2023-12-03 00:07:32 <veltas      > Day 2 part 2 in Forth https://github.com/Veltas/aoc23/blob/main/2-2.4th
2023-12-03 00:24:19 <zelgomer    > sorry can't talk about forth right now. writing a forth in a forth so that i can generate more forths
2023-12-03 00:29:00 <thrig       > metaforth
2023-12-03 00:29:09 <veltas      > Stack overforth
2023-12-03 03:39:19 <KipIngram   > You know, I just had an idea.  Whenever I've seen far out proposals for generation ships for colonizing other star systems, it's always been said that it would have to be a veritable city in space, for genetic diversity reasons.
2023-12-03 03:39:45 <KipIngram   > But it wouldn't.  It could be a far more modest crew who carried big honking egg and sperm banks with them.  They'd use that to keep the diversity up.
2023-12-03 03:39:58 <KipIngram   > And crew born along the way could "replenish it.
2023-12-03 03:40:14 <KipIngram   > You just need the availability of a populatoin of genetic material - you don't need them all "living" at the same time.
2023-12-03 03:40:39 <KipIngram   > So it could be done with a far more modest crew.  Just enough to handle the logistics of such an operation.
2023-12-03 03:41:02 <KipIngram   > And therefore a far smaller ship.  It would still need to be big, no doubt, but not 'city size'.
2023-12-03 03:41:29 <KipIngram   > And if they kept their sperm sorted by sex chormosome, they could maintain the gender balance perfectly the whole trip.
2023-12-03 03:41:34 <KipIngram   > chromosome
2023-12-03 03:42:49 <KipIngram   > I'm sure there would be occasional "accidents" (i.e., circumstances where a pair of crew parented a child the old fashioned way), but as long as there wasn't too much of that, extended over generations, it wouldn't cause a problem.
2023-12-03 03:43:52 <KipIngram   > That would also greately reduce the amount of evolution that occurred during the journey - more chance that what landed on the target world was still "human."  Which really doesn't matter, but it makes it more fun to think about.
2023-12-03 03:45:22 <KipIngram   > At any rate, I think it makes the idea of a generation ship more "thinkable" given our current technology.  Right now we wouldn't know where to send one, but we might solve that problem in coming years.
2023-12-03 03:47:05 <KipIngram   > Ever hear of "Breakthrough Starshot"?  It's an idea for using uber powerful lasers to accelerate little palm-size probes to other star systems - we could potentially get them to 25%-30% of the speed of light.  Get recon back on other star systems in decades / centuries.
2023-12-03 03:49:33 <thrig       > getting info back might be tricky
2023-12-03 03:51:10 <KipIngram   > Yeah, I don't know how they plan to handle that, but they do have a plan.
2023-12-03 03:51:30 <KipIngram   > In certain quiet frequency bands space radio is pretty remarkable.
2023-12-03 03:52:13 <KipIngram   > But it opens the door to a plan.  Breakthrough Starshot to assess possible destinations, and then a manageable way to mount a voyage when we found promising candidates.
2023-12-03 03:52:56 <KipIngram   > Obviously nothing we're going to see in our lifetimes, but it does offer a way for making a go at spreading out that we could pursue in the coming thousands of years.
2023-12-03 03:53:47 <KipIngram   > And interestingly, the way that stars different distances from the galaxy center orbit at different speeds, we could continously colonize more "now local" stars, and over a hundred million years or so we could colonize the whole galaxy.
2023-12-03 03:54:05 <KipIngram   > Without ever having to "target" the furthest stars.
2023-12-03 03:55:53 <KipIngram   > The we could set up regular "update broadcases" all around the grid of colonized worlds, so everyone would be kept up with what was going on "elsewhere."  Or at least what had been going on one communication hop ago.
2023-12-03 03:56:18 <KipIngram   > No world would really "matter" to any other world, but I imagine we'd be curious to know how things were going.
2023-12-03 03:56:45 <KipIngram   > Maybe then the ones who wound up screwing the pooch could be lessons to the others.
2023-12-03 03:57:07 <KipIngram   > "They tried that over there and it didn't go well - let's not do that.'
