« first day (5077 days earlier)      last day (61 days later) » 

00:33
I lied :3
need to figure out why it's spamming messages in rooms that don't need to be antifrozen
01:07
I am considering buying a ruggedized laptop
01:20
Two hot-swappable batteries seems like such a W feature
and having 5G cell service on a laptop seems like something that'd be really handy whenever you need it
only problem is $2200 lmao
01:36
lmao
amazing
I figured my friends from CMU would be confused but no they got the appeal instantly and now we're all just thirsting over this laptop together
I didn't need to read that first one today
Anyone got a spare time machine? :p
01:53
@Ginger I was treating a value in days as a value in milliseconds
IMO statically typed languages should have a way to specify the units of a numeric value
 
1 hour later…
03:13
I once had to contribute to a project that made use of a C++ library that uses templates to specify and check units
I soon found myself using it to calculate the speed I would need to reach, in kmph, to kill myself on impact upon jumping off a building
att
att
um
u ok?
 
1 hour later…
what.
WHAT.
my life has gained happiness
@emanresuA you mean you've never accidentally pressed r before?
Or whatever key brings up the inbox
Because it's like not actually something you use very often
Over the last 4 or so years I've never actually needed keyboard shortcuts lol
Evidenced by the fact that despite knowing about them, I never use them
04:59
you do have to explicitly turn them on in settings
 
2 hours later…
att
att
06:51
@lyxal c is the one for me
i think
(tried a bunch of random keys and this was the first one that looked about right)
where is the list of shortcuts documented?
 
2 hours later…
08:43
@l4m2 for me your = is <-> ; there was i time where i wrote all logic axioms and math axioms
possible symbols without a meaning
09:06
@Rosario If (f->g) and (g->f) both provable, then f=(f->g)->(g->f)->f=(f->g)->(g->f)->g=g, this is proven not axiom
CMC Input /^(b*|#*)[A-G]$/, output an equal note with /^b+$/ig. E.g. C => bbbbbbbbbbbB
09:27
@l4m2 if we can write "f->g" and "g->f" or in equilvalent way "f->g" and "g->f" are followed from the axioms, than we can write too "(f->g) and (g->f)" and "f<->g" not "f=g"
followed form axiom = derivati dagli assiomi, in pratica possiamo scrivere nel foglio di carta tutti gli insiemi di lettere o stringhe ricavate dagli assiomi
i don't understand f=(f->g)->(g->f)->f=(f->g)->(g->f)->g=g because = for me is defined only in the sets not in the logic...
if we can write "f->g" and "g->f", than the last 2 go in axioms set, and we can write "(f->g) and (g->f)" and "(f->g) or (g->f)" and "f<->g" that will be all "derivati dagli assiomi" and will use for build other string
09:50
for example this x→(y→z) = x→((x→y)→z) = y→(x→z) is this for me (x→(y→z)) ↔ (x→((x→y)→z)) ↔ (y→(x→z)) where "(a↔b) ↔ (a→b) ˄ (b→a)"
= mean can rewrite
-> is the operation
Can define a<->b as ((a->b)->(b->a)->⊥)->⊥ then prove a<->a
i defined ↔ as "(a↔b) ↔ (a→b) ˄ (b→a)"
Same from a∧b = (a→b→⊥)→⊥
but = and ↔ are not defined as same thing
Also some system discuss "Under condition a, (a→b)→b". Here such thing all expressed as
10:12
this is on your file line 50
Pf. a∨b #
= (a→b)→b

this below is the why i can write ((a→b)→b) ↔ (a∨b) from

(a→b)→b \n
(¬avb)->b \n
¬(¬avb)vb \n
(a˄¬b)Vb \n
(avb)^(¬bVb) \n
(avb)

using the axiom for me (a ^ b)V c ↔ (aVc)^(bVc) and the axiom (a→b)↔¬avb
even use axiom ¬(¬avb) ↔ a^¬b
a^(¬bVb) ↔ a
I proved at last that every correct formula provable
10:28
in pratice ↔ is as you = only there is (a=b) = a->b and b->a
above a=b dont mens a is true or b is true

« first day (5077 days earlier)      last day (61 days later) »