00:00:00 --- log: started forth/16.09.14 00:47:41 --- quit: clog (^C) 00:47:41 --- log: stopped forth/16.09.14 00:47:53 --- log: started forth/16.09.14 00:47:53 --- join: clog (~nef@bespin.org) joined #forth 00:47:53 --- topic: 'Forth Programming | logged by clog at http://bit.ly/91toWN | http://projects.forthworks.com/standards/DPANS/ | www.greenarraychips.com' 00:47:53 --- topic: set by crc!sid2647@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-incoycbnpesmfspg on [Fri Nov 06 18:58:45 2015] 00:47:53 --- names: list (clog karswell reepca beretta eatonphil nighty ASau ggherdov`_ M-jimt tangentstorm ovf jeremyheiler dograt pdewacht Gracana eldre yunfan fiddlerwoaroof irsol taij33n- diginet2 nighty-_ djinni_ groovy2shoes groovy3shoes rprimus dzho _longines @bluekelp octo_ carc mnemnion nerfur DGASAU Guest50328 Quozl`_ probonono John[Lisbeth] systemsgotyou Vendan the_cuckoo APic gordonjcp cantstanya npr pointfree segher Uniju backer Skuzzzy DKordic malyn DocPlatypus phadthai) 00:51:20 you can install evil-mode in emacs 00:51:29 spacemacs is an unnecessary fork I believe 00:56:47 I am thinking now I could make my own android phone 00:56:58 just with parts from amazon 01:08:05 there's no real reason why something Forth-like couldn't replace the LISP dialect in something like Emacs 01:08:24 that said, I'm now a vi/vim fan 01:08:29 I have not used Emacs in ages 01:08:55 I think the reason I quit was that Emacs would not install due to, oddly enough, an issue with the Forth mode 01:09:04 There're a lot of reasons why it can't. 01:09:12 If you think, it can, try doing it. 01:09:47 ASau: if you mean "drop Forth in where elisp was", hell no that's not going to work. But that's not what I'm referring to 01:10:09 you got to implement your own vim in forth 01:10:39 obviously, you'd have to rewrite all the elisp in the Forth dialect, and probably do some more hacking of the internals, but it is possible to make an Emacs-like editor which uses a Forth dialect. 01:11:06 it's not unlike putting a Tesla electric motor in an old Corvette 01:11:36 as far as the effort involved. people have done it but it's definitely not just a drop-in operation 01:11:37 DocPlatypus: yes, I mean exactly that. 01:11:47 You claim that Forth can replace Emacs Lisp. 01:11:53 So, demonstrate it! 01:12:17 it's not a project I have a personal interest in undertaking. not this year anyway 01:12:33 So you have lied. 01:12:54 ASau: no, I have not lied. I am telling you the truth when I say it's not a project I have a personal interest in undertaking. 01:13:16 If you haven't lied, you've got to demonstrate it. 01:13:16 Accuse me of lying again, and I'll begin the process to have you removed from this channel permanently. 01:13:51 nah I need that guy 01:14:00 Sure, that's the only way for you to cover your lie. 01:14:05 just tolerate him it's a small channel 01:14:09 John[Lisbeth]: if you need to talk to him, there's /msg 01:14:16 such a small community 01:14:32 DocPlatypus: because i could feel the lag fo those so many plugins caused by elisp 01:14:44 Sorry, but I'm not going to tolerate insults that attack my character like that. That is not conduct which is acceptable in decent society. 01:14:48 I think we are all interested in micro machines 01:15:05 ASau just uses a different kind of micromachine 01:15:27 is bluekelp a bot or a person? 01:15:28 actually consider vim key sequences , its a RPN like mode too 01:15:51 yunfan: usually, the reason for that is not the one that can be cured by replacing the language with a lot more primitive one. 01:15:54 and ASau -- I do not have to demonstrate shit, especially just because you say so. 01:15:57 so i think implemnt vi in forth might be much easier than in c 01:16:13 DocPlatypus: then stop putting forward false claims. 01:16:24 that's it 01:16:28 chill 01:16:34 ASau: will try to implement a busybox vi to test 01:16:35 just don't name call each other 01:16:51 named forthvi? 01:16:55 or viforth? 01:17:01 or 4vi? 01:17:03 you need to attack each other's arguments and not each other 01:17:04 There was a project that attempted to implement Emacs-like editor with simpler language than Emacs Lisp. 01:17:11 Where is it? 01:17:21 You can't even recall its name, can you? 01:17:27 ASau: i know one use gnu scheme 01:17:28 lol who knows so many projects 01:17:36 oh its guile 01:18:01 there's a emacs version use guile , and the its size is small campared to stock version 01:18:03 yunfan: Scheme is to be considered slightly more powerful than Emacs Lisp. 01:18:24 its purely functional 01:18:27 Whether it is more complex or not remains to be seen, yet Scheme is certainly not so impotent as Forth. 