mine English. I now believe I know the etymology of absent, being derived from absunt, being the opposite of adsunt, meaning h\u012bc sunt, meaning multiple entities being present. The word exit is Latin. We get voluntary from volunt, being the plural of vult. I'm building new associations, rather than learning an entirely new language. Latin is fun.
I find it interesting that the expressive power of Latin is contained in the grammar specifically. I recall reading that Latin speakers, and Romans in particular were far from eager to coin neologisms (unlike say the Greeks and the English), and this was part of what made Cicero so remarkable. Anyway it's not everyday you hear of a happy verisimilitude, and I am extremely interested in following your footsteps here. I very much so agree with the statement that ``to know something fully is to know its history.'' I'll try to begin my journey in this direction soon (see the last paragraph).
Word creation is explicitly allowed, if only due to the reality of an incomplete dictionary, merely managed. They would be tied to the works using them; ideally, sharing them wouldn't be worthwhile.
I was imagining an instant messenger with auxiliary dictionaries for ebonics etc. to improve efficiency, and some sort of convoluted merging mechanism to resolve addressing into multiple auxiliary dictionaries leading to their proliferation. (i.e. a manner to abuse the system against its spirit) If the demented wanted to do this I suppose they would need to distribute a new main dictionary, which is elegant. This is also the best you can do I think since they could always use a different encoding if the programmers thought themselves over-constrained.
My Latin courses didn't teach as well as the book series I'm reading, LINGVA LATINA PER SE ILLVSTRATA, and I'm inclined to believe a classroom with limited time is a poor way to learn a language; I take my time now, to real results and useful understanding.
I have some familiarity with Latin classes, and even the mentioned book. My classes were immersion based with little engagement with grammar and no explicit memorization of paradigms. It was also very irregular with even the Lingva Latina not being assigned but only photo-copied and read from on occasion. This was ill suited to the way my brain works. Still I should have taken what I needed instead of waiting for someone to give it to me, and I'm largely to blame for my lack of Latin today.
Despite having largely recovered I'm taking off next semester due to my illness. I'm going to dedicate this time entirely to the review of mathematics, and study of philology (I also have some chores like taking the GRE etc.); although, I haven't yet decided between the German and Latin traditions. I'm leaning towards the former truthfully, simply because this is the approach Henry Sweet takes, and there are certain authors i would like to read in Modern German. However Germanic languages old and new seem strictly less expressive than Latin, and likely have fewer of the etymological powers which you mention. I'll need to give it more consideration. I have resources prepared on these subjects, and my semester ends this week. So I should begin Monday without issue.
I waste most of my time, and merely avoid wasting all of it.
Poinclaré would have you believe this is optimal, and he might be right.
>>91
Just to be clear much of the error in my thinking of Elision was then conflating the auxiliary and main dictionaries.
>>86
It wasn't.
>>88
I do use PDF files, and also link to some. I use Emacs or Evince, generally; it's not a worry of mine.
The most important lesson is learning how to think, which no school I'm aware of truly teaches. I prefer to think my mathematical ignorance isn't a damning issue, and at least I can always learn more; I'd conveniently prefer to think the baser ideas are more important.
>>89
I recalled what I'd forgotten, but it flows nicely with my response, so I won't mark it.
I recall reading that Latin speakers, and Romans in particular were far from eager to coin neologisms (unlike say the Greeks and the English), and this was part of what made Cicero so remarkable.
I wasn't familiar with that, but am glad to know.
Anyway it's not everyday you hear of a happy verisimilitude
This clause amused me.
I am extremely interested in following your footsteps here.
I'm extremely interested knowing I've had this effect on another. Have we only ever conversed here?
I was imagining an instant messenger with auxiliary dictionaries for ebonics etc. to improve efficiency, and some sort of convoluted merging mechanism to resolve addressing into multiple auxiliary dictionaries leading to their proliferation.
One way to do this is to reserve some of the auxiliary dictionary encoding space, and append the particular auxiliary dictionary to it on each end.
If the demented wanted to do this I suppose they would need to distribute a new main dictionary, which is elegant.
This is the better way, really, yes. It's a fundamental waste of time for ebonics, however.
Still I should have taken what I needed instead of waiting for someone to give it to me, and I'm largely to blame for my lack of Latin today.
I waited several years before recently resuming my Latin studies; only fragments from before remain, but I've still learned so much more than I'd then. It's easy to be swept up in how to express complex thoughts, yet most of the English I speak and write still uses ultimately basic structures, once I was determined to recognize it.
Despite having largely recovered I'm taking off next semester due to my illness.
Don't die.
I'll need to give it more consideration. I have resources prepared on these subjects, and my semester ends this week. So I should begin Monday without issue.
I'm not much read on philosophy. I similarly anticipate reading the classical Latin texts.
I like the idea of avoiding multiple representations for visually-identical texts, and have so many related ideas. I'd've liked to have no spacing a slot in the inter-word punctuation code, but it causes this issue; an alternation is marking such things, but my design should avoid the ability to express them as long as feasible, for this is easy to add and hard to remove. It also interferes with word counting. I expect better things here with Latin, which I recall from my schooling had no inter-word punctuation, and which users thereof would have a higher tolerance to any slight oddities of my system when looked upon in some ways, such as exit being two words.
What basic language modelling I've done has taught things I never learned from a school. I even realize new things about, say, hyphens, as I go to sleep some nights. It's a shame English tends to hyphenate or space, and then to concatenate; at the least, this means my simple dictionary compression algorithm which simply removes character storage for words subsumed by others may work well enough to avoid improving.
>>92
Perhaps I explained it poorly. Anyway, I've already thought of how to have the system able to recognize words not in the primary dictionary, primarily with regard to a language such as Latin in which adding words would be more work, without polluting each auxiliary dictionary. Any word suggestion system should simply have its own storage for such words.
>>93
I decided to delay my reply so that I would have some progress to report. Unfortunately my reading has been going far slower that I would like. I've read around fifty pages of Henry Sweet's ``A New English Grammar'', and done no mathematics. This grammar eventually teaches how English grammatical forms changed between Old, Middle, and Modern English, but so far it has only concerned the basics (even still the majority of which I'm learning for the first time). I'll try to reflect on why my studies are going slowly tomorrow to see if I can make a correction (going to sleep so late tonight is unlikely to help).
The most important lesson is learning how to think, which no school I'm aware of truly teaches. I prefer to think my mathematical ignorance isn't a damning issue, and at least I can always learn more; I'd conveniently prefer to think the baser ideas are more important.
Foundations are always more important than the things which build on them. Despite this I do think proof is mandatory to understand mathematics, and that the rigours of the format may be part of learning to think. Further, depending on the field if you value proof complex math can quickly become relevant; for example, the foundations of mathematical physics includes topics more advanced than those typically taught to mathematics undergraduates. All that being said I'm slightly biased.
Have we only ever conversed here?
No, I used to frequent your IRC channel, and we've spoken a few times on the associated forum. Even when I was in your IRC channel, if I recall correctly, I read your writing far more often than I spoke to you.
Don't die.
A few months ago I was frightened by my illness for a short time, but I've been consistently improving over the last month. At this point I'm effectively where I was before with the exception of the bad habits I gained in the interim.
I'd've liked to have no spacing slot in the inter-word punctuation code, but it causes this issue; an alternation is marking such things, but my design should avoid the ability to express them as long as feasible, for this is easy to add and hard to remove. It also interferes with word counting. I expect better things here with Latin, which I recall from my schooling had no inter-word punctuation, and which users thereof would have a higher tolerance to any slight oddities of my system when looked upon in some ways, such as exit being two words.
I hadn't thought that breaking up complex words into morphemes would necessitate encoding word spacing. That is unfortunate. I don't know any Latin at this point, as mentioned earlier, in English however I know that splitting compounds doesn't always preserve meaning. Blackbird is not the same as black bird for example. Perhaps this is less relevant in Latin, or not even what you're proposing would be at issue.
I've already thought of how to have the system able to recognize words not in the primary dictionary, primarily with regard to a language such as Latin in which adding words would be more work, without polluting each auxiliary dictionary. Any word suggestion system should simply have its own storage for such words.
That seems to be a fine solution for this problem.
⠀
I got a new, typical keyboard today, with buckling springs. I've not been typing much lately. I'll see how I like it. I'll write of the experience soon, but typing seems to be a fundamentally unpleasant activity.
This is the only relevant work I've finished lately; it does serve to better display a toki pona Elision than the Common Lisp ever could: http://verisimilitudes.net/2021-09-21
I no longer see only words from Latin, there are now too many to be worth listing, but entire patterns of phrases that have carried over through translation:
Tempora annī sunt quattuor. (Times of year are four. / There are four times of the year.)
Ante tempora Caesaris ... (Before Caesar's times ... / Before the times of Caesar ...)
Antīquīs temporibus Mārtius nōn tertius, sed prīmus mēnsis erat. (By ancient times, March not third, but first month was. / In ancient times, March wasn't the third, but the first month.)
I hadn't thought that breaking up complex words into morphemes would necessitate encoding word spacing.
Don't misunderstand. What I refer to is storing play no space ground over play ground, but this has obvious issues.
Perhaps this is less relevant in Latin, or not even what you're proposing would be at issue.
From what I know, Latin writing used no spaces, so any spaces at all are a modern fiction. All I propose is allowing space or no space at all, as two examples, between words, giving the effect of concatenation, without special storage. Such words would be trivial to mark, say, as would many other aspects of my system. Certain concerns are lesser with Latin, purely because it's a dead language, and the skill floor for merely using such a system would thus be higher.