2023-12-03 03:57:34 <KipIngram   > Although we don't seem to show that kind of wisdom here on our one planet currently - always wanting to re-try the same sad failed systems of government over again.
2023-12-03 04:02:56 <zelgomer    > KipIngram> But it wouldn't.  It could be a far more modest crew who carried big honking egg and sperm banks
2023-12-03 04:03:14 <zelgomer    > this was the idea in interstellar
2023-12-03 04:13:46 <KipIngram   > Was it?  I'm afraid I didn't get much out of Interstellar.  I thought it was about saving Earth from some catastrophe.
2023-12-03 04:14:15 <KipIngram   > And I'm afraid it just got too weird for me.
2023-12-03 04:15:54 <KipIngram   > Anyway, the idea just turned "generation ship" from something that seemed too pie in the sky to ever be feasible into something I thnk we could actually do in the not ridiculously far future.
2023-12-03 04:16:51 <KipIngram   > If we wanted to, and I think we should want to.  As long as we're "one world' we're living on borrowed time.
2023-12-03 04:23:37 <zelgomer    > " I thought it was about saving Earth from some catastrophe."  it was about humanity escaping a dying earth, which is exactly what you seem to be describing
2023-12-03 04:26:17 <zelgomer    > that's what the plot was, anyway. what the movie was actually about was probably something more abstract. time passing you by, the significance of parenthood, i don't know i'm not a film student
2023-12-03 04:31:20 <zelgomer    > anyway, more immediate threats face us. like washington dc
2023-12-03 04:42:06 <KipIngram   > Ok.  I just didn't follow it very well.  I thought he came back home at the end and found his daughter old from his time dilation shenanigans.
2023-12-03 04:42:24 <KipIngram   > Honestly it struck me as them trying to pack as many of the weird science tropes as possible into it.
2023-12-03 04:42:29 <KipIngram   > I didn't get much out of it.
2023-12-03 04:42:40 <KipIngram   > I was much more impressed with The Martian.
2023-12-03 04:43:47 <KipIngram   > Also, I'm not thinking of this as something we should do because Earth is dying.  Obviously it will eventually, hence the "borrowed time" thing - but I think it's something we should do just because we can.
2023-12-03 04:44:03 <KipIngram   > And then they should do it, and the next they and the next they - multiple times over to get a geometric explosion.
2023-12-03 04:44:11 <KipIngram   > Fill the galaxy.
2023-12-03 04:44:58 <KipIngram   > Then there would not longer be any such thing as an "extinction event."  Humanity would be here to stay, for the long haul.
2023-12-03 04:45:31 <KipIngram   > I just find that idea pleasing.
2023-12-03 04:46:30 <KipIngram   > I like imagining a man not too different from me, a hundred thousand years from now, pointing up at a little yellow star in the sky and telling his daughter "That's where we first came to be."
2023-12-03 07:04:09 <sirmacik    > \o hi
2023-12-03 13:48:47 <KipIngram   > Hi sirmacik.
2023-12-03 17:22:55 <zelgomer    > is there a good reason for ' and ['] to be two different words? seems like you could make ' immediate and do the right thing in both interpretation and compulation modes
2023-12-03 17:24:58 <GeDaMo      > : test ... ' thing ... ; do I want test to include the xt for thing or do I want test to parse a word when it's called?
2023-12-03 17:30:55 <GeDaMo      > : doit  ' execute ;
2023-12-03 17:59:21 <KipIngram   > zelgomer: ' is intended to be compilable.
2023-12-03 17:59:53 <KipIngram   > Whereas ['] (which is supposed to be evocative of [ ' ] ) is intended to run during compile time.
2023-12-03 18:00:04 <KipIngram   > The compiled ' will run when the new word is executed.
2023-12-03 18:01:01 <KipIngram   > I assume your familiar at this point with [ and ] ?  [ switches you "out of" compile mode (and thus is immediate) and ] switches you into compile mode.
