00:13:46 *** kpreid has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
00:14:10 *** ephemerian has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
00:18:41 *** kpreid (~kpreid@216-171-189-244.northland.net) has joined #swhack
00:18:41 <Monty> lo kpreid
00:32:35 *** kpreid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
00:36:36 *** kpreid (~kpreid@216-171-189-244.northland.net) has joined #swhack
01:16:28 *** libby has quit (Quit: libby)
02:38:59 *** panni_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
03:04:54 *** monkinetic (~sivy@ip98-165-151-31.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined #swhack
03:05:43 *** monkinetic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
03:08:49 *** sivy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
03:38:58 *** shepazu (~schepers@adsl-162-145-178.rmo.bellsouth.net) has joined #swhack
04:18:37 *** p6eval has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
04:19:58 *** p6eval (~p6eval@209.9.237.232) has joined #swhack
04:20:07 *** p6eval has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
04:21:47 *** p6eval (~p6eval@209.9.237.232) has joined #swhack
04:22:59 *** p6eval has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
04:23:12 *** p6eval (~p6eval@209.9.237.232) has joined #swhack
05:08:09 *** shepazu has quit (Quit: shepazu)
05:11:50 *** theresaanna (~theresaan@71.167.166.46) has joined #swhack
05:41:16 *** theresaanna has quit (Quit: theresaanna)
06:44:52 *** dmiles_afk (~dmiles@c-24-16-247-61.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
06:45:54 *** jeanniecool (~jeannieco@184.77.217.93) has joined #swhack
06:46:24 <jeanniecool> penis penis penis!
06:46:36 * jeanniecool dances the Penis conga
07:00:22 *** ephemerian (~ian@82-71-51-229.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk) has joined #swhack
07:44:35 *** JibberJim has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
08:30:37 *** lorchard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
08:34:01 *** lmorchard (~lmorchard@24.208.238.239) has joined #swhack
08:34:01 <Monty> lo lmorchard
08:46:12 *** nogagplz has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
08:51:23 *** nogagplz (~nogagplz@ppp121-44-184-43.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net) has joined #swhack
08:51:24 <Monty> welcome, nogagplz
08:56:10 *** p6eval has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
08:56:17 *** p6eval (~p6eval@209.9.237.232) has joined #swhack
08:57:44 *** Talliesin (~Talliesin@86.47.160.33) has joined #swhack
09:07:53 *** JibberJim (~jim@ge2-0.rt2.rbsov.bbc.co.uk) has joined #swhack
09:08:36 *** MaienM|Sleep has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
09:13:07 *** libby (~libby@92.40.135.120.sub.mbb.three.co.uk) has joined #swhack
09:41:56 *** nogagplz has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
10:05:11 <sbp> gah, what kind of asshats are in the Belgian parliament?
10:05:12 <sbp> .title http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8652861.stm
10:05:14 <phenny> sbp: BBC News - Belgian lawmakers pass burka ban
10:05:22 <sbp> "The BBC's Dominic Hughes in Brussels says MPs backed the legislation on the grounds of security, to allow police to identify people."
10:05:29 <sbp> they banned it on security grounds
10:05:33 <sbp> on *security grounds*
10:05:44 *** hannes__ (~hannes@sedanet0.sedan.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE) has joined #swhack
10:06:55 <sbp> perhaps they're just trying to avoid the controversy of, you know, sticking up for women's rights. after all, I'll bet they didn't ban fancy dress too. hmm, what if someone wanted to wear a burqa as fancy dress?
10:07:36 <sbp> anyway, hard to ensure rights either way. there are 30 women in Belgium who wear it. they could actually write to them all individually and do case studies to find out if they are oppressed into wearing it or whether it's their own choice
10:08:14 <sbp> also wondering what the gender balance in the Belgian lower house is. though it was passed unanimously
10:08:22 <sbp> fucking security. mental
10:23:33 <sbp> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47750000/jpg/_47750458_debatelegs.jpg
10:54:35 <[bjoern]> You should demand to see their birth certificates.
10:57:26 <libby> sbp: 90 mins is a long time to stand up without moving much
10:57:36 <libby> though it's a great picture
10:57:54 <[bjoern]> They are politicians, they do little else.