A few months ago I was frightened by my illness for a short time, but I've been consistently improving over the last month.
That's nice to read.
It has been so long I've forgotten how to format my posts properly, apparently:
Don't misunderstand. What I refer to is storing play, no space, and ground over playground, but this has obvious issues.
I'll write of the experience soon, but typing seems to be a fundamentally unpleasant activity.
I'll read your review of course; I wonder how handwriting recognition is these days?
This is the only relevant work I've finished lately; it does serve to better display a toki pona Elision than the Common Lisp ever could: http://verisimilitudes.net/2021-09-21
I did read this, but I sadly have no APL knowledge. Truthfully I should probably wget your website and work through everything.
I did misunderstand, sorry about that. I'm glad to hear you've progressed in your Latin studies. Unfortunately my progress has been poor. I've read around one hundred more pages of A New English Grammar, and I've yet to reach the historical aspect. I read two other books in this time, and started two more beyond these. Evidently I'm misallocating my reading. I'm disappointed.
I left this for a few days, but have by now forgotten something I was going to write; oh well. Something else fun is that we get the usage tongue also meaning language because lingua in Latin has both the meanings of language and of tongue.
>>98
I'm still planning to give spoken word recognition a try, although I'd be fine with mere sound recognition. Still, it's surprising just how much better I feel from this nicer keyboard; it's a shame the chorder couldn't be a total replacement, but it wasn't going to be able to be one anyway, for reasons I'll be writing about.
I did read this, but I sadly have no APL knowledge.
The string is split into words by spaces, those nonstandard words filtered and then sorted, and that auxiliary dictionary is then concatenated to that main to search for the words again, returning their indices. Has this helped?
Truthfully I should probably wget your website and work through everything.
Ignore 2018-02-02 and 2018-08-08 if that be done.
I did misunderstand, sorry about that.
That's nothing to apologize for.
Evidently I'm misallocating my reading. I'm disappointed.
I'm almost always disappointed, no matter what I do, so I decided that was then reason enough to stop caring so much about it. I'm not progressing as quickly as I'd prefer in my Latin book; if I were to finish it today, well maybe that would make me genuinely happy, but that's also unrealistic, so there's no point in focussing on it. In most cases, being able to finish work immediately still wouldn't make me happy, so I no longer feel bad about what I view as slow progress.
Something else fun is that we get the usage tongue also meaning language because lingua in Latin has both the meanings of language and of tongue.
I like this, I wonder what the admixture of English's implicit metaphors is, could it be mostly Latin?
I'm still planning to give spoken word recognition a try, although I'd be fine with mere sound recognition. Still, it's surprising just how much better I feel from this nicer keyboard; it's a shame the chorder couldn't be a total replacement, but it wasn't going to be able to be one anyway, for reasons I'll be writing about.
I'm glad you found a tool to relieve some of your pain. However total replacement with such inflexible tools would be out of character, even if it would be nice. I can imagine you using dictation to draft prose, your corder to revise, the pen for mathematics, and conventional typing where necessary.
I'm almost always disappointed, no matter what I do, so I decided that was then reason enough to stop caring so much about it. I'm not progressing as quickly as I'd prefer in my Latin book; if I were to finish it today, well maybe that would make me genuinely happy, but that's also unrealistic, so there's no point in focusing on it. In most cases, being able to finish work immediately still wouldn't make me happy, so I no longer feel bad about what I view as slow progress.
You find it best to always hold the ideal in mind so that it won't be lost. I suppose this would naturally lead to perpetual disappointment. I do something similar, but I'm not certain this is the way I want to be. I've been researching some adjacent to this lately and might have a solution of my own soon.
I read two more books, brief texts this time, and a handful of journal articles. Among these was Stephen King's On Writing which in several places reminded me of you (ironically including having skepticism of this kind of book). I might only ask this due to ignorance of the craft, but have you read this piece by any chance?
Regarding A New English Grammar I've only been reworking (perfect tense) my notes. My plan is to complete this task before sojourning with another grammar. In retrospect it was a mistake to have begun (pluperfect) formal study of English with this book. I feel I would have learned (future preterite) more quickly from a simpler book with more exercises. This is especially true with respect to how grammatical categories interrelate.
I also collected your articles, and programs for review; although, I haven't decided how I want to go about this yet. I removed the two indicated articles from the archive. Your comment did help give me a sketch of the APL Elision, but this doesn't satisfy. I attempted to evaluate your program stepwise, but found I even lacked the basic understanding of parameters, structure, and evaluation order to do this. I've gathered necessary resources to study APL at a later date, but will delay for now.
>>100
My relevant progress is slowing. Without sounding too sentimental, I'm turning inward and I'm likely to continue for a moment.
It's been a good while and so I thought I might drop a line, despite having little to report.
I completed a simple grammar which seems to have help considerably. Unsurprisingly, grammar seems to be one of those disciplines best learned whole if crudely and only then refined. That being said, I still have some difficult. As an example in >>99 I failed to recognize without collaboration that ``also meaning language'' was an appositive with ``also'' serving as an adverb to the gerund ``meaning''. I'm also in general rather slow when dealing with more involved sentences. I picked A New English Grammar back up a couple of days ago, but even review has been immensely slow.
I also read a simple proof methodology book. It reminded me of some things which I need to correct, but it mostly told me things I already knew. Just having the reminder seems to have helped some, but I feel I need to take on more intuitive math to improve my skills. Speaking of which I'm around a third through Dijkstra's A Discipline of Programming, which is a very odd sort of math. Predicate transformer semantics feels a bit like solving an equation for a variable to find the solution to the variable is in fact a proof. Thinking to perform induction on universal quantification and other techniques are replaced by similar but alien (and all the more disturbing because of this) constructs.
Admittedly I've hardly reread any of your website at all. I think when I do I would like to treat it like a math book, attempting to create my own solutions to the problem and then contrasting with that given to see how I can improve. Admittedly this seems distant to me now, but I'll make a schedule to commit to this tomorrow.
Overall I've been feeling worse and growing slower over the elapsed time. The weather foiled the habits I had made to reduce the negative effects of my building, and I suspect I allowed myself to be poisoned again, all be it to a lesser extent. Anyway, I plan to have a permanent solution to this in around a year, and I'm taking some temporary measures now. Regarding time, I hope to finish the two mentioned books in progress by January 10th, this should be plenty of time, but also requires I do better than I have been lately.
How are you doing? You seem to have been consistently decreasing your posting everywhere I read you for a while now. I keep thinking something might be wrong despite reading the occasional justification in the logs.
I should have written >>102 with more thought. That post demonstrates most the stylistic errors I make.
It seems to be a web forum devoted to discussing lobste.rs users
Funny how my dislike for sites like hackernews is because of that. But in the case of hackernews, n-gate is a great example of why I don't even post there.
104
speaking of which, what happened to n-gate? they just stopped
I recalled what I was going to write: A criticism of the Elision idea has been influencing which ideas others can express, despite this not being the case, but character sets already do this; observe all of the homosexual symbols to be found in Unicode, as examples. I want a machine text representation and system where no cabal gets to decide who have dedicated symbols and who don't, which is currently the case. While I do support language expert groups such as the French Academy, as I'm a language prescriptivist, it's unfortunately currently unreasonable to bake in total dominance of such groups at a user level.
>>100
I was wrong about absent; the word is directly from the Latin absēns (absentem, absentis, ...). I so want to list more instances of seeing Latin words and phrases everywhere, and understanding them, but there are so many; so many times I uncritically accepted terms for something and, as I recall them now, I realize their Latin origin. I recently learned one way women in a play would ask nicely for things is to say __amābō__ (I will love (thee)); that's such a complex idea expressed in just one word, and it's beautiful. I'm increasingly able to translate basic thoughts into Latin sentences, and I'm continually trying more; I've not been reading my book daily, and my progress is pathetic currently, but thinking about it constantly has left me without issue in remembering the declension and conjugation tables, which I recall struggling with in my formal schooling. Here are some phrases I've written by myself:
MALUM SINE NŌMINE (evil without name)
MIHI MULTĪ SERVĪ SUNT (To me, many slaves are. / I have many slaves.)
HABEŌ MULTŌS SERVŌS (I have many slaves.)
It's interesting how the dative case can be used like this. MIHI can function similarly to mine in English, in some cases.
I like this, I wonder what the admixture of English's implicit metaphors is, could it be mostly Latin?
There are one thousand dogs but thousands of dogs; interestingly, mīlle is a normal number, but mīlia accepts a genetive plural word, which can be translated as a possessive or with of.
I'm glad you found a tool to relieve some of your pain.
It's returning, although I believe part of it may be my back, and I've made an appointment for this; I believe the pain is different, not being in my hand and wrist, but rather between parts of my forearm and shoulder; I still need to find a suitable speech or sound recognition program I may use.
I can imagine you using dictation to draft prose, your corder to revise, the pen for mathematics, and conventional typing where necessary.
I may buy a second chorder to use for typing prose, which is most of what I type; I've been intending to search for a foot mouse lately, but may use a new style of joystick mouse instead; a typical keyboard is required for programming with typical languages, however, and even mine MMC isn't worth using with a chorder.
You find it best to always hold the ideal in mind so that it won't be lost. I suppose this would naturally lead to perpetual disappointment. I do something similar, but I'm not certain this is the way I want to be. I've been researching some adjacent to this lately and might have a solution of my own soon.
Do tell, when relevant.
I might only ask this due to ignorance of the craft, but have you read this piece by any chance?
