« first day (89 days earlier)      last day (1409 days later) » 
00:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

00:20
And I am not entirely sure, but I think that
F n # 0@0 # 0@0 # 1 ≈ f [ epsilon_0 ] (n)
If the above is true, then maybe...
F n # 0@1 # 1 ≈ f [ epsilon_omega ] (n)
Hm... possibly then that
F n # k-1@0 # 1 ≈ f [varphi_k(0)] (n), where varphi_k(0) is two argument Veblen function
And if that is true, then my function may reach the small Veblen ordinal @user21820
@Simply getting that stack-exchange rep I see :)
@Zophikel sorta
Also making realizations on my function
@Deedlit So I'm going to re-try to explain my function
Base case:
F n = F n # 0 = n+1
We then have:
F n # k+1 = F (F (F (...) # k) # k) # k with n iterations
In terms of FGH,
F n # k = f [k] (n)
We then have:
F n # 0 # 1 = F n # n = f [omega] (n)
F n # k+1 # 1 = F (F (F (...) # k # 1) # k # 1) # k # 1 with n iterations
F n # 0 # 2 = F n # n # 1
Same story of nestings
(oh yeah, parenthesis simply mean to evaluate what is inside it and put the result into where the parenthesis are)
F n # 0 # 0 # 1 = F n # 0 # n
In general, without @ symbols, start with the base number n. then move right until you hit a non-zero number
subtract one from this number and fill the spot left of it with the base number
If the last number is zero, you can drop it
We have:
F n # 0 # 0 # ... # 0 # k = f [(omega^p)*k] (n), where p = (position of k) - 2.
We then have our first @ symbol:
F n # 0@0 # 1 = F n # O(0@0) # ... # O(0@0) # n, with n # O(0@0)'s and O(0@0) = n
≈ f [omega^omega] (n)
We then have:
F n # 1 # 0@0 # 1 = nesting of the F n # 0@0 # 1 function, and so the same old stuff begins again
F n # 0@0 # 2 = F n # O(0@0) # ... # O(0@0) # n # 0@0 # 1, with n O(0@0)'s and O(0@0) = n
In general, move right until you hit a non-zero non-@ number
Subtract one from it
then look left
if zero is on the left, replace it with n
if d@e is on the left, don't change the d@e, but insert a base number of O(d@e)'s followed by one base number directly to the left of d@e
O(0@0) = n
O(d@e) = d@e-1
O(d@0) = O(d)@n, where n = base number
O(e) = e-1
And before I start using more @ symbols, we have...
F n # 0@0 # 0 # 1 = F n # 0@0 # n
that is, everything works just the same before or after the @ symbols. Nothing from before changes.
Also, if we have zero at the end, we remove it. If we have an @ number at the end, we remove it
We then have:
F 2 # 0@0 # 0@0 # 1 = F 2 # 0@0 # O(0@0) # O(0@0) # 2 # 0@0 # 0
We then remove the last two terms and then let O(0@0) = 2
F 2 # 0@0 # 0@0 # 1 = F 2 # 0@0 # 2 # 2
= F 2 # 2 # 2 # 2 # 0@0 # 1 # 2
etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that:
F n # 0@0 # 0@0 # ... # 0@0 # 1 ≈ f [omega^omega^omega^...] (n) where the amount of omegas is one more than the amount of 0@0's
And since O(0@1) = 0@0, it would follow that:
F n # 0@1 # 1 ≈ f [ epsilon_0 ] (n)
Then
F n # 0@k # 1 ≈ f [ epsilon_k+1 ] (n)
F n # 1@0 # 1 ≈ f [ epsilon_omega ] (n)
And now I'm kinda lost and have to go to bed
@Deedlit @user21820 @chronolegends Have a good read
01:03
@Simply i'll have to read up on what you give me latter chewing through some Real Analysis and ODE
 
6 hours later…
06:45
@amWhy That was a rather nice children's book. Especially compared to many others. And if I recall it ends: "I thought I could! I thought I could!" =D
I think you can! I think you can! =)
@SimplyBeautifulArt Sorry I'm too busy to read and process your function. But what's k there? If you can only get to level φ[k](0) for every natural number k, then you only reach level φ[ω](0) in the FGH. But that's not bad. It's what I could do with my super-tree idea extended a bit. I gave up on going further than that because it's too slow. You need to be able to reach all possible nestings of the 2-argument Veblen function to be able to reach the Feferman–Schütte ordinal Γ[0].
That's still way below the small Veblen ordinal, though. To even reach that you need the multi-variable Veblen φ function.
 
