2022-05-16 07:45:26 <KipIngram   > remexre: I see a subtle difference in the >IN OFF "infinity" and a true infinite string infinity.  Similar to the difference between rational and irrational numbers.  When you right down a rational number in decimal form, you always come to a repeating sequence of some length.  That seems more like the >IN OFF "infinity" to me.  Irrational numbers never repeat, which seems more like a truly infinite string.
2022-05-16 07:45:28 <KipIngram   > I don't know if this is a meaningful difference in the computer science context, but it sure is in the number context.
2022-05-16 07:45:49 <KipIngram   > In a sense you "know what's coming" in the >IN OFF case, whereas you don't with a real infinite string.
2022-05-16 07:46:21 <KipIngram   > There's a fringe math guy on YouTube named Norman Wildberger who talks a lot about the "problems" with irrational numbers.
2022-05-16 07:47:12 <Zarutian_HTC> h'lo folks
2022-05-16 07:48:19 <Zarutian_HTC> one thing I have yet to explore in recrational mathematic sense, is how base effects irrational numbers
2022-05-16 08:21:37 <KipIngram   > That is an interesting topic.  I don't think, though, that base affects whether a number is rational or irrational.  It does affect which rational numbers "terminate" and which "repeat," though.  Does that make sense?
2022-05-16 08:22:03 <KipIngram   > Like in base 3 1/3 is 0.1, no repeating.
2022-05-16 08:22:32 <KipIngram   > I'm not 100% sure of that, but I *think* "irrational is irrational."
2022-05-16 08:23:27 <KipIngram   > There's an infinite amount of information in an irrational nuber.
2022-05-16 08:40:10 <veltas      > Irrational numbers don't repeat with a fixed base
2022-05-16 08:40:38 <veltas      > But you can have changing bases to allow some numbers to repeat, i.e. sqrt(2) I think repeats with the right mechanism
2022-05-16 08:42:34 <veltas      > console.log(accept_form);
2022-05-16 08:42:48 <veltas      > Sorry wrong buffer
2022-05-16 08:43:13 <veltas      > This is how sqrt(2) can repeat: https://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/SqContinuedFraction.shtml
2022-05-16 08:44:31 <veltas      > So [1;2,2,2,2,....]
2022-05-16 08:46:54 <KipIngram   > Oh, hang on while I look at that.
2022-05-16 08:47:59 <KipIngram   > Ok, fair enough.  That's not a "normal repeating decimal," but I think it still counts in a way.
2022-05-16 08:48:25 <KipIngram   > Oh, well, wait a minute.
2022-05-16 08:49:03 <KipIngram   > No matter how far you go with that, you still have a square root of two in the last spot.
2022-05-16 08:49:28 <KipIngram   > So that's just a little different from the way I was thinking about it.
2022-05-16 08:52:26 <KipIngram   > Continued fractions are quite interesting.
2022-05-16 08:57:38 <KipIngram   > That still qualifies as a repeating representation in my book.
2022-05-16 08:58:29 <KipIngram   > Is the golden ratio [1;1,1,1,1,1...]?
2022-05-16 08:59:23 <KipIngram   > Seems like it's something like that.  Having all those denominator factors be 1 means that when you finally terminate your "calculation" the fraction you throw away is more important that it is in any other continued fraction (since 1 is as small as those factors can get).
2022-05-16 08:59:37 <KipIngram   > I've seen that fact used to call the golden ratio the "most" irrational number.
2022-05-16 09:00:23 <KipIngram   > You like for the last denominator factor (the one where you stop and throw away the fraction) to be as large as possible - that means you're more accurate given where you're cutting things off.
2022-05-16 09:00:57 <KipIngram   > Yeah - https://www.theproblemsite.com/reference/mathematics/the-golden-ratio/continued-fraction.
2022-05-16 10:15:07 <veltas      > Yeah continued fractions are interesting, I agree
2022-05-16 10:15:17 <veltas      > It's a bit like having a shifting base
2022-05-16 10:24:19 <veltas      > KipIngram: This is what I mean how it's "like having a shifting base" https://imgur.com/a/xg89A12
2022-05-16 11:02:04 <KipIngram   > Yeah, that is kind of like what goes on in a continued fraction.  I hadn't ever thought of it that way, but it's a useful way to imagine it, I think.
2022-05-16 11:45:59 <KipIngram   > It's a shame you have to actually calculate a continued fraction from "deep out" instead of just being able to drill in from the top.  There might be some interesting random number generator concepts there otherwise.
2022-05-16 11:46:51 <KipIngram   > veltas: Have you ever seen anything on the "randomness" of digits in things like sqrt(2), pi, etc.?
2022-05-16 13:20:36 <veltas      > Not in detail
2022-05-16 13:21:38 <thrig       > the pi spigot algorithm uses something like a chain of fractions
2022-05-16 13:23:34 <KipIngram   > Yeah, those algorithms that produce one digit at a time are pretty interesting.
2022-05-16 13:25:19 <KipIngram   > And some of the continued fraction algorithms for pi are just fascinating to me - the pattern they follow just  kind of amazes me.  I scratch my head and ask myself "why?"  Whay is that pattern connected to pi - what sort of number theory thing is going on there?