No.
Regarding A New English Grammar I've only been reworking (perfect tense) my notes. My plan is to complete this task before sojourning with another grammar. In retrospect it was a mistake to have begun (pluperfect) formal study of English with this book. I feel I would have learned (future preterite) more quickly from a simpler book with more exercises. This is especially true with respect to how grammatical categories interrelate.
There are aspects of English and human language I didn't properly understand, and didn't know I didn't understand, until I began to learn Latin. What little work I've done on language modelling has also helped greatly.
I also collected your articles, and programs for review; although, I haven't decided how I want to go about this yet.
Well, I'll be interested to know how that goes.
I attempted to evaluate your program stepwise, but found I even lacked the basic understanding of parameters, structure, and evaluation order to do this.
APL is evaluated from right-to-left, but the segments separated by diamonds are evaluated left-to-right. APL is like Forth, in that once an unknown function be used, and the shape and other data characteristics be unknown, it becomes largely incomprehensible.
Unsurprisingly, grammar seems to be one of those disciplines best learned whole if crudely and only then refined.
This is how I'm learning Latin, yes, although I know there are times when I'd rather receive more information at once, so as to better compress it.
That being said, I still have some difficult.
I'm not particularly good at this aspect of English, either, but learning Latin has helped; most language terms are from Latin.
Speaking of which I'm around a third through Dijkstra's A Discipline of Programming, which is a very odd sort of math.
I'll keep this book in mind.
Admittedly I've hardly reread any of your website at all. I think when I do I would like to treat it like a math book, attempting to create my own solutions to the problem and then contrasting with that given to see how I can improve. Admittedly this seems distant to me now, but I'll make a schedule to commit to this tomorrow.
I'm flattered.
How are you doing? You seem to have been consistently decreasing your posting everywhere I read you for a while now. I keep thinking something might be wrong despite reading the occasional justification in the logs.
I'm fine. Don't worry about me. I don't believe I'll finish major Elision work in 2021, but I didn't finish major MMC work in 2017 either. With this month, I gave myself the meagre goal of implementing the Serpent cipher well, and the end of the month has already come near with little work done; part of this is due to research, so that what I write will be minimally redundant and pleasant to read. That research has shown that my plan to metaprogram with a Lisp version is largely pointless, however; Lisp increasingly fills an unpleasant void between APL and Ada for me. Lisp is nice for exploration and vague work, but well-understood work tends to be hindered by the lack of control, unlike that which I get with Ada, and the APL just needs to be nice, not practical; I've been intending to implement another language in Lisp, all this year, and still haven't done anything but design and obsess over it so far, because its small core is an unusual algorithm to me, and I was taken in several directions by it, wanting to have nice internals, a nice extension interface, efficiency, and wanting to extend the language in pleasant ways, but this is clearly unreasonable for me to attempt at a first try. Perhaps I'll finish that at some point this year. I know Lisp isn't the best programming language, but I still have something planned I'd like to play with regarding it. The common programming tools are pathetic, and the tools commonly used for Lisp are pathetic.
>>105
https://nitter.snopyta.org/webshitweekly/status/1450563491069247489
My biggest question about Elision is how it will handle S_JIS art. That is the most important thing about text encodings to me, how well they handle my textboard AA.
>>107
It won't, for that nonsense isn't text, but a mere unintended consequence of storing text as character streams displayed in columns and rows. On the topic, emoji filth also isn't text. I'm not someone who feels deeply for the crippled, but text that a blind man can't read isn't real text. Text has no necessary colour, no unpronounceable elements, and fie on those who disagree. Text which can't be properly converted to sound isn't text. It disgusts me that computers are having such a terrible influence on human writing systems and language, enforcing constraints and providing so very little of any worth in exchange for them.
Now, a crest or insignia, such as mine or that of the artist who was known as Prince, tread a fine line, but they're monochrome and could, at the very least, be printed so that a blind man could feel them. They're intended to be drawn by human hands, and they have pronunciations and clear meanings. Again, notice the hassle in using such a symbol as one which hasn't been approved of by the cabal; one is forced to use an image or modify a font, which is ridiculous and oh so sickening.
In an Elision system, someone who wanted to write such art would be forced to use an escape to a character-by-character system for expressing such.
You may find this disgusting but text isn't pure semiotics, tts % modulo for a person who was blind at birth is no different from tts 😂 face with tears of joy. I can understand where feeling comes into play but braille was deigned in a certain way for complexity tradeoffs, both a crest and face with tears of joy are overtly complex and inflexible. It would be vary painful to feel.
Didn't I tell you about q encoding and dictionary hardware yet. That was a jape but I haven't seen a better system for sign encoding posted here.
>>109
I don't particularly value using the percent sign for the modulo operation, as I don't use languages which use that, so the example falls flat for me. Regardless, emoji aren't text, and their increasing complexity will perhaps serve to destroy them sooner or later.
Didn't I tell you about q encoding and dictionary hardware yet. That was a jape but I haven't seen a better system for sign encoding posted here.
I've thought of systolic array designs with regards to Elision, but decided that designing a machine solely around Elision isn't particularly interesting; instead, Elision should merely influence a design, and other considerations should also be taken into account. Consider an Elision machine against a text machine that uses Elision.
Tell me more, in any case.
Emojis aren't text they are signs and they where dead on arrival. Text is still signs but a even more abstract notation like braille is. You can either consider this superior to what older civilisations did for semiotics or not. I'm not convinced this game of babel is worth more serious effort than directly transferring thoughts.
This might be a better example, a blind apl programmer has a key, ⍸ in a braille notation which symbiotically describes from feeling what an iota is what an underbar is their combination and usage in apl in the space of a braille cell optimised for touch of a single finger. The tts system would say apl functional symbol iota underbar, this is what's consider proper speech of the sign by standard like modulo but unlike the brail it ruins the purpose of apl. A proper tts would describe it in one to six words like the braille cell does with dots. Modulo was a better example of the basis semiotics has over text and face with tears of joy was a bad example to show what happens when those who don't understand semiotics create signs and then attempt converting them to a different sign system like text and speech. For the blind person they can comprehend their own subjective ideas of the signs from text like everyone else and like everyone else it will be different. The colour yellow can be explained through signs to someone blind enough they can exchange the sign properly with someone not blind, it is no different as an end result that was the purpose of semiotics and the tts of these complex signs. This doesn't mean face with tears of joy and apl functional symbol iota underbar isn't effectively lingo it means it's bad semiotics since it's effectively lingo you need multiple unnecessary signs registered to understand.
Tell me more, in any case.
Graphics devices used to store the signs, accessing is one operation. Dictionary hardware is like an asic which does this and could handle something like q encoding while taking processing and memory burden of encoding off the other systems. Q encoding which I can't find anymore has signs encoded as Q∞, if you ask for Q8591 then Q8412 Q8512 Q8915 on one side it should after the first Q8591 limit the rest to a single bit and the dictionary hardware should be able to figure out Q8412 Q8512 Q8915 from each of those bits. More usage it should adapt based on a psychoanalyst and stylometry algorithms towards less bits or the Q8591 alone. Bits are for systems that have bits, it's not limited for ons and offs, a single stable qubit of the quality in the billions with a few classic push stacks could be the asic.
Dictionary hardware should be immutable, the chances of Q10 q being changed would be on preference or something wrong with the language. In that case it should all be rewritten from scratch using a hardware switch.
This was a jape adding more dimensions to Q encoding alone could make it less bureaucratic and better designed with more qubits.
On modulo it's bad semiotics on the text system. %100 100% 100 % 100 100%100. I would need more signs to understand for sure if that's percent or modulo, worse is the different percents and how % is used as a generalisation due to ascii predominance. Sometimes the arabic percent style is used for the british one due to ignorance.
niggers
>>113 you aren't wrong, but you aren't great company to anyone, including yourself - nigger
>>111
I didn't understand the explanation. Regardless, I'll wait to post again until I've something to add or my much longer post at >>106 garners a response.
>>115
Ah well study semiotics while understanding subjective perspectives can only cooperate so much. My jape didn't include any knowledge of semiotics that I can remember but there's a few things that could be optimised with the study of semiotics.
For the blind apl programmer the braille cell would probably be more detailed than a singular texture, that's how the majority of apl programmers are.
Should it suit you I'm going to try to write here regularly on the thirteenth, assuming I have thoughts to say which might be of interest. If not just say so, but I believe both of us prefer a slower correspondents, and hopefully in such a format I can better hold up my end of the conversation. Considering the length of this post feel free to ignore any of my questions you feel unworthy.
A criticism of the Elision idea has been influencing which ideas others can express.
I'll attempt to avoid this in the future. It's always better to derive critique from the primary source anyway.
I recently learned one way women in a play would ask nicely for things is to say __amābō__ (I will love (thee)); that's such a complex idea expressed in just one word, and it's beautiful.
I agree, that is beautiful.
I'm increasingly able to translate basic thoughts into Latin sentences, and I'm continually trying more; I've not been reading my book daily, and my progress is pathetic currently, but thinking about it constantly has left me without issue in remembering the declension and conjugation tables, which I recall struggling with in my formal schooling.
I've been meaning to practice sentence diagramming some more to reinforce memory in a similar fashion. While I enjoy practicing it, I suspect not as much as you enjoy Latin.
MALUM SINE NŌMINE (evil without name)
This sounds nice.
MIHI MULTĪ SERVĪ SUNT (To me, many slaves are. / I have many slaves.)