11:01:45 <archels> sbp: I hear France is next (re burqa ban).
11:44:31 *** nogagplz (~nogagplz@ppp121-44-184-43.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net) has joined #swhack
11:45:47 *** libby has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
11:52:48 *** shepazu (~schepers@adsl-242-247-226.rmo.bellsouth.net) has joined #swhack
11:56:34 *** shepazu has quit (Client Quit)
12:30:33 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
12:30:39 *** MacTed has quit ()
12:40:30 *** libby (~libby@92.40.189.20.sub.mbb.three.co.uk) has joined #swhack
12:47:24 *** kpreid (~kpreid@rrcs-208-125-58-214.nys.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
12:49:49 *** libby has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
12:52:52 *** shepazu (~schepers@208-1-62-50.celito.net) has joined #swhack
13:23:08 *** MacTed (~Thud@63.119.36.36) has joined #swhack
13:23:08 <Monty> hi MacTed, how ya doing?
13:27:01 *** sivy (~sivy@ip98-165-151-31.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined #swhack
13:38:39 *** theresaanna (~theresaan@rrcs-69-193-139-102.nyc.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
13:52:06 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
13:57:32 *** kpreid (~kpreid@rrcs-208-125-58-214.nys.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
14:00:39 *** nogagplz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
14:01:16 *** shepazu has quit (Quit: shepazu)
14:01:39 *** cre8radix (~cre8radix@c-base/crew/cre8radix) has joined #swhack
14:11:16 *** cre8radix has quit (Quit: your mama! >:))
14:26:05 *** shepazu (~schepers@208-1-62-50.celito.net) has joined #swhack
15:00:53 *** tobbez has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
15:02:58 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
15:10:14 *** tobbez (tobbez@2001:470:28:64:218:f3ff:fe7e:30c5) has joined #swhack
15:10:14 <Monty> howdy, tobbez
15:14:36 *** kpreid (~kpreid@rrcs-208-125-58-214.nys.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
15:47:29 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
15:56:10 *** shepazu has quit (Quit: shepazu)
15:57:58 *** shepazu (~schepers@208-1-62-50.celito.net) has joined #swhack
16:00:29 *** shepazu has quit (Client Quit)
16:09:22 *** jsled has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
16:10:26 *** jsled (~jsled@c-98-229-1-95.hsd1.vt.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
16:17:20 *** JibberJim has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
16:34:27 *** kpreid (~kpreid@rrcs-208-125-58-214.nys.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
16:55:59 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
16:59:07 *** kpreid (~kpreid@rrcs-208-125-58-214.nys.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
17:09:15 *** nogagplz (~nogagplz@ppp121-44-209-215.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net) has joined #swhack
17:09:15 <Monty> bah, it's nogagplz again
17:35:41 *** shepazu (~schepers@208-1-62-50.celito.net) has joined #swhack
17:37:44 *** Jibbler has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
17:38:10 *** Monty has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
17:45:33 *** libby (~libby@cpc1-aztw25-2-0-cust42.aztw.cable.virginmedia.com) has joined #swhack
17:51:34 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
17:58:52 *** Jibbler (~Jibbler@94-193-105-25.zone7.bethere.co.uk) has joined #swhack
18:01:03 *** kpreid (~kpreid@216-171-189-244.northland.net) has joined #swhack
18:02:38 *** panni_ (hannes@ip-95-222-52-93.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #swhack
18:06:09 *** JibberJim (~jim@81-86-174-182.dsl.pipex.com) has joined #swhack
18:22:59 *** JibberJim has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
18:39:38 *** jsled has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
18:40:37 *** jsled (~jsled@c-98-229-1-95.hsd1.vt.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
18:40:41 *** Talliesin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
18:42:42 *** panni_ has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.de :: NoNameScript 3.81 :: www.XLhost.de ))
18:42:52 *** panni_ (hannes@ip-95-222-52-93.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #swhack
18:45:42 *** nogagplz_ (~nogagplz@ppp121-44-141-157.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net) has joined #swhack
18:47:14 *** nogagplz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
18:51:45 *** nogagplz_ is now known as nogagplz
18:55:52 *** JibberJim (~jim@81-86-174-182.dsl.pipex.com) has joined #swhack
18:56:22 *** jsled has quit (Changing host)