01:18:28 no imperative stuff built in 01:18:31 ASau: but what i need is the reduce the lag after installed too many plugins 01:18:55 ASau: tell us how you think computing should be done 01:19:08 yunfan: analysing the problem is the first step anyway. 01:19:47 yunfan: it may be that you have installed some particularly inefficient code which can't be easily fixed at all. 01:20:13 ASau: talk is cheap will try to show you the code 01:21:13 --- join: dys (~dys@et-0-55.gw-nat.bs.kae.de.oneandone.net) joined #forth 01:21:29 yunfan: show the code to fix your problem with Emacs?? 01:21:47 With unknown extensions you use??? 01:22:41 FYI, I have periodic problems with Emacs performance myself. 01:23:05 But so far they are related either to networking or to disk subsystem. 01:23:23 Plus there exists one not yet identified problem that manifests only on linux. 01:23:25 rpn = math 01:23:34 rpn math = 01:24:03 i like vi's rpn mode 01:24:06 yunfan: I don't see how Forth can improve the situation in all three cases. 01:24:13 like "a yy "a p 01:24:16 rpn is superior 01:24:18 In any of them. 01:24:28 you see, it ould be just tranlated into forth code 01:24:35 directly 01:24:55 when you understand forth deeply you know that you could use it's notation for any problem you'd like 01:25:11 and many times you can even create a domain specific language that make automating the task easy 01:25:11 so you can have a keyboard processor which just translate key strockes to forth code 01:25:57 John[Lisbeth]: again, all that bullshit about superiority of RPN comes from not understanding the reason why Forth uses RPN. 01:26:16 ok then tell us why does forth use RPN? 01:26:21 of course i knew use what ever syntax you like if you really want to make your own 01:26:37 Because Forth was created in mid-1960s. 01:26:42 false 01:26:47 John[Lisbeth]: you're going to ask someone anti-Forth why Forth does X? 01:27:08 Evaluate based on reasoning not based on the speaker. 01:27:11 Back then there existed only very slow Early parsing algorithm, 01:27:27 I understand that for historical reasons it was necessary 01:27:29 however 01:27:30 or some unclear priority-driven algorithms. 01:27:32 it is still better 01:27:33 even today 01:27:42 rpn is better even in handwritten math 01:27:45 LL(k) algorithms were discovered in 1970. 01:28:07 ASau: if you hate Forth so much: 1. don't use it 2. reconsider why you are in a channel about it 01:28:10 It was Charles Moore's decision to go without any parser. 01:28:19 it really is that simple 01:28:21 DocPlatypus: I know why I'm on this channel. 01:28:37 they are on this channel because they think it should be a krivine machine that is the base of all things 01:28:43 they are on a different quest than me 01:28:50 their quest is to make krivine the base of all computers 01:29:00 No, it is not. 01:29:08 then what is your goal? 01:29:42 i guess he is a communist 01:29:49 Anyway, since Forth was created before LL, it still follows this mid-1960s state of technology. 01:30:04 what is the purpose of staying in here just to tell us krivine is better 01:30:05 That's why it uses RPN. 01:30:11 unless yout hink krivine should be at the base of computers and not forth 01:30:12 Not because RPN is superior. 01:30:30 you want every computer to be entirely built on krivine 01:30:42 and this is the only group who has the chance of doing it 01:30:56 Again Krivine machine isn't the only way to implement sound foundation. 01:31:15 what is the most superior way in your opinion? 01:31:29 There's no "most superior way." 01:31:37 krivine then 01:32:00 No, you can go fine with any other sound foundation. 01:32:08 forth is a sound foundation 01:32:12 Forth is not. 01:32:23 forth is turing complete. Check to see if any turing complete system is a sound foundation 01:32:36 Forth is not Turing complete. 01:32:40 it certainly is 01:32:49 No, it certainly isn't. 01:32:50 how the hell is Forth not Turing complete? 01:32:57 Its virtual machine has finite number of states. 01:33:05 Welcome to the reality. 01:33:17 how do you get infinite states? 01:33:18 You have never thought about it even. 01:33:29 ^ 01:33:42 By natural induction. 01:34:06 google search for natural inductions results in websites about natural induction birth 01:34:10 please elaborate 01:34:35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness 01:34:42 Krivine machine is described in induction terms. 