I take it from your translation that this isn't even grammatically consistent. Meaning MULTĪ isn't an indefinite pronoun of quantity in the nominative and SERVĪ isn't in the accusative. Were this the case the grammar would then literally be of the form: "Many are me slaves." as if spoken by a pirate or a celt. I don't particularly like this but I suppose natural languages are organic, and it's good to be able to understand their complexities fully.
There are one thousand dogs but thousands of dogs; interestingly, mīlle is a normal number, but mīlia accepts a genetive plural word, which can be translated as a possessive or with of.
I wonder if the lack of the article unlike "some of the dogs" is due to this same inheritance.
It's returning, although I believe part of it may be my back, and I've made an appointment for this; I believe the pain is different, not being in my hand and wrist, but rather between parts of my forearm and shoulder; I still need to find a suitable speech or sound recognition program I may use.
I read in the logs that you saw the doctor already. Did he indicate a prognosis? I assume you're put off by the complexity of most speech recognition systems.
I'm not particularly good at this aspect of English, either, but learning Latin has helped; most language terms are from Latin.
It's natural to avoid grammar when speaking our native tongue, it's so ingrained (or at least is assumed to be) that there is no reason to consciously think of it (perhaps this is repetition, I can't recall). I still do plan to learn a language to help with this, but I've made virtually no progress in A New English Grammar. I do have some Latin resources collected and it is tempting to learn it now rather than later because you've gained so much, and because there are many people to speak it to. Then again I can be rather stubborn so I may continue the current course.
APL is like Forth, in that once an unknown function be used, and the shape and other data characteristics be unknown, it becomes largely incomprehensible.
That's unsurprising, I'm going to continue to put this off for now.
I'm fine. Don't worry about me.
I even wrote a goodbye letter, believe it or not. My thinking has been slightly peculiar recently.
Related to Serpent, it's odd to me that the user-interface to Pest, which seems rather clearly as if it should be a server protocol, was standardized. At most the IRC interface should have been an optional extension to the standard, even better would be to just have it be part of an example implementation. Your approach to eschewing the arbitrary backwards compatibility in the interface is obviously correct.
I've been intending to implement another language in Lisp, all this year, and still haven't done anything but design and obsess over it so far, because its small core is an unusual algorithm to me, and I was taken in several directions by it, wanting to have nice internals, a nice extension interface, efficiency, and wanting to extend the language in pleasant ways, but this is clearly unreasonable for me to attempt at a first try.
Well, I look forward to this. A healthy obsession to have I imagine.
I know Lisp isn't the best programming language, but I still have something planned I'd like to play with regarding it. The common programming tools are pathetic, and the tools commonly used for Lisp are pathetic.
I agree that existing tooling is bad. I haven't seriously studied many languages outside of the lisp family, my only recurring, and passing question concerning programming languages is: what sort of assumptions and mathematics would allow one to solve the programming language problem. I have no insight to make progress on such a question however. This hasn't always been the case, and I may return to my old interest in the future as I'm forced into more restrictive and less well specified languages.
>>117 (cont.)
I've not been able to achieve too much over the elapsed time, being fairly scatter-brained (I've even been reading Seneca of all people!), but I did reread a few of your articles, of which I have meaningful comments or questions on two. I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate to send these via the comment system perhaps without some of my funny thoughts so that others could avoid asking the same questions.
Do you consider bit-parallelism an insidious optimization in the same fashion as byte-addressable memory and registers (all together a tyranny of the machine word)? My thinking is the register follows naturally from operations on word-sized units, and much less so byte-addressable memory from byte multiple word sizes. Bit-parallelism stands out of place in a system without these two insidious optimizations to me.
If bit-parallelism be an insidious optimization do you know a way to reconcile bit-serial operation with a high-level architecture? Bit-serial operation typically imply many computers which makes complex operations more costly (although with my limited knowledge garbage collection and type checking would still be sufficiently cheap). A heterogeneous architecture or something like a central executive for these functions would harm the design in my view. This is all without considering that a great deal of complexity is also introduced in having many computers.
I had a funny thought of memory spitting instructions and data together directly to the computers with each instruction being a one-to-one memory transformation such that explicit addresses and memory management more generally could be removed (the idea of removing control-flow made me think of APL, and of removing addresses in this way in turn). I didn't work it out any further however, and it's likely a common delusion; even still were there a way to hide or remove memory management entirely to me this would make a computer more elegant (metaprogramming to reduce constants as you seek to advance in Meta-CHIP-8 would be negatively impacted). (A sort of stack machine with a single stack taking up all of memory (a memory-to-memory stack-machine) could be thought of as just combinators and other functions in RPL, that is operand rather than memory management, but it still doesn't feel quite perfect.)
I've understood most the faults and features of Meta-CHIP-8 well enough; amusingly the populating of data for meta-programming and naming reminded me of the Harvard Architecture. I am confused however by the use of the three-bit association in the hextet for the instructions ExxCxx through ExxFxx; likely related, I don't understand the meaning of "routine information" and "routine entry" in the definitions of instructions ExxExx and ExxFxx. Also what does "instate" in the definition of the MMC hook FE5 mean?
This will be the first I try to rederive myself, but I don't have a time schedule currently, and as I mentioned I've not been very productive lately.
>>118 (cont.)
Regarding the memory-to-memory stack-machine, such a configuration would obviously also solve the issue of instruction size, while improving preservation of state, and a bit-serial architecture would improve the ease of making variable length operations. There are some obvious flaws though, moves become far less elegant than in a pure memory-to-memory architecture, and there would need to be some mechanism for linking the element of the stack wasting some of the memory won by being bit-addressable.
Learning Latin continues to be fun. I'm now able to give little forethought to basic sentences, and fill in some of the blanks before I utter the syllables. I'm able to translate more of my thoughts into Latin, and I find myself able to do so with less conscious thought. When speaking to a relative, I thought to jokingly ask where my baculum was, so I could jokingly threaten her with it, if only I knew the right words, but I do and it immediately came to me: VBI EST BACVLVM MEVM
I must be careful not to write invalid Latin in my mind, but I'm doing reasonably well with this. I found myself incorrect on one part, but concerning a tense I was using before my book taught it to me, so that's not nearly so bad.
>>116
I referred to the Q encoding.
Should it suit you I'm going to try to write here regularly on the thirteenth, assuming I have thoughts to say which might be of interest.
Should it matter whether it suits me or not? Sure, do so.
I take it from your translation that this isn't even grammatically consistent.
I'll show another example; interestingly, Latin uses question words similarly to English:
IĀNVS EST DEVS CVI DVAE FACIĒS SVNT (Janus is a god to whom two faces are.)
Meaning MULTĪ isn't an indefinite pronoun of quantity in the nominative and SERVĪ isn't in the accusative.
Both words are plural and nominative there. The singular accusative is SERVVM and the plural accusative is SERVŌS.
Were this the case the grammar would then literally be of the form: "Many are me slaves." as if spoken by a pirate or a celt.
That's close enough to correct.
I wonder if the lack of the article unlike "some of the dogs" is due to this same inheritance.
We'll see.
I read in the logs that you saw the doctor already. Did he indicate a prognosis?
I've some tendinitis, which I'm managing. Proper posture, careful typing, breaks, and occassionally a compression bracelet help.
I assume you're put off by the complexity of most speech recognition systems.
I'm put off by not seeing anything I can install and test. I'm compelled to audit code I get from elsewhere, but these are large systems.
I even wrote a goodbye letter, believe it or not. My thinking has been slightly peculiar recently.
This goodbye letter was for me?
Related to Serpent, it's odd to me that the user-interface to Pest, which seems rather clearly as if it should be a server protocol, was standardized.
Pest has a looser notion of ``standardization'' in this.
Your approach to eschewing the arbitrary backwards compatibility in the interface is obviously correct.
Yes; now I simply need to write the libraries and then the program.
Well, I look forward to this. A healthy obsession to have I imagine.
Ironically, I pursued progressively smaller and simpler things; I'd be finished, were the small core of this not something I'd never written before. Currently, I'm more concerned with a completely different little program I'm writing, as an example of the programming style I wish to begin using; I've done all of the figuring in my mind, and simply need to finish writing it out.
I agree that existing tooling is bad. I haven't seriously studied many languages outside of the lisp family, my only recurring, and passing question concerning programming languages is: what sort of assumptions and mathematics would allow one to solve the programming language problem. I have no insight to make progress on such a question however.
I think the programming style I wish to show may give a decent answer. It's completely different from the high-level language work I'd been imagining for years, but that was always vague, whereas this is solid.
I'm not sure if it would be more appropriate to send these via the comment system perhaps without some of my funny thoughts so that others could avoid asking the same questions.
Simply tell me if adding them to the comments page would be desired. I demand any comments I'm to upload be clearly marked.
Do you consider bit-parallelism an insidious optimization in the same fashion as byte-addressable memory and registers (all together a tyranny of the machine word)?
I currently don't, no. I've not given it much thought.
If bit-parallelism be an insidious optimization do you know a way to reconcile bit-serial operation with a high-level architecture?
It's ultimately irrelevant to that.
I had a funny thought of memory spitting instructions and data together directly to the computers with each instruction being a one-to-one memory transformation such that explicit addresses and memory management more generally could be removed (the idea of removing control-flow made me think of APL, and of removing addresses in this way in turn).
Look at systolic arrays.
(A sort of stack machine with a single stack taking up all of memory (a memory-to-memory stack-machine) could be thought of as just combinators and other functions in RPL, that is operand rather than memory management, but it still doesn't feel quite perfect.)