18:56:22 *** jsled (~jsled@pdpc/supporter/bronze/jsled) has joined #swhack
18:59:49 *** libby has quit (Quit: libby)
19:08:49 *** shepazu has quit (Quit: shepazu)
19:11:40 *** danbri has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
19:13:20 *** danbri (~danbri@unaffiliated/danbri) has joined #swhack
19:39:28 *** danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
19:39:52 *** shepazu (~schepers@208-1-62-50.celito.net) has joined #swhack
19:40:25 *** danbri (~danbri@unaffiliated/danbri) has joined #swhack
19:46:13 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
19:53:17 *** theresaanna has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
19:53:26 *** theresaanna (~theresaan@rrcs-69-193-139-102.nyc.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
19:56:33 *** kpreid (~kpreid@rrcs-208-125-58-214.nys.biz.rr.com) has joined #swhack
20:02:55 <KragenSitaker> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars is a very well-written rebuttal to Jobs's position
20:18:16 *** lisppaste2 has quit (Quit: Want lisppaste2 in your channel? Email lisppaste-requests AT common-lisp.net.)
20:18:21 *** lisppaste2 (~lisppaste@common-lisp.net) has joined #swhack
20:39:24 *** jsled has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
20:40:31 *** jsled (~jsled@c-98-229-1-95.hsd1.vt.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
20:41:49 *** nogagplz has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
20:46:18 <sbp> Swhack, you only get my shit uri of the day
20:46:20 <sbp> http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l1ly81pOfj1qad74xo1_500.jpg
20:46:24 <sbp> because you suck. BE BETTER
20:48:55 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: That article annoys me. Well written, but full of value assumptions whilst criticising someone else for making the same. Also, completely failing to understand the drivers of business, reducing it to an emotive argument about 'control' of the users.
20:49:32 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: it has moments of charming naivety too, such as the idea that any video codec in the world is 'free' in the sense they mean
20:50:37 <Arnia> now, whether or not that is an issue, it isn't an issue which can be feasibly solved by any organisation (commercial or charitable) so to use it as an argument for bad-faith is disingenuous in the extreme
20:51:28 *** sivy has quit (Quit: sivy)
20:51:46 <Arnia> Overall, if I were marking it as an essay from a student, the writing style would earn it a 2(i) but the lack of rigour and recourse to emotive argument (albeit deftly done) would get a third.
20:51:58 *** tav has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
20:52:30 *** nogagplz (~nogagplz@ppp121-44-252-20.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net) has joined #swhack
20:52:50 <Arnia> (I've even ignored the very significant technical issues here, which undermine the argument fairly comprehensively by themselves)
20:53:12 <sbp> I'd put him in the remedial class underneath the library where they cooped up poor Mr. Alderwidge the janitor's father. poor guy didn't do anything wrong! well, that anybody has been able to prove
20:53:13 *** theresaanna has quit (Quit: theresaanna)
20:54:06 <Arnia> This is a very complicated issue, and the world could do without more sloppy, emotive writing on it
20:54:19 <Arnia> no matter how nice the prose is
20:54:51 <Arnia> (incidentally, something that pisses me off about this election too)
20:55:13 <sbp> funny that when I see something I don't understand on reddit, I need to use urbandictionary. no other dictionary will do
20:55:23 <sbp> thankfully I'm not on reddit often
20:56:14 <Arnia> Indeed
20:57:13 <Arnia> Sorry for the rant there, but it annoys me to see the waters muddied further
20:57:22 <sbp> oh, here we go: 'Hot tip: the longer the essay, the better the grade. I called "Watergate" "Waterloo", fucked up a bunch of dates, and made up fake stories...and still got a 12/12.' - that might have helped the whatever it was writer above who did whatever it was that made me say janitor instead of caretaker (wtf is wrong with me)
20:57:44 <sbp> words
20:57:45 <sbp> words
20:57:48 <sbp> words
20:58:27 *** tav (~tav@78.151.158.68) has joined #swhack
20:59:04 *** sbp changed the topic to: "Pro Tip: Call "Watergate" "Waterloo""
20:59:50 <sbp> Punch Rockgroin is a pretty good character name
21:01:02 *** shepazu has quit (Quit: shepazu)
21:02:07 <sbp> in true REDDIT THREADMODE:
21:02:08 <sbp> Predantic alert! it's Super Mario Bros not world :)
21:02:09 <sbp> reddit + pedant = predantic?