3 hours later…
09:45
@user21820 Would this be a valid interpretation? $\exists x\exists y Fxy$. Which would be 'you can fool some people some of the time'?
@shredalert: You missed out the "time" part of the statement. =)
x would be a person y would be time
so Fxy is a relation that a person is fooled at some time
I don't see how I missed out time
Wait the quote I gave you wasn't that one... You shouldn't have looked at the link so quickly.
> you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Oh I see.
I didn't look at the link!
You interpreted it.
09:49
yeah
I didn't realize it sorry. So okay it's a valid interpretation.
it's alright :p
But after you interpreted it, you lessened the number of possible interpretations.
Here is another one:
> ( you cannot fool all the people ) all the time.
Yours is:
> you cannot ( fool all the people all the time ).
Yeah, that's what I did
I thought about it as a negation
so the original statement would be you can fool all the people all the time
to which my interpretation is the negation
Yes. Your interpretation is the most natural. But do you see the difference?
09:53
thinking about it
How would you write the first one in sentential?
forall time t ( not forall person p ( you can fool p at t ) ).
Ah
I haven't done any like that yet
Hmm what do you mean?
You want me to write it out in actual first-order logic?
Mine's not pure first-order logic. It's closer to the way we think, though.
Would you write that as $\forall t \neg \forall p Fpt$?
No. Technically that is not correct. You can't use unrestricted quantifiers over different kinds of things. Let me re-write as pure first-order logic.
09:59
I haven't gone over the parts going into technical details of quantifiers
forall t ( time(t) implies not forall p ( person(p) implies youcanfool(p,t) ) ).
yeah
I haven't done that section yet
Oh so your textbook mixes quantifiers over different things?
At the start I guess it does
Not entirely sure here
Okay you'll see later I guess.
10:01
Yeah
But as shown above it's possible to stick to pure first-order logic.
Meaning that the universe consists literally of everything including times, persons, and so on.
Btw, my book goes over models and universes
And we just need to use predicates to isolate the parts we want.
more near the end of the book though
it also covers multivalued logic
I suspect your book is more oriented towards a philosophy student.
10:02
It's written by logicians
Yes, but most math-oriented books don't even touch non-classical logics.
and has a mix of computer science, mathematics, and philosphy
It's definitely a good thing to think about non-classical logics like modal logics.
I remember him saying that modern applications means multivalued logic is important for a student to know
I don't know what modern applications he has in mind, but I certainly think it's good for students to be able to translate modal arguments in natural language into a rigorous logical form.
Modal logic isn't exactly multi-valued, though.
10:05
modal and multivalued
Yeap; not sure what multivalued logic applications he has in mind.
I think he goes over fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic
definitely on the website
Oh I didn't notice when I browsed it last time.
This is the author's website math.smith.edu/~jhenle, well, the principal author, I think.
He's a logician
I like his writing. Very relaxed and not inclined to follow traditions
I see; I'll take a look at his website later.
For now, do you understand the translation I did to restrict the quantifiers?
10:12
Nope
I'll make note of it and let you know when I cover similar stuff.
Let me start again.
forall time t ( not forall person p ( you can fool p at t ) ).
This you understand?
Intuitively, I mean.
The quantifiers here are called "restricted". It boils down to being able to convert each restricted quantifier to an unrestricted quantifer.
"forall time t ( P(t) )" says exactly the same thing as "forall t ( if t is a time then P(t) )".
is it called restricted because each quantifier only applies to one statement at a time?
It's called "restricted" because we are only quantifying over a restricted 'part' of the whole world.
In this case, only over "times".
10:16
I see
And we know how to translate "if A then B".
So... forall t ( t is a time implies P(t) ).
$\neg A \vee B$ :p
sorry, continue lol
That's also fine but very hard to think intuitively haha..
And finally we represent "is a time" by a predicate.
