|
ramming (no observable side-effects, yadda yadda yadda) doesn't intersect with any notion of "time", right? neither time as a quantity to be measured nor as a limited resource to be conserved applies to purely functional programmers, right?? this makes computer science education, which is the single biggest exporter of functional programming look kinda ridiculous imho if CS professors were required to include time in their turing machine proofs then the expressiveness of formal systems solving computing problems like P and NP could be easily categorized by how little time they use. this would at least double the usefulness of those systems instantly, probably ! after all, someone who talks fast and makes sense has way more expressive power IRL than someone who just meanders and never gets to the point, so why not in academia too just IMHO
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
so are you saying time doesn't matter, because it really comes down achieving the least amount of instructions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
★┷┓ ┃Ｓ┃ ┃Ｈ┃ ┃Ｉ┃ ┃Ｔ┃ ┃Ｐ┃ ┃Ｏ┃ ┃Ｓ┃ ┃Ｔ┃ ┃Ｉ┃ ┃Ｎ┃ ┃Ｇ┃ ┗━★
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
hmmm y ou raise an interesting point on the other hand http://digg.com/video/put-a-face-to-deez-nuts
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
wait a second, I think there's a pun happening
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
quote:Tales of Maj’Eyal (ToME) is a free, open source roguelike RPG, featuring tactical turn-based combat and advanced character building. Play as one of many unique races and classes in the lore-filled world of Eyal, exploring random dungeons, facing challenging battles, and developing characters with your own tailored mix of abilities and powers. With a modern graphical and customisable interface, intuitive mouse control, streamlined mechanics and deep, challenging combat, Tales of Maj’Eyal offers engaging roguelike gameplay for the 21st century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
POS never ran right. It was better when it was a hosed up tolkien rip off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
pram posted:★┷┓
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
agreed, op. functional programming is academic wankery with no real world value
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
what about frp
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
the sum of an object's four dimensional vector is always equal to the speed of light an object at relative rest is moving through time at the speed of light, while an object moving at the speed of light is not moving through time at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
thats what ive been trying to tell people for ages but they never listen also thanks for saying it like that. makes a lot of sense now. i had naturally held that theory since learning about relativity etc but never come across it actually put as something that could be proved or whatnot (not sure of words i am looking for)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:thats what ive been trying to tell people for ages but they never listen it's a direct consequence of the Lorentz equation. relative acceleration in any spatial dimension is a rotation of the vector of motion away from time and towards space. relative time slows down while motion through space speeds up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
vhat da making GBS threads gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
it's feynmanns way of explaining complex numbers or an application of that towards probabilities or something? it's to do with how every photon takes every possible path including ones you'd assume only clown photons would take but the probabilities for the photon actually ending up going the clown way is really low and you can use a spinning clock and add up the arrows and it tells you the probability The Management posted:it's a direct consequence of the Lorentz equation. relative acceleration in any spatial dimension is a rotation of the vector of motion away from time and towards space. relative time slows down while motion through space speeds up. owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
that sounds really boring lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
i majored in economics btw a real science
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
hmm. indeed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
pram posted:i majored in economics btw a real science fixed-point theorem is pretty neat I hope you don't think that's boring too
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
i almost certainly do
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
pram posted:i majored in economics btw a real science goldmine
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
why is the light not reflecting properly
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
what do you mean? you mean at the angle of incidence? that's showing what is actually happening at a physical level but why it does reflect at the angle of incidence irl pram posted:i majored in economics btw a real science I wish I had done money science coz I want to be not poor but I love physics just not te maths but the ideas. read the Feynman lectures they rule as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:what do you mean? you mean at the angle I mean eg the first one straight down doesn't bounce back up even tho it's bouncing off something horizontal
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
that's what actually happens though. just a low probability of that path being taken. every photon takes every path! only the most probabilistic resolve though
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:that's what actually happens though. just a low probability of that path being taken. every photon takes every path! only the most probabilistic resolve though oh its supposed to be the quantum mechanical picture? then it shouldn't just be straight lines. u sum over all paths. jfc do it right or not at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
idk I just reposted a gif it's meant to help you understand a concept not be an accurate depiction who cares
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
here's the source, I found it with my internet detective skills: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmans_QED_probability_amplitudes.gif
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:here's the source, I found it with my internet detective skills: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feynmans_QED_probability_amplitudes.gif I get what it's trying to show but it's kind of wrong and misleading wave interference is better
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
it's feynmanns thing he's way smarter and cooler than you tell use how it's wrong . it's a way of summing probabilities
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:it's feynmanns thing he's way smarter and cooler than you tell use how it's wrong . it's a way of summing probabilities its not summing all paths only those in straight lines until they hit the wall. it should have all random walks between beginning and end point weighted by action of the path. hth
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
mate I just got that off the Wikipedia. if it's wrong and you know what's right then it's your moral duty to humanity to fix it or produce a superior one. no excuses it's Friday night soon what else u gon b doin
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
r i p 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 06:56
|
|