21:02:09 <sbp> I'd probably add a second 'd': preddantic. That way there's more Reddit.
21:02:09 <sbp> Preddantic! NOW WITH 12.5% MORE REDDIT! :)
21:02:09 <sbp> Preddantic alert! Adding a d would provide 33.33% more Reddit.
21:02:10 <sbp> Repeating, of course.
21:02:12 <sbp> Of course.
21:02:16 <sbp> Of course.
21:02:53 <sbp> .gc +nostaljizzed
21:02:54 <phenny> +nostaljizzed: 2
21:03:37 <Arnia> sbp: you just managed to shut down my associative cortex with one spiel
21:03:40 <Arnia> well done
21:03:45 <Arnia> This is why I avoid reddit
21:05:02 <sbp> argh, even this page goes on about the Flash vs. HTML5 stuff
21:05:16 <sbp> yeah, well, blame AaronSw not me
21:05:25 <sbp> I do my constructive things *off* of the internet
21:05:32 <sbp> because otherwise reddit happens
21:05:56 <Arnia> heh
21:06:01 <Arnia> reddit happens...
21:06:05 <sbp> hehe
21:06:31 *** Arnia changed the topic to: "Sometimes reddit happens"
21:08:10 <sbp> hmm, what famous person is named Ogilvy
21:08:12 <sbp> .wik Ogilvy
21:08:12 <phenny> "Ogilvy (Montreal), department store in Montreal, Canada" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogilvy
21:08:16 <sbp> no, no
21:08:18 <sbp> .wik Ogilvy (person)
21:08:22 <phenny> "Ogilvie is a surname with origins in the Barony of Ogilvy in Angus, Scotland." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogilvie
21:08:29 <sbp> rightio
21:08:54 <sbp> but, Wikipedia, see, here's my problem. I'm looking for the famousmost specific INSTANCE of a person whose surname is Ogilvy
21:09:12 <sbp> hehe. People -> William Ogilvie, several people
21:10:16 *** MacTed has quit (Quit: *bamf*)
21:10:39 <sbp> weird, must be one of the old ones I remember
21:19:56 *** shepazu (~schepers@208-1-62-50.celito.net) has joined #swhack
21:22:09 *** hannes__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
21:25:21 *** shepazu has quit (Quit: shepazu)
21:28:25 *** sivy (~sivy@ip98-165-151-31.ph.ph.cox.net) has joined #swhack
21:33:31 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
21:37:24 <KragenSitaker> Arnia: interesting. Do you think it could discuss the same moral issues in a way that you would think good?
21:38:58 <KragenSitaker> (I mostly disagree with what you have said about it, but I don't think any purpose would be served by attempting to explain why)
21:40:32 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: Only if the morals were made explicit and accepted as entirely personal, rather than imposed generally
21:41:09 <Arnia> I don't believe in universal morals
21:41:43 <KragenSitaker> Does that mean you're a moral relativist? Or is there a fine distinction of doctrines there I'm not appreciatin?
21:41:46 <KragenSitaker> g?
21:42:34 <Arnia> There is a difference between believing that morals are objective and believing that morals are entirely arbitrary
21:44:23 <KragenSitaker> That's interesting. What is that difference?