Which we could call "time".
So... forall t ( time(t) implies P(t) ).
Now your turn.. How would you translate "exists time t ( P(t) )"?
exists t( time(t) imples P(t))
Nope. Think through the reasoning again.
"exists time t ( P(t) )" says "there is a t such that ... ?"
10:22
whatever P(t) means
And what does the restriction on "time t" mean for the inner statement?
In the "forall" case "forall time t" means you say something about every time t and ignore non-times.
In the "exist" case "exists time t" means you say something about some time t.
what is the definition of P(t)?
P(t) is just some statement about t. It won't matter for the translation.
there is t such that P(t) is true
And you need to include the restriction that t is a time.
10:27
I see
so what kind of statement is this called?
Wait what's your attempt now?
"exists t ( ? )"
exists t( there is a time t such that P(t) is true)?
I don't really know what I'm translating into what lol
"exists t" already states existence of t so you can't say inside "there is a time t".
"exists t" just means "exists entity t"..
What is the sentence I am translating, and into what?
The original statement is "exists time t ( P(t) )"..
which says more than just "exists t ( P(t) )".
10:30
and what am I supposed to translate it into?
But the goal is to get a statement of the form "exists t ( ? )".
Because pure first-order logic must be like that.
"forall time t ( P(t) )" translates to "forall t ( time(t) implies P(t) )".
So a restricted quantifier is just something that we have to give an implication for?
so exists t( P(t)) would translate into exists t (time (t) implies P(t))
?
No I think you're not getting the meaning of quantifiers. I'll switch to game semantics because it may be easier to understand. "forall time t ( P(t) )" says "if you give me any time t, I can show you that P(t)."
Anyway. Thanks for the discussion. I'm going to go study now. :P
This is equivalent to "if you give me any t, and you show me that t is a time, then I can show you that P(t)."
This is why it translates to "forall t ( time(t) implies P(t) )".
Same for "exists time t ( P(t) )"; which says "I can show you a time t such that P(t)".
10:37
I've not been given a 'meaning' of quantifiers apart from the intuitive one yet.
The problem is that the intuitive one is circular; you already have to understand it to understand it.
That's why I switched.
I'm sure I'll get it when I read the book
"I can show you a time t such that P(t)" is equivalent to "I can show you a t such that t is a time and P(t)".
I'm not sure your book will cover game semantics..
I'm running out of daylight here, need to study. :P
Sure.
See you next time!
10:39
I'll give you a shout when I get to restricted quantifiers. I'm sure the book covers them at some point
Ok enjoy your studying! =)
See you around! Have a good day. :)
ty
10:57
@user21820 but you haven't seen my notation for multiple @symbols yet
@SimplyBeautifulArt Okay. But honestly I find it extremely difficult to read your attempts. If you could be more precise it would be easier..
someone explain me why it behaves so when +- is changed
Hi
@SimplyBeautifulArt
@SimplyBeautifulArt That's why in the past I told you to represent it in a nice format rather than using ad-hoc symbols in unusual arrangements. By the way, I also find many attempts on the Googology wikipedia unreadable for the same reason. Taking your attempt here just for example, it's a very convoluted way that is nothing more than what I previously described here to you and heather.
I wanna know hwo you can solve this integral $\int x^2 e^x dx$ using DUIS
Anyone else know how they could solve this integral
using Differentiation under the integral sign
11:19
@Fawad: What's the function? I can't use Desmos.
@user21820 equation of cirle $x^2+y^2+c=0$ and $x^2+y^2-c=0$
+- before c makes difference
?
Uh? The second equation is equivalent to x^2+y^2 = c. What do you know about the points on a circle around the origin, using Pythagoras theorem?
@user21820 I'm working on making it simpler don't worry
@dydxx hi
11:36
@SimplyBeautifulArt Thanks! Just to show you an example of what I mean, here is a short description of that part:
All variables are natural numbers.
f(x,~) denotes the function ( y -> f(x,y) ), and likewise for other positions of "~".
---
Let f(0,0,n) = n+1.
Let f(j,k+1,n) = (f(j,k,~)^n)(n).
Let f(j+1,0,n) = f(j,n,n).
Let f(0,0,0,n) = n+1.
