ASipos

Also see:

https://lodev.org/cgtutor/fire.html

which is part of:

https://lodev.org/cgtutor/

Crãciun fericit!

That's quite unexpected. Thanks.

But... you have to know what a derivative is for in order to be motivated to learn how to do it. If it's all just mindless manipulation, how will one know whether to apply this or that mindless manipulation?

Thanks, that page is nice, but it too emphasizes that you also need a clock. That's essential and it was the point I was trying to make. For example, a thing that is usually glossed over in OS courses (in favor of, let's say, scheduling algorithms and such) is that you simply can't make preemptive multitasking out of pure code - and later when you ask yourself how is it that such a phenomenon is possible in the first place you learn that chips are inherently parallel, that sequential code is an abstraction over that so that one can have some sort of law and order, and only then interrupts enter the scene so that one may break that order when needed, e.g. for preemption.

The title of the course is misleading, as it suggests that NAND gates are the only required primitive, whereas the course later introduces DFF gates, without which you cannot escape the parallelism of chips.

Don't forget Google X (the original one)!

For a long time, I thought he and Joseph Campbell were the same person (as in "the mentor of Asimov, the one with the hero's journey").

Yes, if you want to depict the relationships between four sets.

"an embedded Forth with a Lisp in C" :)

Sounds like the opposite of what the post is advocating.

I also interpreted it the 'wrong' way.

The "men's" championship is actually open to everyone.

I hoped some source code would surface.

By "first inaccessible ordinal" you mean epsilon_0? (Probably you mean it in the sense of the first one inaccessible by addition, multiplication and exponentiation.) Because there is also a "first recursively inaccessible ordinal", which is much larger (also, not recursive: it's used to construct, by collapsing, the ordinal of Delta12-CA+BI, which is also much larger though recursive).

If K-A-T doesn't spell 'cat', what does it spell?

This is old news. Also, slightly misleading, since it suggests to those that know the old news that MS has released later DOS source code, i.e. 6.22.

This reminds me of how disappointed I was in my adolescence by how all airports look the same. Only much later I realized that almost any kind of building has a common design and relies on familiarity and expectations in its potential inhabitants.

I would like to see a mature language using fexprs. They are what I first thought about when I heard the word homoiconicity. Macros seem inelegant in comparison (since there is a separate layer of code that operates on code, and also you don't get self-modifying code, just compile-time transformations).

First read this as "the race to explain that time was personal".

The double negation translation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-negation_translation

Also, Scott Alexander on Red Plenty:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/

I didn't know she was a woman the first time I read the first three books. Granted, this changed quickly.

My thoughts exactly.

I first thought of the Japanese custom of naming time periods after Emperors.

I find it weird that this was published in 2007 but the first sentence is "Some months ago newspapers all around the world considered Google’s plan to go public", and that happened in 2004.

Thanks! For those interested, the link is https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/superpermutators/j...

Come on, this is a myth. I work in math and it is not at all unusual to cite informal sources.

Also, someone should inform Greg Egan: http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Superpermutations/Superpermu...

Neither lambda calculus, nor Turing machines "model computation on" recursive functions. Rather, these two, and all the other models of computation are equivalent as they compute the same class of functions from the naturals to the naturals. And we call that class the class of recursive functions.

That being said, a computer is a physical device that is able to compute this entire class of recursive functions. It is what makes it a computer and not a pen or a chair. It's not some esoteric notion. It's the whole thing about it.

> a field as esoteric as “recursive function theory”

How can this kind of descriptions persist when recursive functions are the very thing that a computer computes.

I wasn't referring to the finiteness of the simulation, but rather to the fact that the notion of necessary truth (the box operator) is replaced by high probability. (I'm specifically referring to the modern modal versions of the ontological argument, which are not subject to Kant's objection.)