21:46:12 <Arnia> I am an embodied relativist, epistemologically and morally. This means that I believe that morals are based on one's embodiment in spacetime
21:47:36 <Arnia> Thus morals are all based on one's experience of a shared reality, mediated through one's body, but since we all have different (partial) experiences of that reality, the morals can differ substantially
21:49:17 *** theresaanna (~theresaan@71.167.166.46) has joined #swhack
21:49:39 <Arnia> Since morals are arbitrary in this fashion, I feel it is as inappropriate to the 'rightness' of someone else's morals as it is to comment on the 'rightness' of someone else's experience. I can describe my morals, and the basis for them where accessible, but it seems inappropriate to me to try and impose my moral code on someone else's behaviour
21:50:20 <Arnia> hence I find arguments which make recourse to emotive, moral debate to judge someone else's position a bit distasteful
21:51:05 <Arnia> Note, I don't find it distasteful to say 'I find this immoral because...' but I do find it so to say 'It is immoral because...'
21:51:42 <Arnia> It is part of the (very human) assumption of totality and correctness of experience that we're all liable to
21:52:13 <Arnia> but experience isn't total, and 'correctness' is indeterminate and, thus, of little semantic value
21:52:57 <Arnia> A better argument would be in terms of outcomes; freedom shouldn't be a goal by itself, it is the outcomes that freedom allows which may be the goal
21:53:51 <Arnia> then we can compare those goals to our own, and the argument to our experience, and make our own moral judgements based on this
21:57:58 *** kpreid (~kpreid@216-171-189-244.northland.net) has joined #swhack
22:00:12 <KragenSitaker> Do you think someone else's morals could be wrong, in principle, even if you aren't in a position to determine whether or not that's the case?
22:00:46 <Arnia> Could they be an inappropriate generalisation of their experience relative to their inference rules? Yes
22:00:59 <Arnia> Is it easy to determine that? No
22:03:19 <KragenSitaker> So that's the sense in which you're not purely a strawman moral relativist?
22:05:36 <KragenSitaker> It seems like most or all of the things you've said about morals are also true about questions of physical fact, such as the density of steel or the etiology of scurvy
22:11:09 <Arnia> That's why I made clear at the start that I'm an epistemological embodied relativist too
22:11:39 <Arnia> I don't believe that knowledge is utterly arbitrary, but I believe that 'truth' is an internal (rather than external and universal) affair
22:14:12 <Arnia> in fact, I don't believe that it is useful to talk about how reality really is... it is inaccessible to our reason except through mediatory mechanisms and we only get a very limited snapshot of it
22:14:15 <KragenSitaker> Do you find it equally distasteful when someone says, "Scurvy is caused by a deficiency in vitamin C," rather than "I find scurvy to be caused by a deficiency in vitamin C"? I hope that doesn't sound like I'm patronizing or making fun of you; I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
22:15:17 <Arnia> No I don't, but the reason I don't is because people aren't trying to use the uses of vitamin C to judge someone else's worth (generally)
22:16:15 <Arnia> I would find it distasteful (and do) when someone tries to claim that such-and-such is the truth
22:17:09 <Arnia> that should be capitalised probably
22:17:41 <KragenSitaker> So you're okay with "Scurvy is caused by a deficiency in vitamin C," but not with "The truth is that scurvy is caused by a deficiency in vitamin C"?
22:17:44 <Arnia> I mean the difference between Stephen J Gould and Richard Dawkins attitudes towards certain religions (say)
22:18:21 <Arnia> I find Stephen J Gould to have a far more agreeable (given my beliefs) approach
22:18:37 <Arnia> (yes, I know he is dead, but it is convenient to talk in the present tense right now)
22:21:03 <Arnia> Saying you don't believe in God is fine; saying that belief in God is aberrant is another thing entirely. The latter possesses an unreasonable certainty given the partiality of experience and reason the person has.
22:22:05 <Arnia> not sure if I'm making much sense. I just had a low blood sugar, so what I wrote before probably was a little less than clear :)
22:22:41 <KragenSitaker> I think I understand what you're saying.
22:23:08 <KragenSitaker> Although parts of it don't make much sense to me.
22:24:13 <Arnia> Which bits?