Let f(i,j,k+1,n) = (f(i,j,k,~)^n)(n).
Let f(i,j+1,0,n) = f(i,j,n,n).
Let f(i+1,0,0,n) = f(i,n,n,n).
And so on.
---
We can describe the generalization using Python syntax for lists.
Let f([0]*k,n) = n+1.
[If the list is all zeros, the output is just n+1.]
Let f(x+[k+1],n) = (f(x+[k],~)^n)(n).
It makes the iteration part and diagonalization part clear. Also, in the generalization the two inputs correspond to the 2-variable Veblen φ function, so it's obvious how it grows.
@SimplyBeautifulArt <- I understand you go further from this point on, so if you could write it in similar fashion, possibly using lists of lists and so on, it would make it easier to read and analyze. =)
@Fawad: Did you get my question?
hi
Pls help :(
I solved the integral using IBP but after I wanted to see how it could be done using DUIS I tried letting a=2 and then using duis but that didn't work
@dydxx: Did you try guessing an anti-derivative?
Ah you already solved it but want to see using differentiation under the integral.
Well I don't recommend it... It's rarely rigorous hahaha..
@user21820 no
@Fawad What do you know about the points on a circle around the origin, using Pythagoras theorem?
@user21820 no,locus conept
points have same distane...
11:46
Be more precise. Represent each point by its coordinates and describe their relation with the "same distance" (namely the radius).
sorry,bye
12:11
@dydxx: I don't know whether you saw this; it states some conditions for differentiating under the integral. But are you told that you can use it for your case? By parts is so easy that it doesn't make sense to do it another way even if it can be done. I didn't work out the details but it seems the following might do the job.
int { (x+2)(x+1) y^x dx } = int { x^2 y^x dx } + int { 3x y^x dx } + int { 2 y^x dx }.
int { (x+2)(x+1) y^x dx } = int { D[y] (x+2) y^(x+1) dx } = D[y] int { (x+2) y^(x+1) dx }.
int { (x+2) y^(x+1) dx } = int { (x+1) y^(x+1) dx } + int { y^(x+1) dx }.
int { (x+2) y^(x+1) dx } = int { D[y] y^(x+2) dx } = D[y] int { y^(x+2) dx }
= D[y] ( y^(x+2) / ln(y) ) = (x+2) y^(x+1) / ln(y) - y^(x+3) / ln(y)^2.
At the end you apply it for y = e.
12:27
@user21820 not entirely sure, but I might reach the Bachmann Howard Ordinal and way beyond
@SimplyBeautifulArt I'm very doubtful of that, but you're going to have to convince Deedlit to analyze for you! =)
Not in its current state
I have a simple system that extends this very far
I think
Just a question: How sure are you that you've even reached ε[0]?
It's easy to get tricked; a couple of times I thought I had reached it using some means but later found that it only got to ω^ω^ω.
Yours could be different, but you've to be sure.
I'm pretty sure I pass ω^ω^ω at F n # 0@0 # 0 # 0 # 0 #0 # 1
But why?
12:35
Er, one more zero
I'm not saying I'm sure you don't, by the way.
I'm just asking whether you've actually proven it.
The expansion system I used is extremely close to the expansion of FGH
Okay if that's the case it would be apparent when you rewrite in a cleaner form.
Sorry I'm not easily convinced. =)
Yeah probably, but I recommend you read the stuff I posted last night for a good explanation
No problem. I wouldn't believe myself if I weren't the one who made this
I saw it; I linked to it just now saying I grasp it up to before you added "@".
12:40
Heh, because it really is hard to reach the two argument Veblen function
Hm...
My only quick explanation is that too reach ω^ω I had to create something that would create #'s, which is the first step into @'s
Since # alone reaches only ω^k
Yes I get that you reach ω^ω, for which I wrote out a nicer notation.
But did you write out the next few parts to see what corresponds to ω^(2ω)?
And then all the way to ω^ω^2?
The problem with your notation is that it doesn't extend like mine beyond this point I think
Yes, I did
I didn't say it does. I'm just saying you could use similar notation. Over there I used a list of naturals for the ordinals below ω^ω. Using a list of lists and so on can go further.
F n # 0@0 # 0 # 0 # 1
That's ω^ω2
Add one more zero and you get ω^ω^2
Inserting different values into the zeros allow addition and multiplication to leak into each level of exponentiation, and it takes 3-4 more zeros to hit one higher level of tower of onegas
Tell you what, if Deedlit ever analyzes your notation, let me know his conclusion! I don't want to waste your time in asking you to simplify it for me..
12:53
No problem :-)
 
