00:00:00 --- log: started forth/15.10.11 00:03:28 --- join: impomatic (~impomatic@139.255.90.146.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 01:02:37 --- join: ASau` (~user@176.0.3.84) joined #forth 01:06:28 --- quit: ASau (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 01:23:36 --- nick: segher_ -> segher 01:29:49 --- join: dys (~dys@ip-109-44-158-158.web.vodafone.de) joined #forth 01:36:28 --- quit: ovf (Remote host closed the connection) 01:43:33 --- join: ovf (sid19068@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qpqzujtmxvkkzesl) joined #forth 01:50:09 --- join: true-grue (~grue@176.14.218.33) joined #forth 02:35:01 --- quit: asagk (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 02:48:31 --- join: asagk (~asagk@i59F6D07E.versanet.de) joined #forth 03:02:25 --- quit: carc (Quit: QUIT) 03:03:04 --- join: carc (~carc@unaffiliated/carc) joined #forth 03:13:35 --- join: bedah (~bedah@dyndsl-095-033-177-143.ewe-ip-backbone.de) joined #forth 04:52:10 --- nick: ASau` -> ASau 05:32:25 --- join: kumul (~mool@adsl-64-237-233-234.prtc.net) joined #forth 06:17:13 --- quit: kumul (Quit: Leaving) 07:00:35 --- quit: kulp (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) 07:01:54 --- join: kulp (kulp@unaffiliated/kulp) joined #forth 07:05:13 --- quit: xyh (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 07:07:38 So I've been reading about DSSP, the Soviet Forth (actually it predates Forth) http://brokestream.com/daf.txt 07:10:23 ...and I'm kinda liking DSSP more than Forth...it's more consistent. 07:13:04 for example, I like how DSSP uses 07:13:09 ' X 07:13:35 to get the address of a variable 07:14:21 it's pleasantly consistent with using 07:14:37 ' myword 07:15:14 to get the address, xt of a word. 07:43:27 hm.. no ternary processors around any more ;) 07:44:39 never heard of DSSP before 07:46:16 --- quit: ovf () 07:47:15 --- join: ovf (sid19068@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rwwmgazrtpcpxnzo) joined #forth 07:51:41 I think my OceanFORTH http://hub.darcs.net/pointfree/oceanforth will need to be cross-compiled and then metacompiled to a DSSP now...just when I was getting somewhere hahas.. 07:52:53 I don't think you need a ternary computer for DSSP, that said ternary computers are cool http://xyzzy.freeshell.org/trinary/CPE%20Report%20-%20Ternary%20Computing%20Testbed%20-%20RC6a.pdf 07:55:37 Base 3 computers are the most efficient computers in hardware short of base e (I don't know how one would implement a base e computer hahas...) 08:14:21 --- join: xyh (~xyh@183.37.24.64) joined #forth 08:14:56 Have you ever tried to understand why they stopped designing them further? 08:20:35 --- join: proteusguy_ (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-229-209.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 08:21:29 --- join: nighty-_ (~nighty@hokuriku.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 08:22:02 base 3 does not fit well with cmos (or any other mos) 08:22:43 'Unfortunately the officials of the computer production in the USSR had negative position about non-planned and unusual "fruit of university fantasy". Instead of supporting the innovation and taking a possible profit they permanently attempted to annihilate "ugly duckling". There were many orders of "Setun", including ones for export, but only 10-15 computers were produced annually and none of them was exported aboard. The planned m 08:24:17 Even if you don't limit yourself to MOS, you still need to find some technology that gives you 3 stable modes. 08:27:50 Base 3 is less noise tolerant...although we are seeing logic levels lowered from 5v to 3.3v and sometimes even 1.8v these days... 08:31:14 asau: it isn't so hard to do with current mode circuits (which most older machines used) 08:31:22 TTL etc. 08:32:09 pointfree: the usual voltages are 0.8V..1.0V these days, fwiw 08:33:37 segher: the problem is the schematics is a lot more complex, which obliterates the utility. 08:33:54 You can have 2 or 3 bits instead of one trit. 08:34:13 sure 08:35:01 we don't want machines with digits 0,1,2 or -1,0,1 -- the *proper*way to write numbers is only with -1,1 (0,1 is for wimps) 08:35:56 although -1,0,1 is actually rather useful -- if you do it base 2 08:36:11 makes arithmetic much faster 08:36:57 Only in terms of number of elementary operations. 08:37:50 in terms of speed 08:38:14 circuit depth, path length, whatever you want to call it 08:38:51 Equiprobable? https://web.archive.org/web/20090804072434/http://abhijit.info/tristate/tristate.html#Equiprobable 08:40:47 ( The Setun used balanced ternary ) 08:41:08 ah, so not base 3 at all 08:41:37 (or was it? you can do bas 3 with -1,0,1 as ell) 08:42:28 Depends on your definition. 08:43:06 no, what they did only depends on what they did, not on what we call it :-) 08:43:35 They built on top of {-1, 0, 1}. 08:44:04 If you define your system as using initial range of natural numbers, that is not "base 3". 08:44:18 Just because -1 is not natural. 08:44:28 base 3 means the positions have vales 3^n 08:44:30 If you define your "base n" otherwise, it may be. 08:44:31 values 08:44:56 --- join: Zarutian (~zarutian@168-110-22-46.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth 08:44:59 (0 is not a natural nu8mber either fwiw) 08:45:57 In mathematics it is. 08:46:05 nope. 1,2,3,4,... 08:46:36 Yes. 08:46:43 totally useless, but historical 08:46:52 In mathematics, natural numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on. 08:46:56 nope 08:46:58 Ever since Zermelo. 