22:26:30 <KragenSitaker> the distinction between capitalized "Truth" and "truth"
22:27:36 <KragenSitaker> and the distinction between making an assertion (such as "truth is an internal affair") and claiming that that assertion is true ("'truth is an internal affair' is the truth")
22:27:50 <Arnia> little-t truth is the common sense truth; big-t Truth is the epistemological concept
22:27:56 <KragenSitaker> But most of the rest of it I agree with
22:27:59 *** jetscreamer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
22:28:23 <Arnia> in the same way that I will talk about the Semantic Web and the semantic web
22:28:31 *** jetscreamer (~jetscream@unaffiliated/jetscreamer) has joined #swhack
22:28:38 <Arnia> I agree with the latter, but am not sure about the former
22:29:57 <KragenSitaker> e.g. that people should be very cautious about one's level of certainty, given how limited our knowledge of the world is
22:30:15 <KragenSitaker> s/people/one/, sorry
22:30:28 <KragenSitaker> I thought the epistemological concept was the same thing as common sense truth
22:31:04 <sbp> heh
22:31:11 <sbp> justified true belief?
22:31:18 <sbp> and all that malarky
22:31:21 <KragenSitaker> and I agree about the dangers of judging other people morally
22:31:31 <sbp> wait, that would be awesome
22:31:40 <sbp> define truth as some subset of knowledge
22:31:56 <sbp> no wait, it's just intersecting with it in the old model
22:32:13 <sbp> ooh, Guitar Boogie
22:32:40 <sbp> you know, Jeff Beck did a version of this when he was in the Yardbirds
22:32:56 <sbp> pretty damn good actually
22:34:01 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: the formal definition of truth is incredibly technical, and there is a different concept of what truth means depending on the framework you ask the question in
22:34:20 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: so no, the common sense and epistemological conceptions are very different
22:34:29 <sbp> LET'S ALL PLAY TARSKI'S TRUTH DEFINITIONS, THE BOARDGAME!
22:34:35 <sbp> you roll first, Arnia
22:34:45 <Arnia> I play... Goguen Institutions!
22:34:51 <Arnia> your turn
22:35:20 <sbp> okay, I roll but my dice falls off the edge of the table
22:35:42 <Arnia> Oh dear... you're Undecidable now
22:35:47 <sbp> by the time I recover it I find that it is not materially adequate
22:36:11 * Arnia rolls
22:36:18 <Arnia> Damn... Russell's Ruin
22:36:21 <sbp> haha
22:36:30 *** theresaanna has quit (Quit: theresaanna)
22:36:54 <Arnia> Now I've got to determine which list of players to put myself on
22:37:29 <sbp> this is Mornington Crescent for people who keep forgetting their stop
22:38:02 *** Arnia changed the topic to: "this is Mornington Crescent for people who keep forgetting their stop"
22:39:07 <sbp> who needs lipograms
22:39:31 <Arnia> more than a Leibnizogram
22:39:36 <Arnia> God... that would be scary
22:39:55 <sbp> you know I still haven't looked up that fluxions book
22:39:57 *** kpreid has quit (Quit: kpreid)
22:40:05 <sbp> I want to learn calculus the fucking PROPER way
22:40:07 <sbp> without limits! heh
22:40:18 <Arnia> oh yay, informal calculus :)
22:40:35 <Arnia> actually, you might enjoy synthetic differential geometry
22:40:39 <sbp> and with movement instead of whatever
22:40:42 <sbp> oh yeah?
22:41:04 <Arnia> You end up with calculus, just by augmenting the reals with an infintesimal
22:41:14 <Arnia> calculus just sort of appears
22:41:23 <sbp> that does sound fun!
22:41:25 <Arnia> It is a wonderful example of category theory too
22:41:37 <sbp> oh man, you had to sneak something in there
22:41:43 <Arnia> What? :p
22:41:55 <sbp> this is just like that jQuery monads article
22:42:02 <Arnia> ?
22:42:04 <sbp> "and by reading this you will suddenly understand haskell!"
22:42:38 <sbp> or the alligator eggs for lambda calculus?
22:42:50 <Arnia> ah yes
22:42:53 <Arnia> .wik synthetic differential geometry
22:42:53 <phenny> "In mathematics, synthetic differential geometry is a reformulation of differential geometry in the language of topos theory, in the context of an intuitionistic logic characterized by a rejection of the law of excluded middle." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_differential_geometry
22:43:08 <sbp> AH!
