« first day (1717 days earlier)      last day (3117 days later) » 

12:00 AM
And the streak goes on. :)
 
you're welcome
Wait...
 
Thanks! (What are we waiting for?)
 
My vote shows on my user page, but it doesn't on yours for some reason.
 
@DanielM. Seems to be working pretty well, especially considering that you didn't specify a snippet-friendly formatting in the question.
 
Yet your reputation counter still shows +200.
 
12:06 AM
Did you vote on a question or an answer?
 
Your CJam answer to the mystery string challenge
and after rollover I upvoted your Abelian groups question.
 
The answer upvote showed up immediately for me, but the other one took 7 minutes.
 
For the record, I didn't make it, @ಠ_ಠ did.
And as I've said before,
Oct 1 at 20:39, by Alex A.
@ಠ_ಠ is not my sock! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
 
I wonder what it would be like if starring a post costed reputation.
 
Either everyone in here would have 0 rep or no one would star anything.
Except Geobits, who clearly doesn't care about losing reputation for voting on things. :P
 
12:14 AM
I don't think any sane person would advocate for it, but...
 
what if 1 rep is transferred from the starrer to the starree?
 
@ThomasKwa That actually wouldn't be so bad
 
@DanielM. Yes it would
 
12:16 AM
Or maybe there could be a "normal star" and an "enhanced star" which transfers 1 rep
 
What if starring gave both the starrer and starree rep?
 
I would star everything.
Spam all the stars.
 
@PhiNotPi Starplosion.
 
What if, instead of adding rep, we concatenated it?
 
what
So +1 on a user with 101 rep gives them 1011 rep?
 
12:18 AM
Yes
 
Starring all of Martin and Dennis's posts
 
Actually
then +5 would be +1 digit
and +10 would be +2 digits
so it would be basically the same
 
@PhiNotPi You're overcomplicating it. You need to +10 digits, and then take the factorial
 
just take the log of everyone's rep
 
Take the fractional derivative
 
12:19 AM
First one to graham's number wins. Rep is shown in big arrow notation.
2
 
@DanielM. The universe would die first.
 
Just like public void foo() { try { foo() } finally {}}
 
@El'endiaStarman Sounds fine to me.
 
@El'endiaStarman The universe would die first almost exactly Graham's number times.
 
@ThomasKwa ...that is uncomfortably true.
 
12:22 AM
So would the multi-multi-multi-multiverse die then if you add ten digits and take the factorial of Graham's number?
 
I'm not even sure if G! is expressible anywhere near concisely in Knuth's up-arrow notation.
 
Just taking the factorial of the Graham's number would take so long it could be practically considered to be infinite
You have no idea how big that would be.
 
Isn't that how it's defined @El'endiaStarman?
 
Graham's Number already IS effectively infinite for all practical and most theoretical purposes.
 
Sure, but this would be really infinite.
 
12:24 AM
@quartata The factorial of Graham's number is almost exactly equal to Graham's number.
 
@ThomasKwa Yes. It's not even particularly concise. But then you take the factorial...
 
@ThomasKwa ?
 
@ThomasKwa Actually, I think that's effectively wrong.
 
Not in terms of absolute proportion, of course
but in terms of relative size based on how complex it is to express
 
Well, I mean G-1 is practically = G so just the first two terms of G! is G^2
 
12:26 AM
Well, no, but consider this: G! has approximately G digits.
 
Like, 10^10^100 is only slightly larger than 10^10^99
 
You can't deny that's bigger than G
@ThomasKwa Oh, relative.
I see
 
Actually, is that the right approximation?
 
Yes
 
Hmm.
 
12:28 AM
According to wikipedia, where f(n)=3^(n)^3, if you do f(4), and plug the output back into f(). Do that 64 times.
Graham's number, named after Ronald Graham, is a large number that is an upper bound on the solution to a certain problem in Ramsey theory. The number gained a degree of popular attention when Martin Gardner described it in the "Mathematical Games" section of Scientific American in November 1977, writing that Graham had recently established, in an unpublished proof, "a bound so vast that it holds the record for the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof." The 1980 Guinness Book of World Records repeated Gardner's claim, adding to the popular interest in this number. According...
 
N! ~ N^N ~ exp(N log N)
 
Yeah, close enough. Stirling's approximation is ln(n!) ~= n ln(n) - n + ln(n)(ish).
 
Oh yes, El'endia's Constant, denoted "ish."
 
Welcome to math.stackexchange.com new users!
@AlexA. Not to be confused with Sp3000 constant ><>
 
So ln(G!) ~= G * ln(G) ~= G^2.
So I was wrong earlier. G! has about G^2 digits.
 