01:34:50 "To show that something is Turing complete, it is enough to show that it can be used to simulate some Turing complete system. For example, an imperative language is Turing complete if it has conditional branching (e.g., "if" and "goto" statements, or a "branch if zero" instruction. See OISC) and the ability to change an arbitrary amount of memory (e.g., the ability to maintain an arbitrary number of variables). Since this is almos 01:34:50 t always the case, most (if not all) imperative languages are Turing complete if the limitations of finite memory are ignored." 01:35:03 If you implement it on finite hardware, you get finite approximation of it. 01:35:12 Yet the language itself is Turing-complete. 01:35:17 Forth is described otherwise. 01:35:42 It is described in a way that puts theoretical bounds ahead. 01:36:04 That's why Forth can't be infinite. 01:36:11 Forth has conditional branching and the ability to change an arbitrary amount of memory. Unless Wikipedia is wrong, Forth is Turing complete. 01:36:23 As a consequence, it can't be Turing-complete. 01:36:25 you are saying that if we write it in forth then it will not be good because our designs will not be infinite 01:36:33 but if we write it in a system that assumes infinite ram 01:36:37 then we can make it infinite 01:36:39 is that what you mean? 01:36:46 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 01:36:51 ASau: then nothing is Turing-complete by your definition then. C, assembler, Python, Ruby... are all going to be finite 01:37:07 Python is Turing-complete. 01:37:07 and you're going to get nowhere trying to convince me that those are not Turing complete 01:37:09 C isn't. 01:37:15 Assembler isn't. 01:37:21 Ruby... I don't know exactly. 01:37:29 Can be either. 01:37:44 what makes python turing complete? 01:37:48 it assumes infinite ram? 01:38:22 To simplify things, yes. 01:38:26 ok 01:38:35 I don't even know where to begin. I have never in 30+ years of working with computers, had someone try to tell me C or assembler are not Turing complete 01:38:41 so if a reverse polish notation interpreter assumes infinite ram then it is turing complete 01:38:53 Notation is just notation. 01:39:10 what? new definitions of Turing completeness? 01:39:11 un-fucking-holy-shit-believable 01:39:23 nerfur: no. 01:39:29 ASau: just wants infinite ram to be assumed 01:39:30 excuse my French 01:39:57 why do you want infinite ram to be assumed? 01:40:00 ASau: damn, you are netbsd developer 01:40:37 what ram do with completeness? 01:40:40 John[Lisbeth]: because that's in the definition of Turing machine, dammit. 01:40:59 why does it need to match that definition. What is the advantage? 01:41:08 quantify it 01:41:27 nerfur: if you can't handle infinite RAM, you can't simulate Turing machine. 01:41:46 what is the advantage to doing it 01:42:12 Advantage of doing what? 01:42:15 you can simulate it, not recreate 01:42:16 It's just definition. 01:42:34 what causes that particular definition to be so good comapred to one without infinite ram? 01:42:37 It is either you follow the definition, or you do not. 01:43:07 compare and contrast the definition of a turing machine with the definition of a non-infinite-ram-semi-turing-machine 01:43:27 what are the pros and cons of each. Clearly something between these two things is different for you. 01:43:41 You can't implement some algorithms with finite machines. 01:43:55 Just so. 01:44:02 It is mathematically impossible. 01:44:13 What is an example of an algorithm you would like to implement with a non-finite machine? 01:44:15 Whether it is useful or not is very old dispute on foundations on mathematics. 01:44:26 See "finitism" and "intuitionism". 01:44:44 any algorithm will do 01:44:56 just needs to be one of the category you specified 01:46:28 http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/159/325/1262055260350.jpg 01:47:54 while that query processes through the simulator that runs the universe I will go smoke brb 01:50:33 marijuana is a great drug 01:54:43 go forth and prosper 01:55:05 nerfur: it is trivial to prove that you need infinite RAM in order to simulate Turing machine, I don't understand why it surprises you. 01:55:14 answer my question 01:55:18 please and thank you 01:55:22 Which? 01:55:31 --- quit: groovy3shoes (Quit: Leaving) 01:55:33 but isn't turing completeness talks specifically about finite resources? 01:55:45 What is an example of an algorithm that you would want to program which is not possible on a machine with finite state. 01:55:58 John[Lisbeth]: parsing CFL, for instance. 01:56:11 what does the acronym stand for? 01:56:18 Context-free language. 01:56:49 nerfur: failed to parse your question precisely, could you rephrase? 