22:43:17 <sbp> that just reminded me of an idea I had earlier that I meant to jot down
22:43:20 <sbp> (excluded middle)
22:43:32 <Arnia> I actually got interested by it because a) it was a topos, and b) it was a non-boolean topos
22:43:55 <Arnia> (this was whilst I was trying to develop an evidential number system)
22:44:34 <Arnia> .wik Institution (Category Theory)
22:44:36 <phenny> "The notion of institution has been created by Joseph Goguen and Rod Burstall in the late 1970's in order to deal with the 'population explosion among the logical systems used in computer science'." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_(computer_science)
22:44:42 <Arnia> ^^ KragenSitaker
22:45:03 <Arnia> think Tarski writ large
22:52:46 <KragenSitaker> Arnia: Tarski (and Goguen, etc.) seem to have been talking more about how to interpret symbolic logic than about what truth is
22:53:09 <sbp> what? heh
22:53:20 <sbp> that's one of the strangest things I've ever seen written
22:53:51 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: what's the difference?
22:54:06 <Arnia> .g On a semantic conception of truth
22:54:07 <phenny> Arnia: http://www.ditext.com/tarski/tarski.html
22:54:24 <KragenSitaker> Although I admit that I know very little about logic.
22:54:25 <sbp> think about yo WORDZ mang
22:54:49 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: interpreting symbolic logic and truth are equivalent
22:55:03 <sbp> (in formal systems)
22:55:16 <Arnia> sbp: define formal
22:55:33 <Arnia> sbp: remember how flexible Tarski's definition of a logic is
22:55:35 <KragenSitaker> Arnia: what makes you think so?
22:55:38 <sbp> OH MY GOODNESS MY COIN HAS A TAILS SIDE BUT WHAT IS THAT THERE COULD THAT BE THE QUEEN'S ARSE?!
22:55:47 <sbp> yeah, I know :-)
22:55:57 <sbp> we've been through this before, too
22:56:02 <sbp> not in Swhack though I think
22:56:55 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: a sentence is true if it licences a model
22:57:05 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: sorry, that should be iff
22:57:39 <KragenSitaker> (I am reading Tarski now; thanks for the link)
22:57:43 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: a sentence licences a model through an interpretation, and an interpretation is defined entirely by the set of sentences and models it licences
22:57:51 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: (hence the iff)
22:58:09 <Arnia> KragenSitaker: it is in the definitions of the concepts in other words :)
22:58:51 <Arnia> and whilst there are other ways to define Truth than Tarski's, his is the most successful
22:59:04 <Arnia> partly because of the success of the logics it was applied to
22:59:19 <Arnia> partly because his definition of a logic is incredibly broad
22:59:31 <Arnia> (the universe fits the definition for example)
22:59:43 <KragenSitaker> Hmm, my understanding of the terminology of logic is not strong enough to be sure I understand the statements you are making about licencing and interpretations and so on.
22:59:58 <KragenSitaker> Perhaps after I finish reading the book you linked me to, I will have a somewhat better grasp.
23:00:19 <sbp> /\/\/\
23:01:07 <KragenSitaker> Tarski does start out by saying that the "truth" he's talking about is intended to be the same common-sense truth we were talking about earlier, though:
23:01:10 <KragenSitaker> "The desired definition does not aim to specify the meaning of a familiar word used to denote a novel notion; on the contrary, it aims to catch hold of the actual meaning of an old notion."
23:01:15 <KragenSitaker> Unless I misinterpreted that?
23:01:26 <Arnia> No, that's what he was aiming for
23:01:44 <sbp> http://chainsawsuit.com/comics/20100128.png
23:01:48 <Arnia> but Truth, by its formalisation, has gained a lot of nuances
23:02:01 <sbp> /\/\/\ <- argument about the structure of propositions
23:02:27 <KragenSitaker> Are you asserting that he was unsuccessful, then?
23:03:09 <sbp> Arnia wouldn't assert that because, like, judgement is a moral question
23:03:10 <Arnia> Only in the way that any project to try and bring a classical formalist rigour to a radial concept would be unsuccessful
23:03:32 <sbp> he could only justify it based on his partial understanding of the emodiment of Tarski, what bars he went to, what kind of colours he liked
23:03:44 * Arnia nukes sbp
23:03:49 <sbp> you know judgement is aesthetics right?