2023-12-03 18:01:16 <KipIngram   > Ugh.  "you're"
2023-12-03 18:02:16 <thrig       > ur
2023-12-03 18:02:41 <KipIngram   > [ ' ] wouldn't actually replicate the effect of ['] since in the former the ' would pick up the ] instead of whatever word you put after the ].  so it's not as simple as just using [ ' ] where you might use [']; further hoop jumping is required.  I'm sure that's why Chuck thought it was worth adding [']
2023-12-03 18:03:17 <KipIngram   > You'd have to do some dance with LITERAL.
2023-12-03 18:04:30 <KipIngram   > : foo  [ ' <word> ] LITERAL ;
2023-12-03 18:04:58 <KipIngram   > so ['] <word> == [ ' <word> ] LITERAL
2023-12-03 18:08:53 <KipIngram   > on the other hand, you want to be able to say
2023-12-03 18:09:02 <KipIngram   > : foo ... ' ... ;
2023-12-03 18:09:07 <KipIngram   > so you can say
2023-12-03 18:09:17 <KipIngram   > foo <word> later on.
2023-12-03 18:12:14 <GeDaMo      > You could make it immediate then use postpone to delay its execution
2023-12-03 18:14:29 <veltas      > : just doit ;
2023-12-03 18:23:13 <veltas      > Well my Sunday socks have a hole in
2023-12-03 18:23:21 <veltas      > So they are holy indeed :)
2023-12-03 18:24:27 <veltas      > I love IKEA, we were there today
2023-12-03 18:24:36 <veltas      > I wish Sweden was a real place I'd visit
2023-12-03 18:24:53 <veltas      > Such deep lore in the IKEA universe, how many shops invent their own language and berry?
2023-12-03 18:25:16 <KipIngram   > You could, yes.  There are usually several options on things like that.
2023-12-03 18:25:56 <KipIngram   > Shopping at IKEA does have "entertainment value."
2023-12-03 18:27:13 <veltas      > I love IKEA's meatballs
2023-12-03 18:27:38 <veltas      > I've gotten too many of the big plush toys there for my dog
2023-12-03 18:28:05 <KipIngram   > Ours is kind of far away, so it's  not ever a "casual drop in" thing.  There's generally a mission.
2023-12-03 18:28:47 <veltas      > Yes we were on a mission today for some 1x4 Kallax
2023-12-03 18:29:14 <veltas      > It's about an hour for us so not casual here either
2023-12-03 18:30:07 <KipIngram   > Oh, yeah - we've gotten some storage units like that too.  Got a couple upstairs in daughter bedrooms.
2023-12-03 18:30:23 <KipIngram   > They're so... "sensible."
2023-12-03 18:31:23 <veltas      > I love the inserts
2023-12-03 18:39:26 <KipIngram   > We've gotten a couple different styles of those.  Some are hard plastic of various colors - some are fabric on a frame, some are "wicker" style.
2023-12-03 18:39:54 <KipIngram   > I guess that's not "a couple."  :-)
2023-12-03 19:18:03 <veltas      > Tyler Durden
2023-12-03 19:32:57 <zelgomer    > GeDaMo> You could make it immediate then use postpone to delay its execution
2023-12-03 19:33:17 <zelgomer    > yeah. so i say again: seems like you could make ' immediate and do the right thing
2023-12-03 19:33:38 <zelgomer    > maybe i should restate my question
2023-12-03 19:34:08 <zelgomer    > in mine, i have made ' immediate and it just does the right thing. in my experiences, this seems to cover 99% of use cases. for the other 1%, there's postpone
2023-12-03 19:34:55 <thrig       > shouldn't immediate be prepone
2023-12-03 19:36:11 <zelgomer    > yes. i haven't seen a forth word yet that doesn't take at least some time to execute
2023-12-03 19:36:23 <zelgomer    > "immediate" is ambitious
2023-12-03 19:40:34 <veltas      > zelgomer: In my own experience I use ' as non-immediate most of the time
2023-12-03 19:41:00 <veltas      > e.g.  : thing create ' does> .... ;  comes up a lot
2023-12-03 19:41:16 <veltas      > And ' just outside a word def
2023-12-03 19:49:01 <KipIngram   > zelgomer: Covering 99% of your use cases is a win; you can certainly make it work however suits you.