01:58:13 ASau: what type of algorithm is an algorithm like context-free language which requires infinite state? 01:58:57 Any type of such algorithm is unbounded on memory. 01:58:57 definition of turing completeness 01:58:59 A given programming language is said to be Turing-complete if it can be shown that it is computationally equivalent to a Turing machine. That is, any problem that can be solved on a Turing machine using a finite amount of resources (i.e., time and tape), can be solved with the other language using a finite amount of its resources. 01:59:25 is context free language the reason that you want to have infinte state? 02:00:14 nerfur: the problem is with algorithms that are finite but may use unbounded resources. 02:01:33 John[Lisbeth]: not only. 02:01:43 what are the other reasons? 02:01:50 I see finite resources twice in definition, is it wrong or we talk about two different things? 02:02:01 There exists a number of algorithms that can't be implemented by FSA. 02:02:13 nerfur: you forget unboundedness. 02:02:21 nobody sane actually requires access to infinite RAM to call something Turing complete 02:02:23 It may be finite, yet unbounded. 02:02:44 lets call these algorithms infinite alrogithms just for clarity fo discussion. Fair? 02:02:54 No. 02:02:57 that's just stupid and if we were in just about any other gathering of computer programmers the assertions that Forth, C, assembly, etc are not Turing complete would be laughed right out of the damn channel 02:02:59 They are not infinite. 02:03:06 ok then what should we call algorithms that I proposed to call infinite algorithms 02:03:07 and kicked right out of the channel too more than likely. 02:03:13 ObSheesh: ... 02:03:15 SHEESH! 02:03:23 hold on let me query this guy 02:04:34 algorithms that I proposed to call infinite algorithms matter if you can implement a computer with infinite ram 02:04:58 so do you think that we will ever make a computer with infinite ram? 02:06:29 nerfur: IIRC, Collatz conjecture has been proved, but consider some similar algorithm. 02:06:32 the answer to that one is just a bool 02:06:37 John[Lisbeth]: it's impossible to do so. I mean, you can put a petabyte of RAM in a computer... that's still finite, technically 02:07:09 true for it is probably true we could implement infinite ram, false for it is probably false 02:07:14 You hit some bad input, and start calculation. Suddenly, your finite machine runs out of RAM and stops, while TM just extends tape more and procedes. 02:07:28 nerfur: in the end, TM uses finite number of resources and stops. 02:07:53 nerfur: you can see at this point, that TM and your finite machine have are not computationally equivalent. 02:08:03 nerfur: even though they use finite resources to complete. 02:08:22 Do you think that we will one day implement infinite ram or that it is physically possible? 02:08:28 that doesn't mean people referring to a language as Turing-complete require that the computer it's running on has infinite RAM! 02:08:32 wow 02:08:50 lets just consider the reasoning all the way through 02:09:03 you can trace reasoning back to root assumptions 02:09:53 DocPlatypus: yes, it doesn't. Yet the language still may be Turing-complete or not, and this has important implications in some cases. 02:16:27 perhaps you are saying that some algorithms are not logically possible unless the machine assumes infinite state 02:17:00 as in an algorithm like that could not be implemented without first being in an environment in which state is assumed to be infinite 02:18:06 It's interesting to think about and I guess it is better to build a computer that is designed to work on infinite ram 02:18:24 but crevine solves this 02:18:40 and in rpn you can design things such that you assume infinite ram unlike in many forths 02:19:10 what we are trying to explain that regardless of whether or not you assume infinite ram, it is easier to calculate by hand in your head and in a computer chip in reverse polish notation 02:19:28 and that the reverse polish notation offers what I would describe as maximum flexibility for minimum effort 02:19:46 and it is a simpler mathematical notation to learn that can accomplish more 02:20:33 true it was desinged that way because in the olden days computers were slow 02:20:56 but in that design came something wonderful. Something I have been spending the last four years trying to find. 02:21:20 It gives you a power and felixibility no other language does in the most minimum package you could dream of 02:21:32 and one day it will replace all other languages if my research is correct 02:22:14 and if you just sit down and implemet a purefly functional infinite state assuming postfix in your krivine, make a repl, and hack it for a while, you will see that this is true 02:23:30 But I am going to implement a krivine in less than 500 bytes on risc and x86 and put that in there and make it public domain 02:23:47 and I am going to spend the rest of my life programming in it 02:24:28 > your finite machine runs out of RAM and stops, while TM just extends tape more and procedes 02:24:28 my finite machine adds some more machine to its cluster and "extends tape" 02:26:11 cluster? 