2022-05-16 13:25:37 <KipIngram   > The way e comes up in so many different arenas is interesting in the same sort of way.
2022-05-16 13:26:57 <veltas      > I was trying to produce an algorithm that does a digit at a time at work today on a break
2022-05-16 13:27:02 <veltas      > For square roots
2022-05-16 13:27:13 <veltas      > I know they exist it's just fun to try coming up with stuff :P
2022-05-16 13:28:12 <KipIngram   > You bet.
2022-05-16 13:28:30 <KipIngram   > There's a long-division type algorithm for that, isn't there?
2022-05-16 13:31:12 <veltas      > I don't know I didn't look it up
2022-05-16 13:31:35 <veltas      > I know there are approachable ones because there's an algorithm for doing square root on an abacus
2022-05-16 13:33:38 <KipIngram   > Yes.  One of my daughters went on a trip to Vietnam a few years back (her mom - my first wife - was born there) and she bought me an antique abacus while she over there.  I remember seeing mention of that algorithm while studying up to tinker with it.
2022-05-16 13:34:13 <KipIngram   > Positional number systems - that really was one of those "foundational inventions" that re-shaped the world.
2022-05-16 13:34:27 <KipIngram   > Right up there with "vowels."
2022-05-16 13:34:50 <KipIngram   > And alphabets themselves.
2022-05-16 14:32:55 <KipIngram   > I get a little amused at one thing I see over and over in the Reddit sub I moderate.  This is a body of *fiction*.  None of us know for sure what the author is going to write down in the future.  But in spite of that, there's always someone who just has to have you acknowledge is "complete correctness" about whatever it is being discussed.  These people won't even let you call the debate a "difference of
2022-05-16 14:32:57 <KipIngram   > opinion."  Nothing short of "You are right - I am wrong" will make them happy.
2022-05-16 14:33:22 <KipIngram   > I just don't quite understand how someone gets so sure of themselves about something that really can't be expected to follow any well-definied rules.
2022-05-16 14:33:32 <KipIngram   > I figure the author is several steps ahead of all of us.
2022-05-16 14:33:41 <KipIngram   > None of us has any business being THAT sure of ourselves.
2022-05-16 14:34:07 <KipIngram   > But they just get quite agitated when you don't fall at their feet and worship their flawlessness.
2022-05-16 14:35:11 <KipIngram   > Honestly, I think that in some cases people just like to bicker.
2022-05-16 14:37:15 <KipIngram   > New project for this summer:
2022-05-16 14:37:17 <KipIngram   > https://imgur.com/a/Vjc36e2
2022-05-16 14:37:55 <KipIngram   > Anyway, I decided it's more healthy to get amused at those folks than annoyed.
2022-05-16 15:04:43 <veltas      > Trying out JavaScript
2022-05-16 15:05:09 <veltas      > Everyone should learn this language first, you can google literally any dumb question under the sun and get a word-for-word example + answer
2022-05-16 15:05:15 <veltas      > Really crazy
2022-05-16 16:21:28 <KipIngram   > I think that "programming in the browser" is a pretty powerful idea.  The browser gives you large swaths of a GUI "for free" so to speak.
2022-05-16 16:21:53 <KipIngram   > May be the fastest way around to get yourself a quick and easy "mainstream style" user interface on something.
2022-05-16 16:22:36 <KipIngram   > But it has limits, that were put there for security reasons.  What it doesn't make it easy to do is access your local resources (and I totally see why, but it does close some doors).
2022-05-16 16:22:53 <KipIngram   > Or at least it doesn't make it "easy" to do that - there may be workarounds.
2022-05-16 16:23:30 <KipIngram   > I've only dabbled in JS, and didn't really "learn" it.  Just copy and pasted some stuff and tweaked it a little.
2022-05-16 18:23:13 <concrete-houses> I am no longer excited about postgresql and wonder about forth and long running apps..... are things easier and simpler ?
2022-05-16 18:53:18 <KipIngram   > Well, Forth is definitely *simple*.  It's hard to beat its simplicity.  And it's excellent for embedded systems, which you could think of as "practically forever running" apps in some cases.  I haven't seen a whole lot on database applications in Forth, but I don't think of any reason why it couldn't handle them fairly well.
2022-05-16 18:54:52 <vms14       > I'm adding sdl to my not so forth
2022-05-16 18:54:59 <KipIngram   > I've always speculated that running a database on top of a file system might not be the most effective way to do things - usually database engines know how to get around their data perfectly well already.  Forth's tendency to offer direct access to disk resources might work quite well for database apps.
2022-05-16 18:55:10 <vms14       > https://termbin.com/wkrs
2022-05-16 18:55:11 <KipIngram   > You can call it NS-Forth.
2022-05-16 18:55:18 <vms14       > xd
2022-05-16 18:55:32 <vms14       > N-Forth
2022-05-16 18:58:08 <vms14       > I don't think the language is prepared for real world usage, but it can do some stuff
2022-05-16 18:58:36 <vms14       > writing bindings is easy but the main concern is the "core" language which is full of dirty tricks
2022-05-16 19:01:40 <KipIngram   > concrete-houses: I don't really know postgres; all the db stuff I've done these last few years has been MySQL.  But I'm curious re: what aspects of it have displeased you.