2024-05-25 02:34:00 <KipIngram   > Wow - this is fun.  Take 998999 and invert it.  You get the Fibonacci sequence - 0.000001002003005008013021034055089144...
2024-05-25 02:34:22 <KipIngram   > I suppose the inverse of that Fib sequence had to be SOMETHING, but it's still "surprising."
2024-05-25 02:35:51 <KipIngram   > I was just tinkering after watching this Numberphile video:
2024-05-25 02:35:53 <KipIngram   > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daro6K6mym8&list=RDCMUCoxcjq-8xIDTYp3uz647V5A&index=29
2024-05-25 03:04:31 <KipIngram   > If you use 99989999 instead, then you get four-digit sequence items.
2024-05-25 03:04:54 <KipIngram   > I'm going to have to tinker with that and see if I can see "how" it happens; I bet there's something interesting going on there.
2024-05-25 03:20:07 <thrig       > 8675309 encodes to Jenny
2024-05-25 03:24:28 <KipIngram   > :-)
2024-05-25 03:58:30 <Al2O3       > tommy knows.
2024-05-25 16:34:33 <Al2O3       > cool.
2024-05-25 17:56:47 <KipIngram   > Good luck, joe9!
2024-05-25 18:03:49 <KipIngram   > I think I've got my browser ready to open that.
2024-05-25 19:07:42 <KipIngram   > Nice.
2024-05-25 19:45:32 <KipIngram   > I enjoyed that, particularly the touching on "APL and K like languages," and what a Forth system needs to offer in order to facilitate building such environments.  That's exactly the kind of environment I'm interested in long term.
2024-05-25 19:45:59 <KipIngram   > And I do think that the ability to "get a word's address" is a pretty fundamental thing a Forth should offer.
2024-05-25 22:25:49 <zelgomer    > so there's a quality to forth that i'm starting to recognize, at least in how i wield it. maybe this says something about my still having more room to grow, but it's this: it seems like part of keeping everything simple and small is to forgo some error checking, at least at compile time. for example, i'm not doing any range checking in my assembler to be sure you don't try to assemble an instruction with
2024-05-25 22:25:56 <zelgomer    > an immediate value that's too large to encode, and i find myself struggling to justify adding such a check, because if you do overflow that range, it'll just produce code that doesn't do what you want, so you'll catch it anyway when you test.