08:47:05 that's \Z_{\ge 0} 08:47:19 Update your books to 20th century. 08:47:25 lol 08:51:10 Actually, Frege and Peano. 08:51:26 Whatever. 08:54:51 ooh, quoting wackipedia on mathematical subjects is not a good idea 08:57:19 Get a book. 08:57:26 specially when someone is wikisalting 08:58:07 what book would you like? lang? 08:59:03 Most texts start from von Neumann construction, whether they introduce into classical mathematics, like Curry, or non-classical like Vopenka. 08:59:34 most books consider integers as a given, and just define notations for >= 0 and >0 09:00:05 I'm yet to see any text on logic and foundations that doesn't introduce natural numbers as non-equivalent to finite ordinals. 09:00:18 I'm yet to see any text on logic and foundations that doesn't introduce natural numbers as equivalent to finite ordinals. 09:00:52 i don't even know what that means 09:07:04 ASau: perhaps peano arithmetic has clouded my understading but what is the diffrence between natural numbers and infinite ordinals? 09:07:59 zarutian: (finite) there is no difference 09:08:38 segher: heard of hilberts hotel? 09:08:45 with "ordinal" you mean the # elts of an ordinary set, right? 09:08:50 of course 09:09:08 Zarutian: for infinite ordinals "n + 1 = n". 09:26:55 --- quit: proteusguy_ (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 09:31:47 --- join: proteusguy_ (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-229-209.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 09:47:18 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-68-40-49-135.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth 09:57:20 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 10:00:09 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 10:01:42 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@2601:400:8000:3da0:75e8:1b05:b230:e043) joined #forth 11:09:08 --- quit: darkf (Quit: Leaving) 12:59:05 --- quit: nighty-_ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 14:08:25 --- quit: bedah (Quit: Ex-Chat) 14:21:01 --- quit: true-grue (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 14:36:25 --- join: Mat4 (~claude@ip5b40b95e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) joined #forth 14:44:08 --- quit: Mat4 (Quit: Leaving) 15:01:12 --- quit: impomatic (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 15:42:44 --- join: joneshf-laptop (~joneshf@c-73-220-86-28.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 15:50:04 --- quit: Keshl (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 15:50:34 --- join: Keshl (~Purple@24.115.181.94.res-cmts.gld.ptd.net) joined #forth 16:14:40 --- join: claudeqc (~claude@QUBCPQ0336W-LP130-01-2925328800.dsl.bell.ca) joined #forth 16:41:41 --- quit: proteusguy (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 16:41:48 --- quit: proteusguy_ (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 16:43:25 --- quit: Quozl`_ (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.) 16:43:59 --- join: Quozl` (~quozl@18.85.2.163) joined #forth 16:44:36 --- quit: Zarutian (Quit: Zarutian) 16:54:16 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-229-57.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 16:54:16 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 16:55:12 --- join: proteusguy_ (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-229-57.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 17:01:20 --- join: kumul (~mool@adsl-64-237-235-106.prtc.net) joined #forth 17:21:45 --- join: xyh (~xyh@183.37.3.211) joined #forth 17:53:36 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 17:57:10 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-68-40-49-135.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth 18:04:03 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 18:35:27 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 18:38:06 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@2601:400:8000:3da0:a5cd:9023:72c7:60a6) joined #forth 18:42:31 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 18:48:18 --- join: atommann (~atommann@210.3.149.230) joined #forth 18:53:14 --- part: claudeqc left #forth 18:55:12 --- join: xyh (~xyh@183.37.21.8) joined #forth 19:40:00 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-68-40-49-135.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth 19:45:10 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 19:49:30 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@2601:400:8000:3da0:bc4e:36fe:35af:7cdd) joined #forth 19:55:22 --- quit: atommann (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 19:56:19 --- join: atommann (~atommann@210.3.149.230) joined #forth 20:53:43 --- join: darkf (~darkf___@unaffiliated/darkf) joined #forth 20:59:23 --- quit: bjorkintosh (Quit: Leaving) 21:09:58 --- join: bjorkintosh (~bjork@ip70-185-232-160.ok.ok.cox.net) joined #forth 21:14:59 --- quit: atommann (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 21:19:25 --- join: atommann (~atommann@210.3.149.230) joined #forth 21:42:28 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 22:05:35 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@5.238.155.83) joined #forth 23:18:01 --- quit: ASau (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) 23:20:35 --- quit: kumul (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 23:22:11 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: Ave atque vale) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/15.10.11