No machine will ever feel quite perfect, I now believe. There will always be something a design can't do as well as another, and even a good something at that.
I am confused however by the use of the three-bit association in the hextet for the instructions ExxCxx through ExxFxx; likely related, I don't understand the meaning of "routine information" and "routine entry" in the definitions of instructions ExxExx and ExxFxx. Also what does "instate" in the definition of the MMC hook FE5 mean?
The association code refers to how the name maps to the instruction, such as octet, hextet, upper nibble, lower nibble, address, or none. The routine information was the Meta-CHIP-8 routine called to display the instruction; I later examined these, and saw how wasteful they were, leading to the later designs that lack this unnecessary flexibility. Instate is the loading counterpart to save.
>>119
I've largely abandoned thinking about these things, in favour of mulling over non von Neumann designs.
I'm still having posting issues.
>>120
Simple data, probability and timing algorithms can achieve Q8591 having Q8412 Q8512 Q8915 after, in under a nibble. This can become Q8591 without that nibble passed, using psychoanalysts and stylometry. This isn't part of q encoding but how the dictionary hardware handles performance. Q encoding is chosen here for compatibility with already defined symbols, something else better could be thought up without effort.
Initial without data on the hardware.
archipelago system - Q8591Q8412Q8512Q8915 - hardwareLearned data from usage using probability algorithms and input timing.
archipelago system - Q8591b0111 and recorded timing - hardware with recorded usageSmall uncompromising data sent from the system balanced against the payload size.
archipelago system and data - Q8591b0111 and recorded timing - hardware with recorded usageEverything but with psychoanalysts and stylometry.
archipelago system - Q8591 and psychoanalysts from external hardware - hardware with learned stylometry and psychoanalystsThe idea is if Q8591 is a infinite big integer, infer the whole payload with that integer alone up to how ever much can be inferred and tell the archipelago system if more data is needed. On a system with bytes, it would be theoretically possible for a yottabyte to be expressed in one byte. Somehow the archipelago system still has to show the symbols, the idea is dictionary hardware works with the graphics hardware and sends allocated visual space back to the archipelago system. There the load on the archipelago system is tiny, the graphics hardware small from deduplication and huge on the asic within reasonable power usage.
It is possible for Q8591 to be shortened but this is no longer q encoding since the whole integer for the character is necessary, this Q8591b0111 isn't q encoding but Q8591 becoming a trillion other symbols with q encoding points is.
I have little to report this month. I read five small books irrelevant to our conversation. I have been doing some mathematics, but sadly I haven't finished ECMA-48, nor reread much of your blog. I'll re-assert the routine, and produce something for next month.
When speaking to a relative, I thought to jokingly ask where my baculum was, so I could jokingly threaten her with it, if only I knew the right words, but I do and it immediately came to me: VBI EST BACVLVM MEVM
lol
I must be careful not to write invalid Latin in my mind, but I'm doing reasonably well with this. I found myself incorrect on one part, but concerning a tense I was using before my book taught it to me, so that's not nearly so bad.
I'm terrible at correcting mental errors. Part of what I like about sentence diagramming is that it makes checking errors of this sort much simpler being nearly just insuring words of the sentence are exhausted. It doesn't sound like you need it though, and I haven't used it much in my own writing which tends to be reckless.
I'll show another example; interestingly, Latin uses question words similarly to English:
I\u0100NVS EST DEVS CVI DVAE FACI\u0112S SVNT (Janus is a god to whom two faces are.)
Interrogative pronouns aren't the sort of thing I would guess to be common across languages; they have a rather odd combination of functions. Your translation is still odd to read truthfully. Were I to not know the context I would read this translation with ``to'' being a preposition and there being an elided ``there'' after whom rather than attempting to express an indirect object. Maybe I'd need to know Latin to be sold on the elegance.
Both words are plural and nominative there. The singular accusative is SERVVM and the plural accusative is SERV\u014cS.
Ah, so adjectives have concord with the nouns they modify, I think I remember reading this actually. I imagine more like English pronouns of quantity and qualifiers are only distinguished by association or word order.
That's close enough to correct.
It was wishful thinking is all.
I've some tendinitis, which I'm managing. Proper posture, careful typing, breaks, and occassionally a compression bracelet help.
Well, it sounds as if you're doing nearly the best you can, or will do once you find a sufficient means.
I'm put off by not seeing anything I can install and test. I'm compelled to audit code I get from elsewhere, but these are large systems.
I see.
This goodbye letter was for me?
Aye. I was thinking a bit oddly at the time, as I mentioned. It effectively just said I hoped I could better meet expectations and come back with a steady identity and "proof I'm human" etc. sometime in the next few years (during which I will likely be attending a computer science masters program). Which I hope is the case either way.
Ironically, I pursued progressively smaller and simpler things; I'd be finished, were the small core of this not something I'd never written before. Currently, I'm more concerned with a completely different little program I'm writing, as an example of the programming style I wish to begin using; I've done all of the figuring in my mind, and simply need to finish writing it out.
I think the programming style I wish to show may give a decent answer. It's completely different from the high-level language work I'd been imagining for years, but that was always vague, whereas this is solid.
That's certainly compelling, and a rather bold claim - even with conservative assumptions. I look forward to this.
Simply tell me if adding them to the comments page would be desired. I demand any comments I'm to upload be clearly marked.
Don't then. They would need to be rewritten some, and it's not clear if they would be helpful to others.
I currently don't, no. I've not given it much thought.
I guess the alternative to bit-parallelism being many machines isn't attractive at minimum if each machine presents a unique interface in need of coordination.
Look at systolic arrays.
I will do this, I wouldn't be surprised if my thought was a reflection of something I had partially grasped from before.
No machine will ever feel quite perfect, I now believe. There will always be something a design can't do as well as another, and even a good something at that.
I'd believe that.
The association code refers to how the name maps to the instruction, such as octet, hextet, upper nibble, lower nibble, address, or none. The routine information was the Meta-CHIP-8 routine called to display the instruction; I later examined these, and saw how wasteful they were, leading to the later designs that lack this unnecessary flexibility. Instate is the loading counterpart to save.
Okay, that makes sense.
I've largely abandoned thinking about these things, in favour of mulling over non von Neumann designs.
I don't think it is technically a von Neumann architecture, but perhaps it's too close. I did some research after this and my proposal was very similar to a parallel graph reduction machine excluding, well... the graph reduction aspect. That is a graph reduction machine is to some extent an answer to the question of what to do with a large number of stack machines of which I proposed a particular type.
I'm still having posting issues.
Should we speak elsewhere?
I doubt this is confusing but for the record >>121 and >122 are two different individuals.
>>123
I doubt it's relevant.
Yes, we know it's a schizo thread.
I'll re-assert the routine, and produce something for next month.
I think I may say goodbye after all. My personal studies of all forms seem to be languishing; university is taking up more of my time again so that my routine is now impractical. You may wish to continue updating people here but I'm unlikely to have a meaningful contribution in the near future. I would rather not speak than say more or less just niceties as in my last reply.
I failed to mention some nice Latin with my last post. After being shown FVLGVR (lightning) with an illustration, the book defines TONITRVS (thunder) using this:
QVOD AVDĪTVR POST FVLGVR (what is heard after lightning)
Isn't that fun? There's all manner of fun to have with passive verbs. Imagine a band of secretive men being discovered, and one yelling out AVDĪMINĪ (we are heard).
Consider how closely this modified example from the book fits English, how ESSE (to be) is used so similarly:
AEMILIA MEDICVM STVLTVM ESSE PUTAT (Aemilia thinks the doctor to be stupid.)
>>121
I still don't understand, but let us simply drop it.
>>122
My progress isn't great either. I don't want to go through my Latin book too quickly, but I'm going through it at a pace of one chapter per month currently. I'm having few issues remembering everything, however, so it's clearly not harming me, per sē. I reviewed, and realized VBI EST BACVLVM MEVM is a verbatim line from the book, although this isn't strictly a poor thing to notice. Learning a language has taught me, months ago, how the English I speak is uncommon, but not nearly as original as I'd first thought it to be. In a way, I'm memorizing the book in addition to learning the language in which it's written.
during which I will likely be attending a computer science masters program
That's very different from a goodbye letter that expects me to be dead, yes. Anyway, I applied for MIT and Berkeley, but didn't get in for reasons I won't mention. I occasionally think about how I wouldn't've had many or any of my nicer ideas, had I learned from such an authority figure. I'm not advising against going, but do keep this in mind.
I look forward to this.
I'm still working on it. Unusually for me, I collected thoughts for a week or two before writing, and it led to an idea I wouldn't otherwise have had, which will greatly improve it. I'd still be interested in thine opinion on it, despite this >>126 post.
Should we speak elsewhere?
The issue has dissolved. On that note, I've been considering spreading my work around more widely, but don't seem to have many options. I'd rather not think I'm already everywhere worth being. Every time I look at Hacker News, the stupidity I see on display simply sickens me, so there's no reason to believe my work hitting the front page again will result in anything worthwhile, as it hasn't any other time. I won't make a Reddit account for this. I refuse to post on 4chan's /g/ any longer, and what I wrote of Hacker News still applies there. I wonder what I should do to get more readers; I've had more traffic in 2021 than in 2020, but still far less than in 2019.
>>125
This is one of the only long and active threads on this entire website.
I wanted to use AVDĪMINĪ because I like the conjugation, but the translation I gave is incorrect.
AVDĪMVR (we are heard)
AVDĪMINĪ (ye are heard)
QVOD AVDĪTVR POST FVLGVR (what is heard after lightning)
The tense makes it seem a very empirical question.