23:04:02 *** jsled has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
23:04:06 <Arnia> Quick Summary: a Tarskian logic consists of a language (a set of sentences), a metalanguage (a set of objects), an interpretation (a map between sentences and objects) and an inference function that preserves the interpretation
23:04:21 <sbp> all in the Victorian Ladies' Guide to Axiological Etiquette!
23:04:32 <Arnia> Institution theory generalises this beyond sets and functions into categories, and brings to bear the machinery of category theory
23:04:35 <KragenSitaker> It's okay; I can read Tarski's own quick summary of his book :)
23:04:46 <sbp> yeah, but Tarski's summary is false
23:04:49 <KragenSitaker> ah, but the summary of the wider field is very helpful
23:05:41 <Arnia> .g Information Flow Framework
23:05:41 *** jsled (~jsled@c-98-229-1-95.hsd1.vt.comcast.net) has joined #swhack
23:05:41 <phenny> Arnia: http://www.ontologos.org/IFF/IFF.html
23:05:56 *** jsled has quit (Changing host)
23:05:56 *** jsled (~jsled@pdpc/supporter/bronze/jsled) has joined #swhack
23:06:09 <Arnia> Barwise and Seligman wrote a book on 'information flow', which is like a specific case of a class of institutions
23:06:27 <Arnia> Institution theory is more general, but correspondingly harder to learn about :)
23:06:46 <Arnia> sbp: was he a liar?
23:07:03 <sbp> Arnia: nope, nothing he said was con-crete
23:07:11 <sbp> HA HA
23:07:26 <Arnia> there was another pun there actually
23:07:30 <Arnia> but it is even more geeky
23:07:34 <sbp> where? fuck did I miss one
23:07:38 <KragenSitaker> this article is 13000 words, and so would probably take me an hour to read if it were a chapter in a science-fiction novel
23:08:03 <KragenSitaker> so it may be a few hours before I am prepared to say anything intelligent about it
23:08:06 <Arnia> Tarski's definition of truth was based on sets and functions; a category which is (essentially) just sets and functions is called a concrete category
23:08:37 *** nogagplz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
23:08:59 <Arnia> So, all institutions which meet Tarski's definition are concrete institutions
23:09:02 <Arnia> HA HA
23:10:50 <sbp> I'd like to claim a victory for my subconscious
23:10:56 <sbp> but in reality, HARD DRINKING WINS THE DAY
23:12:15 * Arnia smacks sbp with a semantic functor
23:12:15 <sbp> I'd also just like to point out something or other involving the identity function
23:12:38 <Arnia> 2-categories, when arrows get fat
23:13:21 <Arnia> I'd never be a good physicist. My brain doesn't like anything over a 2-category; and theoretical physics often deals in 8-categories
23:13:47 <Arnia> .g Baez n-category
23:13:48 <phenny> Arnia: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/
23:14:31 <sbp> not loading
23:14:36 <sbp> expecting John Baez
23:14:41 <sbp> whose name annoys me for obvious reasons
23:14:52 <Arnia> Is he too Baezian?
23:14:55 <sbp> ha
23:15:24 <Arnia> categories really are amazing
23:15:36 <sbp> there should be a piano where the white keys play the blue notes and the black keys play brown noise
23:15:39 <Arnia> so simple, yet so much structure can be expressed with them
23:16:03 <Arnia> And the Curry-Howard isomorphism is easy to prove
23:16:22 <Arnia> .g Curry-Howard isomorphism topos proof
23:16:23 <phenny> Arnia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_logic
23:17:36 <Arnia> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard#Curry.E2.80.93Howard.E2.80.93Lambek_correspondence
23:18:43 *** theresaanna (~theresaan@71.167.166.46) has joined #swhack
23:21:34 *** nogagplz (~nogagplz@ppp121-44-224-195.lns20.syd7.internode.on.net) has joined #swhack
23:38:27 *** kpreid (~kpreid@216-171-189-244.northland.net) has joined #swhack
23:46:32 *** ephemerian has parted #swhack (None)
23:58:41 * jeanniecool mentions "penis", just in case anyone hasn't for a while