2023-12-03 19:49:48 <KipIngram   > I guess zelgomer's proposal wouldn't change the behavior outside of definitions.
2023-12-03 19:50:10 <KipIngram   > ' would work outside of defs as normal and inside defs as [']
2023-12-03 19:50:23 <KipIngram   > Leaving you the "compile '" case to handle some other way.
2023-12-03 19:50:42 <KipIngram   > Which I guess would be POSTPONE '
2023-12-03 19:50:56 <KipIngram   > But I've never been entirely sure about POSTPONE.
2023-12-03 19:52:42 <KipIngram   > I have hardly any immediate words in my system.
2023-12-03 19:52:55 <KipIngram   > ; of course, and [
2023-12-03 19:53:08 <KipIngram   > ."
2023-12-03 19:53:23 <KipIngram   > No others are immediately coming to mind.
2023-12-03 19:54:10 <KipIngram   > All those recursion words require an offset be compiled after them, and that would normally mean they needed to be immediate.
2023-12-03 19:54:17 <KipIngram   > And there are a bunch of them.
2023-12-03 19:54:37 <KipIngram   > I dodged that by setting a bit in their headers that instructs the compiler to compile an offset.
2023-12-03 19:55:08 <KipIngram   > So I complicated the compiler a bit to avoid those dozens of immediate words becoming necessary.
2023-12-03 19:55:34 <KipIngram   > In the next system I won't need that either, since those words will no longer target by offset.
2023-12-03 19:56:05 <KipIngram   > Oh, and : is also immediate in my system, since I can put labels in the middle of definitions.
2023-12-03 19:59:20 <kws         > sounds a bit like colorForth in that respect
2023-12-03 20:03:22 <veltas      > KipIngram: There's nothing wrong with what zelgomer's doing in my opinion
2023-12-03 20:03:55 <veltas      > I'm just saying there are some people who use the non-immediate ' for info
2023-12-03 20:04:16 <veltas      > The only thing I really have an opinion on here is that I don't think it's good for words to be 'smart'
2023-12-03 20:04:23 <veltas      > about state
2023-12-03 20:04:54 <veltas      > It's good for words to just be immediate and intended for using in a word def, or non-immediate and allowed anywhere
2023-12-03 20:47:45 <zelgomer    > veltas> e.g.  : thing create ' does> .... ;  comes up a lot   -- how would you use that?  thing foo ( and now foo's xt is left on the stack )
2023-12-03 20:48:04 <zelgomer    > sorry, actually  create foo bar ( and now bar's xt is left on top )
2023-12-03 20:48:35 <zelgomer    > wouldn't you rather  ' bar thing foo  ?
2023-12-03 20:49:37 <veltas      > Often I have a DOES> word that changes another word
2023-12-03 20:50:48 <zelgomer    > "changes another word?"
2023-12-03 20:51:51 <veltas      > e.g. https://github.com/Veltas/aoc23/blob/main/1-1.4th#L3
2023-12-03 20:55:46 <zelgomer    > ah, that example has a comma which you were missing in what you posted to the channel
2023-12-03 20:56:22 <zelgomer    > and yeah, i'd have written those with   ' open-file crucial open-file!
2023-12-03 20:56:51 <zelgomer    > just a difference in style
2023-12-03 20:58:33 <zelgomer    > in fact, another question that's occurred to me is whether does> is really all that useful.  how is  crucial open-file open-file!  any different from  : open-file! ['] open-file crucial ;  ?
2023-12-03 20:59:10 <zelgomer    > or even : open-file! open-file crucial ;  if crucial just checks for a return code
2023-12-03 20:59:35 <veltas      > If I have a lot of these it's nicer to just say they're all the same relation
2023-12-03 20:59:41 <veltas      > By using a DOES> word
2023-12-03 21:00:37 <veltas      > As you can see in that example there's three CRUCIAL words, I just think that's neater than defining them all
2023-12-03 21:13:56 <zelgomer    > i'm on the fence
2023-12-03 21:14:55 <zelgomer    > i've used does> a lot in previous escapades, and this time around i'm questioning whether all it did was add some mental overhead
2023-12-03 21:19:12 <veltas      > I never plan to use it but if I have a few words which are essentially the same thing with slightly different data I tend to factor it into DOES>
2023-12-03 21:19:51 <veltas      > But there's some argument to just using human pattern recognition on a bunch of similar looking word defs
2023-12-03 21:33:51 <zelgomer    > another stylistic question of critical importance
2023-12-03 21:34:33 <zelgomer    > nevermind, in trying to form the question i just answered it for myself LOL
2023-12-03 21:34:56 <thrig       > thanks rubber ducky!