02:27:44 nerfur: "adds some more machine to its cluster" is another name for "has infinite RAM". 02:28:48 Besides, if you start talking about "clusters", you should be aware that some "clusters" are not equivalent to Turing machine. 02:28:53 They are strictly more powerful. 02:29:14 but when you analyse the whole system the combined clusters make it infinite 02:29:52 ASau, not infinite, finite but unbounded as you say 02:30:05 the system is infinite 02:30:06 we talk about language turing completeness isn't it? 02:30:33 nerfur: how many machines can your "cluster" add it itself? 02:30:43 Finite? Bounded? Infinite? 02:30:56 well if you come up with some distributed algorithms perhaps 02:31:08 how many tape can you add to TM for finite resources? 02:31:20 Inifinite. 02:31:37 ...Not to say that neither Forth, nor C, nor Assembler, nor Python, nor Ruby support that. 02:31:44 nope, because it will be infinite resources 02:31:59 and we talked about finite resources in definition of tuing completeness of language 02:32:13 nerfur: let me remind you that algorithm on TM may diverge. 02:32:18 TM is not decider. 02:33:03 ok so you want a turing machine because you can implemenet algorithms that desire infinite ram 02:33:13 why do you want htis? 02:33:20 infinite ram algorithms 02:33:59 nerfur: That's the point: TM may extend its tape to any unspecified size, unboundedly. 02:34:49 John[Lisbeth]: because some algorithms require so much memory to work. Just so. 02:35:03 These algorithms are important in practice. 02:35:16 why is it important to be able to support them? 02:35:36 Are we talking about philosophy of science now?? 02:35:47 Because I want to live better. 02:35:53 why is it living better? 02:36:15 Have better cars, better trains, better clothes, all of that as cheap as possible. 02:36:38 how does being able to implement infinite algorithms enable us to have better manufacturing? 02:37:09 Because essentially any NLP solver algorithm belongs to this class. 02:37:25 what does nlp stand for? 02:37:34 Non-linear programming. 02:38:11 is non-linear programming the reason you want to implement machines that allow for infinite ram? 02:39:19 * ASau sighs. 02:39:20 No. 02:39:40 what is the relationship between non-linear programming and context free language? 02:40:01 The size of RAM doesn't matter. 02:40:15 It is language that matters. 02:40:31 I need language that is Turing-complete. 02:40:40 What drives this need? 02:40:47 NLP. 02:40:54 Such languages require machine with infinite memory. 02:40:55 So NLP is the reason 02:40:59 That's all. 02:41:02 No. 02:41:03 NLP and languages like nlp 02:41:06 NLP is not the reason. 02:41:14 The reason is that I want to live better. 02:41:39 having things like nlp and context free language causes you to live better because you can have better manufacturing 02:41:49 of cars and boats and trains and toothbrushes and such 02:42:11 Yes, it helps. 02:42:25 But what is the chain of cause and effect from infinte ram algorithms and better manufacturing? 02:45:07 events seem to be unfolding in your head where there is a potentiality that using computers that assume infinite ram will lead to better manufacturing 02:45:25 this potential seems great enough to make you want to hang out in here 02:45:36 infinite RAM is clearly impossible 02:45:46 at least not without violating the laws of physics 02:45:49 shoosh never say impossible that's not scientific 02:46:17 Be curious 02:46:33 infinite anything will never happen, there will always be some type of limit 02:46:40 why? 02:46:42 whether it's physical size, or c 02:46:47 again, why? 02:46:51 (the speed of light, not the programming language) 02:47:05 what is the relationship between teh speed of light and infinite ram never being able to happen? 02:47:38 every computer case is finite. there is only so much room in which to stick RAM and have room left over for the CPU and things like, un, the power supply and hard drives 02:48:02 I don't think you have provided evidence that it is not possible to have infinite ram 02:48:05 even a 1 petabyte RAM chip is still finite. 