Imagine a band of secretive men being discovered, and one yelling out AVDĪMINĪ (we are heard).
The terseness is very nice, especially sense terseness often allows for speaking with so much more passion. I'd somehow forgotten just how inflected verbs are in Latin.
I don't want to go through my Latin book too quickly, but I'm going through it at a pace of one chapter per month currently.
I'll give pacing some thought.
I'm memorizing the book in addition to learning the language in which it's written.
This might be just as important to learning the language. Culture and idioms are a large part of what allows us to communicate.
I'd still be interested in thine opinion on it, despite this >>126 post.
Of course.
I occasionally think about how I wouldn't've had many or any of my nicer ideas, had I learned from such an authority figure. I'm not advising against going, but do keep this in mind.
You said this in the logs; I'll try to keep it in mind. A computer science masters simply presents the best opportunity to improve in an area of interest while plausibly granting access to compelling employment in a reasonable time-frame. It wasn't an easy decision to arrive at as all things equal I think I'd prefer to continue studying math or take up physics.
I wonder what I should do to get more readers; I've had more traffic in 2021 than in 2020, but still far less than in 2019.
http://lobste.rs is far better than those mentioned if you could appeal your ban. I no longer read it myself however. The feed aggregator http://planet.lisp.org comes to mind; perhaps there are similar specialized aggregators for the other languages you use. If your language design work continues http://lambda-the-ultimate.org might be relevant.
>>106
I like the idea of Elision, but I have a problem with it. It's the same problem that Terry Tao has with doing math on a computer, namely that the act of writing words, just as the active writing mathematics, relies on making stuff up. Making up new words, or new symbols. You can have dictionaries and store stuff in them, but you need to be able to handle these new words in a context consistent way. You need to be able to distribute these new words, and have them available in a context consistent way. When you distribute a document, you would need to also distribute the custom dictionary with it. But what about when you end up with a domain specific subset of the dictionary, say a medical dictionary or an engineering dictionary, which have words specific to a discipline. Do you expect these people to come together and maintain their own dictionaries? If so, there need to be faciliites for that.
Portability is another concern, though one I believe you addressed. I would almost see documents as something like this
{:dictionary {0x01AF {:display "string of chars or whatever"
:metadata {:stuff [...]}}}
:document [0x01AF 0x020 ...]}>>131
>>106
Many apologies I forgot the most important part
{:metadata {:source-url "https://subject-specific-dict.com"
:definition "the meaning of the word"
:grammar {...}}}I'm sure there's some compression that could be done there. But each word could have it's own documentation source that prompted the user to add the whole dictionary in a compatible application, that or otherwise merge them, but having partial dictionaries available, transferable, and syncable/subscribable would be useful.
If we ever build a LISP-OS, I think that this is something we should consider.
That article is finished: http://verisimilitudes.net/2022-01-31
Until the CSS be improved, the Gopher version is better: gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12022-01-31
I wrote a tiny Common Lisp program to exemplify the style. I named the functions AD-VERBUM-AB-NUMERO (to word from number) and AD-NUMERUM-AB-VERBO (to number from word), but I'll likely change these to AD-LITTERAS-AB-NVMERO (to letters from number) and AD-NVMERVM-AB-LITTERIS (to number from letters), as I figure this is more correct. In any case, how nice. I'll start, finish, and publish the Ada version soon, which should be much nicer.
The tense makes it seem a very empirical question.
I failed to mention the ID (it) is implicit there:
(ID) QVOD AVDĪTVR POST FVLGVR ((it) what is heard after lightning)
Think of it as similar to this: Fear what goes bump in the dark.
I loathe them.
I'll investigate.
I'd considered and forgotten this; I wasn't too keen on joining just to shill my work.
>>130
An auxiliary dictionary would be paired with the documents using it, generally. An English language document can use an English language dictionary.
>>131
I loathe URLs, which have no place in Elision. If it becomes necessary, a dictionary could be referenced by hash checksum, for integrity purposes. I see documents as arrays prefixed with arrays pertaining to the following arrays, and so on. Details will be clear when and if a working system, beyond toki pona, comes into existence.
I loathe them.
Can you elaborate?
>I loathe URLs
Dude, you have a website.
That said having a document where each word is a symbol in say a namespace or linguistic environment pointing to data about said word might be kind of cool. Maybe an IPFS hash instead of a URL, to facilitate persistence, with some means of linking earlier instances of community maintained db's (linguistic namespaces/environments) to later ones. Would also probably facilitate autotranslating language documents. I mean, we kind of already do this with things like spellcheck, it makes sense to move the spellcheck db into actually being part of the document itself.
Think of it as similar to this: Fear what goes bump in the dark.
A pretty dependent clause?
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12022-01-31
I was careful not to read any commentary before I had written my own. If I follow the approach is one of structuring the state-space from the top down, and using lookup tables at run-time. You must understand I'm a mathematician and learned to program from SICP. As such the conversion of a rule into ad hoc cases does not naturally sit well with me. It even depressed me slightly to read this; where has the spirit that lives in the computer gone? I must agree however that your argument is consistent.
To refine my thoughts: I've no opposition to the use of lookup tables, especially as an alternative to parsing. I agree that analyzing a state-space can be a useful tool, but disagree that it should be dominant. Having multiple perspectives on a problem tends to be beneficial. More dramatically I can't stomach ad hoc structuring of the state-space. I suppose my fear is that a large number of ad hoc modifications would be difficult to know, and unless reality dictates otherwise knowing is more important than computation.
I wasn't too keen on joining just to shill my work.
I doubt they would mind if it was relevant to academic PLT, but it might not be a good fit for that reason.
>>133
I would prefer he didn't. There was some discussion about this website in the beginning of the thread and it wasn't very interesting.
>>135
I really did enjoy the article though. It was very understandable, and made me think of things I hadn't before. There may just be a cultural difference here which I need to ponder further.
unless reality dictates otherwise knowing is more important than computation.
This is an over-simplification I think, and one can never have the final word if one only concerns with computation at the present's dictates. Such software would be incomplete.
>>135 I'm sorry how rude this came off.
I'd meant to mention this at some earlier point; notice how naturally whose translates here:
VT `CLĀMŌ CLĀMĀMVS' DĒCLĪNANTVR VERBA QVŌRVM ĪNFĪNĪTĪVVS DĒSINIT IN -ĀRE (Like `CLĀMŌ CLĀMĀMVS' are declined words whose infinitive ends in -ĀRE.)
>>133
It has been discussed here already.
>>134
Murderers breathe air. I can begrudgingly use something. The URL is a fine example of where domain acknowledgment so often isn't done; rather than parse a URL into a real data structure, they're often passed around verbatim, and there have been many flaws resulting from conflicting views thereof.
The Internet has no bearing on Elision any more than it does on, say, ASCII or Unicode. While I seek to minimize the size of messages, this is a general advantage.
That said having a document where each word is a symbol in say a namespace or linguistic environment pointing to data about said word might be kind of cool.
This is what a tertiary dictionary would fulfill. For useful but unnecessary information, such as storing synonyms, there would be a dedicated table that must be used with a dictionary, but without which the dictionary can safely be used. In any case, Elision is primarily concerned with form, not semantics. The word pump has different connotations in medical or engineering contexts, but the word is the same.
Maybe an IPFS hash instead of a URL, to facilitate persistence, with some means of linking earlier instances of community maintained db's (linguistic namespaces/environments) to later ones.
I figure IPFS is larger and more complicated than the entirety of all of the code I'll write ever will be. I've no interest in implementing my beautiful idea as a tumor on an elephant.
Would also probably facilitate autotranslating language documents.
I mean, we kind of already do this with things like spellcheck, it makes sense to move the spellcheck db into actually being part of the document itself.
All of this should happen without any Internet connection necessary. Spell checking is something that naturally falls out of Elision.
A pretty dependent clause?
The word what is a pronoun is the point.
I was careful not to read any commentary before I had written my own.
I'm glad to have such a dedicated reader.
If I follow the approach is one of structuring the state-space from the top down, and using lookup tables at run-time.
That's how I did it there. For a different problem, I may have thought of the composition rule beforehand, and will be able to exhaustively compare these to the full table afterwards.
You must understand I'm a mathematician and learned to program from SICP.
I never finished SICP; I barely read any of it, really; I prefer TAoCP.
As such the conversion of a rule into ad hoc cases does not naturally sit well with me.
It's ad hoc compression, sure, but it's a fun way to program.
It even depressed me slightly to read this; where has the spirit that lives in the computer gone?
It exists in the tiny composition rules, in checking my proofs, and in automating whatever else I need for the table construction.
I agree that analyzing a state-space can be a useful tool, but disagree that it should be dominant.
This is what I want Elision to resemble. I want to find the limits of the approach in general.
Having multiple perspectives on a problem tends to be beneficial.
Yes. I've never seen programming really done this way. It's novel, and unique.
I suppose my fear is that a large number of ad hoc modifications would be difficult to know, and unless reality dictates otherwise knowing is more important than computation.
Better tools can ease this.
I really did enjoy the article though. It was very understandable, and made me think of things I hadn't before.
I'm glad.
There may just be a cultural difference here which I need to ponder further.
Do let me know how that goes.
>>138
Don't apologize to me for such things. I'll make it known if I be offended.