2023-12-03 21:36:37 <zelgomer    > yup
2023-12-03 22:26:48 <veltas      > I think I'm already bored of Advent of Code
2023-12-03 22:27:35 <veltas      > Anyone else still working on it?
2023-12-03 22:28:15 <zelgomer    > i actually don't know what it is
2023-12-03 22:29:18 <veltas      > It's an advent calendar of 'little' coding problems https://adventofcode.com/
2023-12-03 22:29:35 <veltas      > Although apparently they get harder half way through and take much longer
2023-12-03 22:29:56 <veltas      > Many of us attempt the first few in Forth and get burned out
2023-12-03 22:30:43 <veltas      > Because they're not incredibly interesting or incredibly suited to Forth, but it's just a nice opportunity to engage in something outside of the 'Forth community'
2023-12-03 22:31:13 <veltas      > I also honestly hope it will convince some people in here who spend all their time writing Forths to write some Forth *programs* ;)
2023-12-03 22:38:11 <zelgomer    > i am writing a forth program
2023-12-03 22:38:22 <zelgomer    > it compiles a forth interpreter
2023-12-03 22:38:50 <zelgomer    > and then it will take over the world
2023-12-03 22:40:04 <veltas      > I hope so
2023-12-03 22:57:53 <KipIngram   > veltas: I mostly agree with you re: avoiding "state smart" words.
2023-12-03 22:58:24 <KipIngram   > ." does it, and I guess I'm ok with that, but I don't think it's a good concept to carry too far.
2023-12-03 22:59:13 <veltas      > I likes me forth simple
2023-12-03 23:00:09 <KipIngram   > Yep.
2023-12-03 23:00:36 <veltas      > luv forth, luv codin, luv gregs
2023-12-03 23:07:55 <KipIngram   > :-|  My daughter just shared a message she found somewhere.  Guy was seeking advice.  His kid's math teacher had taught the kid that 1/0 = 0.  He told the kid that was wrong, and emailed the teacher.
2023-12-03 23:08:17 <KipIngram   > She replied that 1/0 = 0 and cc:'d the principal, wHO AGREED WITH HER.
2023-12-03 23:08:31 <KipIngram   > Makes me wanna cry.  Damn US education...
2023-12-03 23:08:46 <Zarutian_iPad> seen that, and logically she is right in one sense
2023-12-03 23:09:01 <KipIngram   > Let's say it is right - let's assume 1/0 = 0.
2023-12-03 23:09:13 <KipIngram   > Well, 0/1 = 0 too.
2023-12-03 23:09:18 <KipIngram   > So, 1/0 = 0/1.
2023-12-03 23:09:27 <KipIngram   > Cross multiply to get 0 = 1.
2023-12-03 23:09:38 <KipIngram   > That's a contradiction, so the starting assumption must have been wrong.
2023-12-03 23:09:51 <Zarutian_iPad> depends on how division is explained: with boxes and beeds then it makes sense as the non existant box (zero) has nothing in it (zero)
2023-12-03 23:10:10 <KipIngram   > zero and undefined are not the same thing.
2023-12-03 23:10:45 <Zarutian_iPad> how can an non existant box have anything in it?
2023-12-03 23:10:53 <KipIngram   > I.e., a box with nothing in it is not the same as "no box."
2023-12-03 23:11:54 <Zarutian_iPad> the difference between js`undefined` and js`null` as it were
2023-12-03 23:12:02 <KipIngram   > My main point, though, is that once you've proven 1 = 0, you can prove anything equals anything.
