Newest at the top
| 2025-02-06 03:55:38 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-06 03:54:47 +0100 | sarna | (~sarna@d168-237.icpnet.pl) sarna |
| 2025-02-06 03:54:30 +0100 | bitdex | (~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex) bitdex |
| 2025-02-06 03:52:48 +0100 | r-sta | (~r-sta@sgyl-37-b2-v4wan-168528-cust2421.vm6.cable.virginm.net) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-02-06 03:52:47 +0100 | <r-sta> | argh! people talk here in indirects. despite spacetime developments. very rude. |
| 2025-02-06 03:52:04 +0100 | Inst__ | (~Inst__@2601:6c1:786:fb0:b0d9:e54c:aa23:7982) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:56 +0100 | <Inst__> | "Axiomatic Method and Category Theory", Andrei Rodin, awesome |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:52 +0100 | <r-sta> | anyone!? |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:49 +0100 | <r-sta> | makes sense? |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:42 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:40 +0100 | <r-sta> | "if not, you just get a cursor" |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:34 +0100 | <r-sta> | "if the nother type is the same as the first, this supports recursion and leads to traversability" |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:23 +0100 | Inst__ | (~Inst__@2601:6c1:786:fb0:b0d9:e54c:aa23:7982) |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:16 +0100 | <r-sta> | "i can deconstruct your type into a value, some structure data, and another type with the rest of the data" |
| 2025-02-06 03:51:03 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-02-06 03:50:28 +0100 | <r-sta> | previously had, geti+seti = traversable, but now have only this in a special case where the deconstructed thing is the same type as the thing you deconstructed. |
| 2025-02-06 03:50:02 +0100 | <r-sta> | the best i can come up with is that, the view is not returning the type for the thing deconstructed, as the thing not-deconstructed. this means you cant go on to continually apply the deconstruction. ie, through a non, type equality, that the geti,seti paradigm is abstracted over, to settings where repeated deconstruction might not occur |
| 2025-02-06 03:49:59 +0100 | anpad | (~pandeyan@user/anpad) anpad |
| 2025-02-06 03:48:33 +0100 | <r-sta> | assuming i now have to come up with this... any suggestions? |
| 2025-02-06 03:47:52 +0100 | <r-sta> | and i dont have a type abstraction which supports this |
| 2025-02-06 03:47:51 +0100 | <r-sta> | its like "no, you view only one element" |
| 2025-02-06 03:47:32 +0100 | <r-sta> | which comes from just wanting to recurse as usual |
| 2025-02-06 03:47:18 +0100 | <r-sta> | and you have to not try to do that |
| 2025-02-06 03:47:17 +0100 | <r-sta> | "how do you expect me to deconstruct the square with the corner missing!! oh no!!" |
| 2025-02-06 03:47:05 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-02-06 03:46:39 +0100 | <r-sta> | something like "things that can be piecewise deconstructed, by repeated deconstruction. vs things that only support one view" |
| 2025-02-06 03:45:37 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-06 03:45:33 +0100 | Inst__ | (~Inst__@2601:6c1:786:fb0:b0d9:e54c:aa23:7982) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-02-06 03:45:29 +0100 | <r-sta> | im totally stuck doing everything just on one element, it doesnt follw any of the usual tail recursive patterns |
| 2025-02-06 03:45:07 +0100 | <r-sta> | ie, where the branches are traversable by virtue of their deconstructability |
| 2025-02-06 03:44:49 +0100 | <r-sta> | and this is completely messing up all my types. which work on eg, trees with lists as branches |
| 2025-02-06 03:44:47 +0100 | <Inst__> | Thanks for the rec, best of luck. |
| 2025-02-06 03:44:23 +0100 | <r-sta> | like a square with a square corner missing is not a square |
| 2025-02-06 03:43:51 +0100 | <r-sta> | so i think my problem is that if you deconstruct a n-d binary grid, that it creates a view to the reconstructed version, where there is no intermediate type to hold the deconstructed thing. its not an n-d euclidean binary grid, when one of the cells is being viewed |
| 2025-02-06 03:43:13 +0100 | <Inst__> | Ah, survivors of the Soviet attempt to find a mathematical grounding for Dialectical Materialism? |
| 2025-02-06 03:43:03 +0100 | <r-sta> | ... |
| 2025-02-06 03:42:52 +0100 | <sclv> | has a good book about lawvere in that regars |
| 2025-02-06 03:42:31 +0100 | <sclv> | andrei rodin |
| 2025-02-06 03:42:30 +0100 | <r-sta> | one simply doesnt ought... |
| 2025-02-06 03:42:06 +0100 | <Inst__> | Oh, have a good one, found him when I was trying to do dialectics, and got censored off RedNote for asking about basing dialectics in mathematical logic |
| 2025-02-06 03:41:53 +0100 | <r-sta> | what, a topos? |
| 2025-02-06 03:41:44 +0100 | <sclv> | and yes, he is |
| 2025-02-06 03:41:17 +0100 | <sclv> | i’m aware |
| 2025-02-06 03:41:07 +0100 | <Inst__> | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lawvere |
| 2025-02-06 03:41:05 +0100 | <Inst__> | i recently found this guy, you might find him interesting |
| 2025-02-06 03:40:56 +0100 | <sclv> | ? |
| 2025-02-06 03:40:44 +0100 | j1n37 | (~j1n37@user/j1n37) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-02-06 03:40:30 +0100 | <Inst__> | Sclv: |
| 2025-02-06 03:39:55 +0100 | Inst__ | (~Inst__@2601:6c1:786:fb0:b0d9:e54c:aa23:7982) |
| 2025-02-06 03:38:37 +0100 | tavare | (~tavare@user/tavare) tavare |