I'd meant to mention this at some earlier point; notice how naturally whose translates here:
This I would expect. It seems pronouns are the last to lose their inflections. Inflection for person, possession, direct object, and gender still exist in these for now. Maybe things are moving in the direction of only having neuter/not-neuter distinctions in gender though. There are also some missing pieces like the second person plural. Anyway, the words in that whole sentence are pretty close to English. I was nearly able to translate it into Tarzan without assistance!
The word what is a pronoun is the point.
Ah, it's a relative pronoun as well, not an interrogative. This is an error I made even when we first started discussing these words. The (it) you mentioned before was being modified of course. In my defense they're easily confused as they're the same set of words except for "that" in English.
I never finished SICP; I barely read any of it, really; I prefer TAoCP.
I know. I'll eventually read TAoCP.
It exists in the tiny composition rules, in checking my proofs, and in automating whatever else I need for the table construction.
I disagree. The spirits aren't just processes we conjure with our spells. They're platonic ideals, reflections of the essence of the problem. Were I to ask you to consider the conversion of integers into roman numerals' true form, I doubt you would think it in terms of your split and folded state-space. But a spectacular solution may completely change our understanding of what we're studying. In fact our initial conceptualization is rarely the essential one. Proof helps us know our model is at least true, while aesthetics and exploration can help rule out alternatives. The process is a journey to see things as they ought to be seen. To see what causes the shadow on the wall.
This is what I want Elision to resemble. I want to find the limits of the approach in general.
The state-spaces in Elision can't be fully structured meaningfully. The method is an elegant reflection of the problem, not ad hoc in the least.
Yes. I've never seen programming really done this way. It's novel, and unique.
True.
Better tools can ease this.
Tooling can assist perception, but not wholly knowing. Then again, memory is more capable than often acknowledged.
I missed releasing another article on NŌNAE of this month, so I'll target ĪDŪS instead, unless I find a nice Roman date between now and then.
Maybe things are moving in the direction of only having neuter/not-neuter distinctions in gender though.
Parts of Latin are like this, particularly the third declension nouns and adjectives. Compare ĀTER, ĀTRA, and ĀTRUM with GRAVIS and GRAVE. My book waits until the ninth chapter before introducing these cruel words for which gender must be explicitly remembered, rather than derived from form.
There are also some missing pieces like the second person plural.
We know what I think of that.
I disagree.
I was trying to be positive, but the truth is I don't give a damn about the spirit that lives in the computer. The machine is a tool which has no sentimental value to me whatsoever. If my style successfully kills a spirit, somehow, then it means nothing to me. Let it be replaced by its better.
Were I to ask you to consider the conversion of integers into roman numerals' true form, I doubt you would think it in terms of your split and folded state-space.
That's my point. The machines shouldn't compute as we do. It's foolish to have the machine compute as a human would, when this be wholly unnecessary.
The state-spaces in Elision can't be fully structured meaningfully.
Only I've an accurate mental-model of what Elision will be and may be. I was recently reviewing some mathematics and realized the part of Elision that compresses the character tables may be partially related to what is known as super permutation. It's obvious how Latin declension and conjugation tables can be represented as tables, but the compositions of those tables can be represented as tables and so on and so forth.
The method is an elegant reflection of the problem, not ad hoc in the least.
I'll share something neat ahead of time. Consider the problem of searching from one point to another, forwards or backwards, for the first word beginning with some specified letters. My solution is as follows: Get the index of the first possible such word, and of the last possible such word; now the searching is a bounds check on each word, needing no more dictionary access. Searching the auxiliary dictionary would mean just an additional bounds check. Isn't this neat?
Tooling can assist perception, but not wholly knowing. Then again, memory is more capable than often acknowledged.
Yes.
it is really hard to read this thread
not because of the content of the posts
but the absolutely annoying fragmentation
one quote per line? mate, mercy pls
dude fuc it
Alyssa P. Hacker
My book waits until the ninth chapter before introducing these cruel words for which gender must be explicitly remembered, rather than derived from form.
It's funny everyone dislikes this sort of thing, and yet everyone agrees to them.
I was trying to be positive, but the truth is I don't give a damn about the spirit that lives in the computer. The machine is a tool which has no sentimental value to me whatsoever. If my style successfully kills a spirit, somehow, then it means nothing to me. Let it be replaced by its better.
I'll briefly try to rephrase one last time. In principle I'd like the machine to save me time allowing me to do things I wouldn't otherwise. Most of what I want to do otherwise is understand. Programming can help me do this by encouraging me to refine and manipulate my structural and algorithmic models (it makes these more clear like writing to distill thoughts), moving towards some hypothetical correct understanding. This would be my justification for looking for alternative solutions after a problem has been solved. Perhaps this is the crux of the cultural difference, but I will avoid conjecturing your motivations.
That's my point. The machines shouldn't compute as we do. It's foolish to have the machine compute as a human would, when this be wholly unnecessary.
Being essential is different from being how we compute. Computing definite integrals is an illustrative example. Humans compute definite integrals by finding an anti-derivative. You can hardly say however that such a form is more essential than Riemann integration. In fact the the proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus is based on the definition in terms of Riemann integration. Most methods of numerical integration are not so conceptually different from Riemann integration, and if circumstances demand would not be unwelcome just as symbolic integration is not unwelcome for humans. Graphing would be another but I won't elaborate.
Only I've an accurate mental-model of what Elision will be and may be.
I don't disagree of course, but guess what I meant by "can't be fully structured meaningfully" is that ultimately the allocation of phonemes and their representation is arbitrary. This is randomness you have to squeeze into a model.
I was recently reviewing some mathematics and realized the part of Elision that compresses the character tables may be partially related to what is known as super permutation. It's obvious how Latin declension and conjugation tables can be represented as tables, but the compositions of those tables can be represented as tables and so on and so forth.
I hadn't heard of super permutations before. I do see some similarity between your ideas and that. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by composition of conjugation tables though.
My solution is as follows: Get the index of the first possible such word, and of the last possible such word; now the searching is a bounds check on each word, needing no more dictionary access. Searching the auxiliary dictionary would mean just an additional bounds check. Isn't this neat?
Ah, I fell into the incremental search trap. Your solution is dramatically more elegant than the alternative (I wrote some pseudo-Scheme for heathen text using some fancy tricks and it still wasn't pretty at all).
I had a couple funny ideas over lunch today. One of which was a loose connection to run length encoding and your compressed tables. Nothing groundbreaking but I thought I'd share my application to the Roman Numeral example:
(defun arabic->roman (i)
(assert (and (integerp i) (<= 0 i 3999)))
(let ((store "IIIVIIIXXXLXXXCCCDCCCMMM")
(run #(0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 6))
(length #(0 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 2)))
(defun digit->roman (power &aux (digit (mod (floor i (expt 10 power)) 10)))
(make-array
(list (aref length digit))
:element-type 'character
:displaced-to store
:displaced-index-offset (+ (* 7 power) (aref run digit))))
(write-string (digit->roman 3))
(write-string (digit->roman 2))
(write-string (digit->roman 1))
(write-string (digit->roman 0)))
nil)>>146 I should have used defconstant, and check-type, but not list in the make-array. Oh well.
I enjoy speaking Latin to my dogs, but they never correct me when I make mistakes.
TACĒTE CANĒS / ESTE TACITĪ CANĒS (Be silent, dogs.)
TŪ ES CANIS NOSTER OPTIMVS AC PVLCHERRIMVS (Thou art our best and most handsome dog.)
TŪ ES CANIS NOSTRA FOEDISSIMA AC NIGERRIMA (Thou art our ugliest and blackest dog.)
I wanted to tell my dogs Look, black clouds. and told them VIDĒTE NŪBĒS ĀTRAE but minutes later realized this was wrong, and should be either VIDĒTE NŪBĒS ĀTRĀS or ECCE NŪBĒS ĀTRAE, either accusative or nominative; this hits on an interesting difference between English and Latin. We may say Look, he does so and so. or Look at him doing so and so. whereas Latin splits this into at least two different words instead of using a particle. I'm better off for having made the mistake. I believe my former alternation to be acceptable, but I know the latter is. It's fun for the basic mistakes to begin melting away as I progress to making more complex mistakes.
Here are two sentences that could be in a teenager's poetry:
NĒMŌ AMĀTVR Ā MĒ (No one is loved by me.)
NĒMINEM AMŌ (I love no one.)
In the shower, I realized the phrase By Jove invokes Jupiter, who has the most irregular name I've learned so far: IVPPITER (nominative) IOVIS (genetive). The Latin would be AB IOVE.
The word ``superfluous'' is likely related to SVPERESSE (to be extra), the opposite of DEESSE (to be missing).
I've also thought about translating the disgusting things being done to English, as an amusement; I believe this is one such correct contortion:
HOMŌ QVĪ PARERE POTEST (a woman / a person who is able to give birth)
Well, I used BONIOR in a sentence, only to later learn the proper form is MELIOR, and I'd told my dog BONISSIMVS before learning it's OPTIMVS. I figure these are the manner of mistakes a Roman child would make; oh well.
I've noticed I occasionally rewrite the text of my book when recalling it from memory: CERTVS NŌN SVM becomes INCERTVS SVM or RESPŌNSVM INCERTVM NŪLLVM RESPŌNSVM EST becomes RESPŌNSVM INCERTVM RESPŌNSVM NŌN EST, although I'm not entirely certain the latter transformation be correct, but it seems to be so. I'm glad to spend so much of my spare thought on mulling over Latin, remembering details and whatnot; we would ask What is thirty and eight? for the math problem, but the Latin is QVOT SVNT TRĪGINTĀ ET OCTŌ and the answer's not TRĪGINTĀ OCTŌ but DVODĒQVADRĀGINTĀ or literally two below forty; it took some minor effort for me to recall the form of this question offhand, since I was working from how we would say it in English to the Latin, but I recalled it perfectly. It required abandoning the English-to-Latin approach and going through my memory of Latin question words.