2023-12-03 23:12:08 <KipIngram   > The whole tower falls over.
2023-12-03 23:12:30 <veltas      > Shouldn't really say 1/0 = 0 is anything
2023-12-03 23:12:46 <Zarutian_iPad> yeah, I blame it on the teacher's education
2023-12-03 23:12:54 <KipIngram   > Me too.
2023-12-03 23:13:12 <KipIngram   > And on the "system's" teacher screening process.
2023-12-03 23:13:50 <veltas      > But also don't judge the teacher, not really fair for them to have to meet so many parents' expectations
2023-12-03 23:13:52 <Zarutian_iPad> but in case of 4th`42 0 /%` what would the reminder be?
2023-12-03 23:13:54 <KipIngram   > On the other hand, most of us here in the US aren't willing to foot the bill to pay for high quality teachers, so... what do we expect?
2023-12-03 23:13:59 <veltas      > Their job is to teach the curriculum
2023-12-03 23:14:04 <veltas      > Not get everything perfect
2023-12-03 23:14:20 <veltas      > Kids aren't 'broken' for learning one or two incorrect things
2023-12-03 23:14:31 <Zarutian_iPad> I though most of USA taxes got misspent on the millitary
2023-12-03 23:14:38 <KipIngram   > No, the kid will have many more math teachers - I assume the many will backfill for the few.
2023-12-03 23:14:49 <KipIngram   > That's one saving grace of the way it's structured.
2023-12-03 23:15:00 <KipIngram   > One teacher can do only limited damage.
2023-12-03 23:15:16 <zelgomer    > Zarutian_iPad: most of USA taxes are spent on entitlement programs
2023-12-03 23:15:22 <zelgomer    > military is second place
2023-12-03 23:15:41 <veltas      > With social media teachers are so much more exposed to criticism, and frankly that exposure is probably mostly bad. Lots of peering eyes and criticism isn't usually constructive.
2023-12-03 23:15:47 <KipIngram   > And education isn't really funded from the federal level anyway.
2023-12-03 23:15:55 <KipIngram   > It's a states/localities thing.
2023-12-03 23:15:57 <Zarutian_iPad> if she had answered with the unicode symbol for undefined then I would have been impressed
2023-12-03 23:16:02 <veltas      > And so it helps to bear this in mind when you see things on social media that are critical
2023-12-03 23:16:29 <KipIngram   > The thing is, though, I don't regard this as a "subtle" mistake.
2023-12-03 23:16:33 <KipIngram   > It's a core principle.
2023-12-03 23:17:37 <veltas      > Well she doesn't tell you how to do your job
2023-12-03 23:18:36 <KipIngram   > I wish she would if she caught me out in a mistake that bad.
2023-12-03 23:18:56 <veltas      > That's your opinion it's bad, but you don't do her job
2023-12-03 23:19:17 <veltas      > So you don't actually know what matters as well as she does, most likely
2023-12-03 23:19:35 <KipIngram   > I utterly disagree with you, but there's no point arguing if you feel that way.
2023-12-03 23:19:39 <Zarutian_iPad> its the "common core" crap, no?
2023-12-03 23:20:31 <KipIngram   > I would hope that would be included in any sane definition of "core."
2023-12-03 23:20:47 <KipIngram   > Not saying I necessarily admire modern educational structure.
2023-12-03 23:21:04 <KipIngram   > But... it's ARITHMETIC.  Almost the bottom foundation stone of math.
2023-12-03 23:21:22 <KipIngram   > Not quite - these days they want to stick set theory in there below it.
2023-12-03 23:22:01 <KipIngram   > I think because they say it allows a logically rigorous development of the real number system (infinitesimals, etc.)
2023-12-03 23:22:15 <KipIngram   > "The continuum."
2023-12-03 23:22:27 <Zarutian_iPad> division isnt part of ARithmetic, nor is multiplication. The latter because that is what rabbits do and the abstinith curriculum has no room for that.
2023-12-03 23:22:51 <Zarutian_iPad> just adding and subtraction
2023-12-03 23:23:17 <Zarutian_iPad> sorry aRithmetic
2023-12-03 23:23:31 <veltas      > What age group is she teaching?