1 hour later…
14:03
@Bill If you come, welcome, and I think my extended FAIL notation goes very high. In terms of the fast growing hierarchy, I think it currently goes up to the small Veblen ordinal, and if you are any good at this stuff, could you verify my thoughts? Explanation of my notation begins here
@SimplyBeautifulArt: Who's Bill by the way?
If I'm not wrong, only users who have been recently in the chat-room will get notified of a ping.
So I think you'd have to explicitly invite him here.
I know, but I've invited him, and when he comes in here I may not be here
which would leave him a tad bit confused
Try inviting him directly from here?
14:07
Already did @user21820
Ah okay great.
=)
Users who haven't been to chat.SE in a while will take a few minutes to be notified on main site
@user21820 Would you believe it if I reached the Bachmann Howard Ordinal?
If an expert says so with proof (in ZFC), of course I'll believe. =) But frankly, if you ask me to close my eyes (meaning don't look at anything you write) and guess, I'd say that as of now, whatever function you come up with that you're absolutely certain is total will not go past the small Veblen ordinal. =P For me I suspect I'm unable to pass the Bachman-Howard ordinal. And I'm not yet fully convinced personally that my programs for the small and large Veblen ordinals actually terminate.
My first "believe" means "believe the validity relative to ZFC".
My last "convinced" means "convinced independent of set theoretic issues".
Hahaha..
I don't have a proof that my notation terminates either :P
XD Don't think I could produce such a proof at my abilities
So it would be great if you or someone else could prove it. =)
14:11
Hm, your program uses arrays or lists or something like that?
Yes. And since any computable representation of a computable ordinal can be represented as a string of some kind (yours too is based on string manipulation), we can see that it should be easier to manipulate if you use lists.
Because you don't need separators of any kind.
Like in my program it's just pure lists all the way down, starting from empty lists.
Mhm. lol
Your lists make longer lists with a total... idk, "maximum ordinal" slowly decreasing to zero?
In my programs, there is a function r that when given a list of a certain format will output a list of the same format. That certain format is supposed to represent an ordinal. And eventually it's supposed to end up with a list representing 0.
So basically if you want to reach an ordinal k you just need a representation that can represent every ordinal less than k and you have a computable reduction of each such representation to one that represents a lower ordinal.
14:16
Yeah. That's always the end goal game
Question is how to get there
Yeap. In the case of my Veblen programs, I just converted the φ function notation to lists.
Btw, I'm not busy now, so if you want me to try and explain more of my notation its cool
:P I'm trying to stick to just lists and figuring out what ordinals they relate to
Well I actually have to go soon. It's night time here.
There's no upper bound to what you can do with lists.
Of course not
But my limit will be a notation that fits on one side of one sheet of paper
Hahaha.
Okay.
14:19
:P I can "fit" it on one sheet of paper so far
I'm actually certain that once you convert your notation to lists it will take less space.
Especially if you use Python syntax.
=)
Mhm... so do you think it will be very hard for you to reach BH ordinal? In the python?
Well Deedlit said we just need to implement Buchholz hydra to reach way beyond the BH ordinal. My problem is only that I'm skeptical of ZFC.
And he did implement it in 256 char, if you recall?
14:21
Hm... oh really?
God, this is scary stuff
Well... once I get to BH, I'll aim for extended OCF
If I can in my notation
And I need to get better at my coding :P
Yea way back after he analyzed my program, he said he got inspired by my list-style manipulation and adapted it to implement the Buchholz hydra.
cuz I currently suck at it
Nice!
Anyway I got to go. Just for fun, I just posted a short journey of fast-growing functions if not restricted to computable ones: math.stackexchange.com/a/2220855/21820.
:P
Okee dokie, see ya later!
See you!
14:24
Hehe, use that place to post our stuff to MSE?
14:45
@shredalert good noon/afternoon to you
15:08
@SimplyBeautifulArt Good afternoon
How are you doing today? @shredalert
@SimplyBeautifulArt doing good. Just about to head to the gym. Just spent the last two hours pulling my hair out over logic gates. :P
@SimplyBeautifulArt How are you today?
Well, just don't pull too hard :P
I'm hoping my FAIL notation is as powerful as I think it is
15:12
Hope that project goes well
Just finished the third chapter of my logic book
I'll be back in an hour
15:50
@shredalert How are you liking the book, and the topic?
I'm looking back at a previous question
0
Q: Inequalites withen Contours