I already knew, but have noticed how much redundancy helps memory; remembering uses of words in various contexts helps me so greatly in recalling their declension and gender and whatnot; I recall a pronoun, or preceding preposition, affecting a word and recall that it's masculine, or neuter, or so on. I reviewed an earlier chapter, looking for a word or its lack, and realized I was sight-reading; it was such a great feeling, even though I've read the chapter several times before. I could fill posts with my Latin stories, so I won't.
I'm reasonably proud of my latest art: gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12022-02-13 http://verisimilitudes.net/2022-02-13
It's funny everyone dislikes this sort of thing, and yet everyone agrees to them.
They don't detract from the language, I used cruel somewhat jokingly, and are remnants of when only animate and inanimate had genders, apparently. Recalling the genetive plural form is very difficult however, and I've not learned the rule for it yet. Consider how the words EQVVS and EQVA are stallion and mare, sharing a base, but CANIS is masculine or feminine, with no mutation. There are the words COLLVM (neck) and COLLIS (hill).
Perhaps this is the crux of the cultural difference, but I will avoid conjecturing your motivations.
It may be. I do most of my thinking without the help of the machines, and mostly use them to enter and check my work. The MMC is built to help me notice things I otherwise wouldn't, and has helped. That's only for machine code hacking, however.
Being essential is different from being how we compute.
Yes, and it may be more natural to use a computer to its strengths, rather than pretending it be like a brain.
This is randomness you have to squeeze into a model.
Yes, but I should be able to get away mostly with many known patterns.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by composition of conjugation tables though.
There are the Latin tables, but there are ways to represent those tables with smaller tables, and ways to represent the other tables with tables of the tables. An example, if I ever finish one, will help.
>>146
This is neat, and works, but it doesn't also go in reverse. Still, it's neat, and similar to what I want to do in part of Elision, in storing the character tables.
>>148
Know this isn't my full reply, I'm trying to focus on one thing at a time until May, and it takes a time for me to write a response to you. I just was thinking about this anyway so I thought I would write my thoughts.
Yes, and it may be more natural to use a computer to its strengths, rather than pretending it be like a brain.
I was going to make a witticism about "Giant Electronic Brains" and intelligence augmentation in reply to this, but I started to think more about what the latter actually meant, of concretes. What does the machine offer but computation, memory, and input/output? If I can derive symbolic solutions, remember the significant, and visualize with greater ease in my mind how much is it really augmenting? It's a machine to reduce tedium, like a washing machine, to deal with information only interesting in aggregate, and to permit more advanced automatons. I won't change my standard of beauty on your account (and you not on mine), but I think I just now fully grasp what the computer is for.
Actually, let this be my final reply. It's hard to say why I feel the need to cut off communication (for the third time now if I count your IRC channel), but I do. I'm hopeful the last two years will turn out to be among the worst in my life, and I'm coming to the realization that the last ten have been much more negative than positive. The internet really isn't a direct cause of this, and hasn't contributed significantly for a few years, but it doesn't help. Time and time again I've noticed when I remove it completely I've been happier, more productive, and fulfilled. It's simply far healthier to read John Edward Williams, or Dijkstra in the grass than the logs in my room.
Over the next few weeks I'll be graduating, while restoring and moving into a small 500ft2 flat neighboring some family. Over the next few months I'm going to be preparing to teach high-school math, and to apply for my graduate program; I might also start to garden again, perhaps more than I ever have (why not plant a hundred African Yams in the woods and plant 500ft2 or more of vegetables in the field?). I've committed an understanding of the formal language of "A Discipline of Programming" to memory (using the method of loci and set-theory diagrams), and I'm hoping soon to be able to think in it so as to provide a mechanism to transfer my math knowledge to computer science. Over the next couple years the plan is to teach, and do various internships, to pay the rent while attending OMSCS assuming everything goes according to plan.
Ideally over this time frame I would also make progress towards homesteading, and becoming proficient in language (mostly grammar, and rhetoric; but possibly further logic training or training in a foreign/classical language). It's not at all clear what I'll be able to achieve over such an extended time-frame. I'm hopeful.
Something I'd forgotten to mention earlier is neat: I'd wondered about LATINE, actually LATINĒ, because it looks vocative without the long vowel, but is truly an adverb. So, rather than LINGVA LATĪNA, one can use a word such as LATINĒ. It would be as if English had a word latinly.
I won't change my standard of beauty on your account (and you not on mine), but I think I just now fully grasp what the computer is for.
I'm glad to have helped.
Actually, let this be my final reply.
What a shame. I expect to have a little service available within the month we could've discussed.
I'm hopeful the last two years will turn out to be among the worst in my life, and I'm coming to the realization that the last ten have been much more negative than positive.
I believe hope to be an evil. I advise being hopeless instead. I'm serious.
Over the next couple years the plan is to teach, and do various internships, to pay the rent while attending OMSCS assuming everything goes according to plan.
Good luck.
Regarding the Internet, consider moderation.
>>151
I didn't proofread well enough. It's LATĪNĒ, not LATINĒ.
Eia sus, o latim escolhido por Deus, Nosso Senhor, a língua de Bandarra, língua de Deus, Espírito Santo, do Quinto Império.
Por que perder seu precioso tempo com latim quando Deus fala português?
E tu, o que digo consegues entender, com teu conhecimento de latim? Não use tradutores autômatos, por favor.
>>153
De acuerdo. El Ser Divino lo que habla es la superior Lengua Castellana.
I expect to have a little service available within the month we could've discussed.
I'm chronically behind the schedules I set for myself. The pieces are finished, but I've not had the will to assemble them yet. Worse, I've lost some motivation by realizing a better little service I could write soon. Perhaps I'll finish it within this month instead.
>>153
>>154
I don't believe I understood most of this, but I don't want to learn Portugese, no. I'm not interested in learning languages so that I may communicate with others, but so that I may communicate with the dead, and with myself more effectively; communicating with others is simply extra.
I've finally finished that program, and others, by now. I see I never made posts here about the libraries written for this.
This is a UDP binding for Ada, written without any C language code; what's most special is I wrote a parody poem to celebrate it; anyone who loathes UNIX should enjoy this:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2022-04-05
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12022-04-05
This is the other main piece of that program, a simple trie:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2022-05-05
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12022-05-05
It's named Trivial_Trie, and suffices for my need to have a long-lived trie for reading. I'm very pleased with my naming here. It was fun to play with limited private types; I accidentally made the full view of the type limited as well, but learned that lesson and others, after fighting with the compiler.
Here's the work to which those were building up:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2022-06-13
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/12022-06-13
It's a tiny little set of programs relevant to Elision; it has WWW and UDP interfaces.
I understand that latest link as a whole is unimpressive, so read this reflection on it before critiquing it:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2022-06-17
gopher://verisimilitudes.net/02022-06-17
It's some progress, at the very least.
Looks like a lot of people is reading http://www.loper-os.org/ too.
I've decided to do what I did with my machine code work, and shelve my language modelling work for now; I'll release some of it soon, but it still amounts to a toy and I'll need to work much more than was anticipated for it to move beyond that. Still, I look forward to intaking poetry with it at some point, since that will be a small and simple way to demonstrate it.
I'd be best off with funding for my work and at least one helper, but that won't come, and it also occurred to me that pursuing someone else's ideas could do for me some good. Unfortunately, every time I try to contact some research center, I never receive any replies, so I can't expect to be paid for helping to breathe life into someone else's vision either.
Anyone reading this who's unaware of Pest should probably learn of it:
http://pestnet.io
This is what I'll be pursuing now; I was going to do so anyway. Only the Serpent cipher will be a real annoyance, as I've never implemented it; I already have most of what's needed for the comprehensive SHA library in Ada, scattered about my workspace. Unlike the other Pest implementations, I'll have one entirely divorced from its user interface, and this will make it suitable for multiple user interface attempts to be tried. Pest is like bone, and so Ada's better suited to it than Lisp, which is suited more to living flesh.
I'm not particularly interested in Pest beyond using it to communicate with a select few, and it's not the manner of system I would ever design, but it still has something like a beauty about itself, and even could be useful as the transport mechanism of other works; it should be a suitable reprieve from my usual work.
I finished all of the libraries I need, but have yet to finish my Pest implementation in Ada. I'll see how long it takes me before I move on to other work.
Very nice.
>>159
Why Ada?
>>161
Probably because the F-22 is cool.
Apparently LLM was asked to cosplay Dijkstra
Still little sense but a ton of snobbism.
>>160
I really need to update that. It's been years.
>>161
Ada is a more pleasant language in certain ways. I generally like the very strong typing, and enjoy writing code without failure cases. In Common Lisp, constraining code so is impractical and annoying. I find that Common Lisp's image-based nature is one of its most compelling properties, and that property which has me use it the most for things like testing. Still, it's not the only image-based language.
>>163
What have I written which makes no sense?
>>162
The F-22 is pretty beautiful.
Ada is a more pleasant language in certain ways.
Agreed. Well, I think it's better than C, at least.
>>165
Indeed. The F-35 not so much.
Right, I wrote another article on tabular programming recently:
http://verisimilitudes.net/2024-02-29
I need to expand it a little, and add an implementation in Common Lisp, but it's worthy of mention here nonetheless.