2023-12-03 23:23:47 <KipIngram   > I don't think the message said that.
2023-12-03 23:24:01 <veltas      > Well depending on the age group this isn't a concern to me at all
2023-12-03 23:24:07 <Zarutian_iPad> ya know from Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic. The three ARRS every pirate learns.
2023-12-03 23:24:13 <veltas      > If they're end of high school then I'm thinking they're seriously underqualified
2023-12-03 23:24:20 <KipIngram   > Zarutian_iPad: I still regard it as arithmetic, but it is true that in a really formal development you start with natural numbers, which don't even include zero.
2023-12-03 23:24:24 <KipIngram   > And addition.
2023-12-03 23:24:47 <KipIngram   > Because in the natural numbers you can't subtract N from M if N is bigger.
2023-12-03 23:24:53 <KipIngram   > Not until you get to the integers can you do that.
2023-12-03 23:25:10 <KipIngram   > And you don't get division until you are dealing with rational numbers.
2023-12-03 23:25:53 <Zarutian_iPad> and that is not until highschool? damn my elementary must been quite advanced in comparison
2023-12-03 23:26:47 <Zarutian_iPad> but there you have it, rational numbers and irrational teachers do not go well together
2023-12-03 23:26:51 <veltas      > The view you have of this is very advanced, and kids need to be taught simplified versions of things that aren't even correct usually before they can broach that
2023-12-03 23:27:40 <KipIngram   > I learned division facts in the third grade.
2023-12-03 23:27:47 <KipIngram   > Along with fractions.
2023-12-03 23:28:12 <Zarutian_iPad> just shows how far usa education system has regressed
2023-12-03 23:28:14 <veltas      > But is it important that children learn this?
2023-12-03 23:28:17 <KipIngram   > that was in the 1960's - I don't know how much it has changed.
2023-12-03 23:28:53 <KipIngram   > My answer to that is "yes," but that's another opinion.
2023-12-03 23:29:18 <veltas      > Regarding 1/0 = 0 I didn't 'learn' that until I was probably 15 years old, it doesn't even make sense as a proposition and unsurprisingly it has no answer in normal arithmetic, I don't think this impacted my understanding at all
2023-12-03 23:29:29 <veltas      > 1/0 being undefined rather, I know it's not zero
2023-12-03 23:29:45 <KipIngram   > I've always thought the "3R's" is a good guide.  It's a stupid term, though - it's supposed to designate "readin', ritin', rithmatic."
2023-12-03 23:29:45 <veltas      > I meant regarding that proposition
2023-12-03 23:29:55 <KipIngram   > So the very term has "faux igorance" built into it.
2023-12-03 23:30:09 <KipIngram   > But I do think reading, writing, and arithmetic are the three most important core skills.
2023-12-03 23:30:16 <KipIngram   > The rest builds on them.
2023-12-03 23:30:23 <veltas      > I don't know why you'd consider 1/0 as fundamental to young kids' arithmetic though
2023-12-03 23:30:45 <KipIngram   > it's not.  The point is that the kid was explicitly TAUGHT that 1/0 = 0, which is entirely wrong.
2023-12-03 23:30:52 <KipIngram   > No problem if they'd just left it out of the fact list.
2023-12-03 23:31:14 <KipIngram   > But it's common knowledge (supposedly) that "you can't divide by zero."
2023-12-03 23:31:23 <KipIngram   > Unless you're Chuck Norris.
2023-12-03 23:31:40 <zelgomer    > tell them if they try to divide by zero their parents will get a divorce and it'll be their fault
2023-12-03 23:31:41 <zelgomer    > problem solved
2023-12-03 23:31:50 <KipIngram   > Doh...
2023-12-03 23:31:52 <KipIngram   > :-)
2023-12-03 23:31:56 <Zarutian_iPad> you can but you get nonsense depending on the algorithm you are following
2023-12-03 23:32:22 <Zarutian_iPad> that is, diffrent nonsense for diffrent algorithm
2023-12-03 23:32:28 <MrMobius    > whats the justification for 1/0=0?