Zophikel$Proposition:$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1-\cos(x)}{x^{2}}dx=\frac{\pi}{2}$$ Initially the function:$f(z)=\frac{1-e^{iz}}{z^{2}}$ was considered due to the fact we have a trigonometric term within our numerator.Our function $f(z)$ was integrated on the upper semicircle within our Contour,our Se...

In general when R→∞R→∞, is there another techniques to derive the inequality ?
trying to think of another appoarchs any guesses anyone :) ?
@Zophikel Jordan's lemma
Have you guys ever made a paper tower?
16:05
@Simply all right seems great
@Simply i've made a newspaper bridge in my engineering class
@SimplyBeautifulArt Does paper include cardstock....I've built a 15-level tower with playing cards?
16:37
Idk @WhyNought
I managed to build a 164 cm tall paper tower with one sheet of paper and some tape. All under ten minutes with a partner =D
@SimplyBeautifulArt Well, we should also include towers made of wood, since paper is made from wood and/or recycled paper!?
XD but paper is very different
 
3 hours later…
19:37
@user21820 @Deedlit I retract my previous statement, the current notation goes up to epsilon_(ω^ω)
Still a lot bigger than what I originally aimed for, but yeah...
@SimplyBeautifulArt Hi, how are you doing?
@projectilemotion Still in awe of my function after finding out it was not as strong as I would've liked times 100
That is, it only reached as strong as I would've liked times 5
@SimplyBeautifulArt Ah, I see.
Do you think my answer could be made more slick?
0
A: Limits of Natural Logs

projectilemotionFor the first one, write: $$\lim_{x\to 0^+} x\cdot \ln(x+x^2)=\lim_{x\to 0^+}x\cdot \ln(x(x+1))=\lim_{x\to 0^+}x(\ln(x)+\ln(x+1))$$ Hence, it remains to solve: $$\lim_{x\to 0^+}x\ln(x)+\lim_{x\to 0^+} x\ln(x+1)=\lim_{x\to 0^+} x\ln{x} \tag{1}$$ You can now apply L'Hopital's rule if you write: $$\...

Give me a moment
0
A: Find limit of $x_n=\frac{n^{\frac{n}{2}}}{n!}$

Simply Beautiful ArtBy the ratio test, since we know that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{x_{n+1}}{x_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\left(1+\frac1n\right)^{n/2}}{\sqrt{n+1}}\le\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\left(1+\frac1n\right)^n}{\sqrt{n+1}}=\frac e\infty=0$$ Then it follows through the term test that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=0$$

:D
4
A: Find Upper Bound of Integral

Simply Beautiful ArtWe have $$\log(x)=\int_1^x\frac1t\ dt$$ Thus, $$\begin{align}\int_1^yx\log(x)\ dx&=\int_1^yx\int_1^x\frac1t\ dt\ dx\\\{1<x<y,1<t<x\}&=\int_1^y\int_1^x\frac xt\ dt\ dx\\\{1<t<y,t<x<y\}&=\int_1^y\int_t^y\frac xt\ dx\ dt\\&=\int_1^y\frac{x^2}{2t}\bigg|_{x=t}^{x=y}\ dt\\&=\frac12\int_1^y\frac{y^2}...

^ Another question that might be cool to you @projectilemotion
Your answer looks pretty good
to make it more slick? Hm... tough question
The only way I can think of at the moment is let x=1/u, then apply ratio test like I did here math.stackexchange.com/questions/2221338/…
and now I got to go
cya!
19:56
@SimplyBeautifulArt Ah ok, I'm reading your answer now. See you!
@SimplyBeautifulArt +2 :)
20:20
@WhyNought The topic is good. I'm enjoying the book a lot too. Did circuits today. :)
20:46
@shredalert As in logic circuits?
@WhyNought yeap.
The hardest two exercises were constructing a NOT gate and an AND gate using only NOR gates
Managed to make the NOT with 5 NORs and the AND with 4 NORs
20:58
@WhyNought How has your day been? :)
@shredalert Long, and it's now just 4:00 p.m. in my neck of the woods!
00:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

« first day (89 days earlier)      last day (1409 days later) »