12:31 AM
Holy []<>+-.,
 
I think now is a very good time to post Wait But Why's post on this: From 1,000,000 to Graham's Number.
 
No, G*ln G is not about G^2, in terms of proportion.
G! has about G^(1+epsilon) digits
where epsilon is very close to 0
 
But G is a finite number, so the amount of digits will increase exponentially for factorial
 
yo why the heck did I get 2 stars for "brb dinner"?!
5
you guys' stars make no sense
8
ok gg
2
 
kek
 
12:39 AM
@ThomasKwa Hmm. I guess that depends on how you view the proportion of G and ln(G).
 
@quartata Kek?
 
@AlexA. We've been through this before.
 
Horde laugh. I think.
 
Horde?
 
Yes, and in fact you said the exact same thing yesterday.
@AlexA. World of Warcraft.
Your meme memory is not so good.
 
12:39 AM
 
You should take a class in meme-fu.
 
@quartata Me memery
@DankMemes what is
 
yesterday, by quartata
@AlexA. kek
 
Kek?
 
12:43 AM
Take a look.
 
The kek is a lie.
3
 
hahah
 
@quartata sniff Killed by a fire ant at level 5 after ~2000 moves.
 
@El'endiaStarman !gt a
 
12:46 AM
Phew. I was one second away from posting a new challenge when I realized how trivial it was in some languages...
 
what was it?
 
It probably wouldn't be trivial in Minkolang!
 
(And by some languages, I mean Pyth.)
 
@Doorknob I want to watch a game in progress on NetHack. Are you in one? Or perhaps @quartata?
 
I don't think "this is trivial in some languages" is a barrier to posting challenges anymore, judging from the last few weeks...
 
12:47 AM
@AlexA. I am not. Still got homework to do.
 
Boo
 
You can watch the ttyrecs of some of my ascensions though :P
 
...
 
(I made a script to package them all up into one big .tar.gz file)
 
Nethack seems like it would be the worst Let's Play series ever.
 
12:49 AM
haha, there would be no point anyway though since you can just watch people via NAO
 
@Geobits It's possible it would have been popular anyway, but I was going for something a tad more challenging.
 
@Geobits Sounds like you should pitch the idea to Rooster Teeth.
 
@DankMemes Chunky palindromes: Split a string into a palindromic array.
 
@Doorknob I'm watching HouseMusic the Magician
> Your legs feel somewhat better
 
After I finish my biology homework I might continue an old game, so you can watch :P
 
12:51 AM
@Dennis How is it trivial in Pyth? Is there a built-in?
@Doorknob :D
 
@DankMemes post is the third "your stars make no sense" in a few days which gets starred to heaven.
2
 
wow
much star
 
At first glance they do make no sense. Once you can see the underlying matrix, it all becomes clear.
 
so amaze
 
...
I was in the middle of typing a message
and my laptop ran out of battery
because I forgot to plug it in and I ignored the low power warning kajigger
 
12:53 AM
So... you killed it.
Murderer
 
But he revived it...
 
Anyway. I was gonna say @AlexA., I'll probably have no idea what I'm doing cause I don't even remember when I started my last game. I might just #quit and start over if I have a savefile :P
 
That just means he's also some sort of messiah as well as a murderer.
 
Not necessarily a messiah.
 
All hail the murderous doorknob of life.
 
12:54 AM
Peter and Paul raised dead people too, and they weren't messiahs.
 
@El'endiaStarman Peter Taylor?
 
I'm getting blamed for everything now, aren't I...
(amn't I?)
(why isn't "amn't" a word?)
 
@El'endiaStarman Well, if you believe in that sort of thing :)
 
@El'endiaStarman Did they raise dead people as their children?
 
@Geobits "...there's way too much information to decode the Matrix. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is star here, star there..."
 
12:55 AM
@Doorknob, the murderous stealth-pinger...
 
The knob is a lie
 
@Doorknob I think you want ain't for that ;)
 
ewwww :P
 
He amn't wait ain't. He amn't no Texan. Oh wait...
 
12:56 AM
@AlexA. Now that I haven't heard before. :P
 
There's a first time for everything.
 
No there isn't. Time is a wheel.
 
Is it a wheel of fortune?
 
@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ
 
12:57 AM
@AlexA. No. It's an inexorably rolling wheel of death and rebirth.
 
@Geobits Oh. That's... different than what I thought.
 
ROATAT MA BURD Y U DO
 
@AlexA. Well that makes sense. Refer to the [alex-is-wrong] tag for an explanation.
 
ಠ_ಠ
 
12:59 AM
Sockman isn't here.
 
@AlexA. I might play a little later.
Warning: I suck
 

« first day (1717 days earlier)      last day (3117 days later) »