2023-12-03 23:32:39 <KipIngram   > There isn't one.
2023-12-03 23:33:09 <KipIngram   > I don't know if you saw the whole conversation - my daughter shared a message she saw posted somewhere where some guy's kid's teacher had taught that to the kid.
2023-12-03 23:33:22 <KipIngram   > That dad tried to tell her it was wrong, but she argued, and the principle agreed with her.
2023-12-03 23:33:51 <veltas      > I think the dad just needs to deal with it really
2023-12-03 23:34:24 <veltas      > I think he was right to get confirmation he's not insane but he probably found confirmation with google anyway
2023-12-03 23:34:26 <zelgomer    > the dad needs to get his kids out of public indoctrination camps
2023-12-03 23:34:41 <MrMobius    > sorry, I scrolled up but couldnt find that part
2023-12-03 23:34:51 <KipIngram   > No problem.
2023-12-03 23:35:01 <Zarutian_iPad> yeah were they teach that earth is flat in unbent spacetime
2023-12-03 23:35:16 <veltas      > Unfortunately rather than a mathematical problem, this is actually a social and political problem
2023-12-03 23:35:17 <KipIngram   > I also noted above that if you assume 1/0 = 0 you can then  prove very quickly that 1 = 0.
2023-12-03 23:35:54 <veltas      > You see by having this tussle with the teacher, going to principle, and then going to social media, they've made pretty firm enemies with that irrational teacher
2023-12-03 23:35:56 <Zarutian_iPad> KipIngram: isnt that done in some econmics disciplinrs?
2023-12-03 23:36:05 <veltas      > And that irrational teacher might just be good enough for their actual job
2023-12-03 23:36:13 <KipIngram   > Not that I'm aware of.
2023-12-03 23:36:23 <KipIngram   > Yes, like I said - it's not like we pay for quality in teaching.
2023-12-03 23:36:29 <veltas      > So now you've got an irrational teacher who hates you and will take it out on your kid
2023-12-03 23:36:39 <thrig       > I'd take a real teacher over an irrational one
2023-12-03 23:36:45 <Zarutian_iPad> or that screenshot can be fiction, like Trump being a president at one time
2023-12-03 23:36:53 <KipIngram   > Part of the problem there, though, is that when the school district does get a big wad of money they spend on a jumbotron for the sports stadium.
2023-12-03 23:37:00 <KipIngram   > spend it
2023-12-03 23:37:11 <veltas      > But by the time you're a *dad* I have to wonder how you don't realise you shouldn't have these kinds of fights with your kids' crazy teachers?
2023-12-03 23:37:28 <veltas      > This feels like a life lesson playing out with lots of bystanders
2023-12-03 23:38:32 <veltas      > If your position in a social/political situation is just to be 'rational' you will very quickly self-destruct. People agree in principle with what this Dad said and did, but most people would avoid the conflict out of self-interest.
2023-12-03 23:39:05 <Zarutian_iPad> use it as a lesson for the kid that teachers can be wrong?
2023-12-03 23:39:08 <veltas      > So my question is was the Dad sensible? And is *he* purely rational given the unsurprising consequences of his attack?
2023-12-03 23:39:16 <veltas      > Zarutian_iPad: Absolutely
2023-12-03 23:40:07 <KipIngram   > Ok - I'll say this one more time and then I'm done.  The teacher was wrong.  The principle was wrong.  The dad was right to point the error out to his kid, right to point the error out to the teacher, and right to consider it a problem.  Full stop.  I'm bowing out for a while now, because... this is just sad.
2023-12-03 23:41:45 <veltas      > I love your principles and you're right it is sad. I would also argue with the teacher but not because I'm rational, it's because I love God and want to tell the truth.
2023-12-03 23:45:04 <veltas      > This conversation actually proves my point a bit because I'm trying to be totally honest, and yet I'm totally failing socially
2023-12-03 23:46:52 <veltas      > I'm not trying to annoy anyone but it's happened. I engaged only hoping that rationality would win over, knowing even that the risk of it just being annoying was high
2023-12-03 23:47:58 <veltas      > I'll take the Hemlock now...