02:48:18 by definition it is finite you have defined it as 1 petabyte 02:48:23 it's just not fucking possible if you know anything about physics 02:48:37 why isn't it possible within the laws of physics? 02:48:41 okay... even 1 zottabyte or whatever they call it 02:48:43 --- quit: ASau (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 02:48:47 why idn't it 02:48:48 space is finite. period. 02:48:56 how do you know space is finite? 02:49:11 the energy required to make inifite RAM, would be infinite itself. 02:49:16 true 02:49:19 how do you know spaces is finite? 02:49:28 I read science books 02:49:34 how do you know the books were correct? 02:49:50 what kind of a question is that? 02:50:02 the same kind of question as "how do you know the bible is correct" 02:50:03 if the books are later proven wrong... then maybe that's another story. 02:50:17 so it is a potentiality that the books can be proven wrong? 02:50:19 yes or no 02:50:25 but I know you cannot make infinite anything with finite amounts of energy 02:50:55 it is potential that the books you read may be one day proven wrong correct or incorrect? 02:50:57 John[Lisbeth]: yes, and it's also a potentiality the sun could shit its pants tonight and the earth would cool to ice cold 02:51:02 doesn't mean it'll happen 02:51:04 okay 02:51:19 so we have established first of all that it is within the realm of scientific possibility that there could be such a thing as infinite ram. 02:51:21 true or false? 02:51:21 it's also a potentiality I could win the lottery this week. 02:51:23 doesn't mean it'll happen. 02:51:33 no, we have not. 02:51:42 finite energy to make it, means finite RAM 02:51:50 so it is impossible, then, that there is infinite ram? True or false 02:51:56 yes, it is impossible. 02:51:59 why? 02:52:04 it just fucking is 02:52:16 that is not science that is ignorance 02:52:19 I'm not good at explaining it. you just need to know it fucking is. 02:52:31 the reason you know it is because you read it in books 02:52:38 or rather, common sense should tell you that's the way it is 02:52:38 the books are potentially wrong about some aspects 02:52:49 and common sense, well, apparently isn't that common anymore 02:52:49 therefore what yo know from the books is potentially wrong 02:53:10 therefore it is potentially wrong that it is scientifically impossible to have infinite ram 02:53:31 and in fact if you study the process of science you will find that within the realm of science anything is considered a possibility 02:53:40 it's the same reason there was never and will never be an infinitely long papyrus scroll 02:53:44 or whatever 02:54:02 thats like if I said that evolution never happened because why hasn't a fish turned into a person 02:54:17 in what world do you find an infinite papyrus scroll? 02:54:23 think using logic not metaphor 02:54:46 in what world would you find infinite RAM? 02:54:55 who knows 02:55:00 it is an unknown 02:55:08 in science it is ok to admit you don't know 02:55:24 well I know you can't make something infinite from finite matter and finite energy 02:55:35 first of all you assume finite matter and energy 02:55:42 and second of all your reasoning could be based on false assumptions 02:55:45 if we find a way to make infinite silicon and infinite energy... maybe I will reconsider 02:55:59 you are not thinking rationally 02:56:18 when you say infinite RAM is possible you may as well tell me the bible proves there's a god 02:56:23 clearly you fail to grasp the connection between the book's potential to be wrong and your knowledge that infinite ram is impossible 02:56:24 it's the same bullshit stated differently 02:56:33 you have cognitive dissonance and so you are getting angry 02:56:58 and if you *are* dumb enough to tell me the bible proves god is real, then you should be in ##religion instead 02:57:01 or wherever 02:57:18 Think rationally here 02:57:21 oh, I am 02:57:21 you know it from science 02:57:24 science is from books 02:57:25 this entire discussion has been rational 02:57:27 books can be wrong 02:57:29 just like the bible 02:57:42 therefore your knowledge about it can be wrong 02:57:49 it probably isn't 02:57:53 but it could be 02:57:56 we've gotten far along enough in science that I would say the books are right 02:58:11 until it's proven otherwrise, and the odds of that are relatively low until we get into things just not covered in the books 02:58:24 we used to think the earth was the center of the universe 02:58:32 and we were perfectly content with this as a species 02:58:51 but that model has been altered many times over 02:58:57