Newest at the top
| 2025-04-29 14:16:03 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: that's a good point, hm |
| 2025-04-29 14:16:01 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | we have various abstractions to deal with our petty performance concerns |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:49 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | anything that involves "ensuring you don't compute a value more than once" is something that CS cares about and math does not |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:29 +0200 | <yin> | shapr: no problem |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:26 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | well the easy cases center around math, as a whole, not caring about "performance" -- it's not even well-defined what that means in math world |
| 2025-04-29 14:15:12 +0200 | <shapr> | yin: oh, I'm using kitty, but I've only used the image kitten, I'll try the LaTeX plugin, thanks! |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:55 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: got any in mind that programming does better than math? |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:42 +0200 | <yin> | shapr: i'm using irssi and kitty terminal. although i don't remember using it, kitty has a latex plugin so that would satisfy my needs |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:38 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | (for programming, that is) |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:32 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | sometimes CS has better ones |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:23 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | math does have good abstractions sometimes |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:14 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | never been there, but given the subject area, I would be highly surprised if they don't have a channel somehow that's just about semantics :P |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:09 +0200 | <shapr> | It's been a long process |
| 2025-04-29 14:14:02 +0200 | <shapr> | I dunno if I'm into math, but Haskell convinced me that math has the best abstractions, if only I can learn them. |
| 2025-04-29 14:13:27 +0200 | <shapr> | oh, good idea |
| 2025-04-29 14:13:05 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I'm not sure, I'm not much into math. I know there's a Zulip that's mostly about Lean, but gathers mathematicians in this area broadly, too |
| 2025-04-29 14:12:35 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | as in other communication channels? |
| 2025-04-29 14:12:27 +0200 | <shapr> | yin: what do you suggest? |
| 2025-04-29 14:12:18 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: do you happen to know roughly what crosses outside of one line raw LaTeX? |
| 2025-04-29 14:11:49 +0200 | <yin> | shapr: there are some iirc |
| 2025-04-29 14:11:32 +0200 | <shapr> | Although now I'm tempted to try writing an ERC plugin for LaTeX formatting |
| 2025-04-29 14:11:23 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | that works for simple stuff, yes |
| 2025-04-29 14:11:10 +0200 | <shapr> | tomsmeding: I just write raw LaTeX and expect the readers to use the rendering engine in their brain. |
| 2025-04-29 14:10:38 +0200 | meritamen | (~meritamen@user/meritamen) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-04-29 14:09:37 +0200 | meritamen | (~meritamen@user/meritamen) meritamen |
| 2025-04-29 14:09:30 +0200 | mari72280 | (~mari-este@user/mari-estel) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 14:09:22 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | math on irc is slightly impractical because only text, no formatting |
| 2025-04-29 14:08:35 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | you _might_ try ##dependent or #agda, but no guarantees -- I lurked in ##dependent for a bit because people invited me there and all I got was politics, so I left again |
| 2025-04-29 14:08:07 +0200 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2409:251:9040:2c00:f526:bfbc:714e:5dfd) |
| 2025-04-29 14:07:23 +0200 | bitdex | (~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex) (Quit: = "") |
| 2025-04-29 14:06:29 +0200 | yin | (~yin@user/zero) zero |
| 2025-04-29 14:05:36 +0200 | <shapr> | Is there a good IRC channel where I can ask about denotational semantics? |
| 2025-04-29 14:02:28 +0200 | internatetional | (~nate@2404:c0:2020::118:9ffb) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 13:58:26 +0200 | internatetional_ | (~nate@2001:448a:20a3:c2e5:5b6:e1f9:afcb:86c5) internatetional |
| 2025-04-29 13:55:29 +0200 | Typedfern | (~Typedfern@135.red-83-37-43.dynamicip.rima-tde.net) typedfern |
| 2025-04-29 13:54:38 +0200 | haritz | (~hrtz@user/haritz) haritz |
| 2025-04-29 13:54:38 +0200 | haritz | (~hrtz@152.37.68.178) (Changing host) |
| 2025-04-29 13:54:38 +0200 | haritz | (~hrtz@152.37.68.178) |
| 2025-04-29 13:54:15 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> some people use kitten emojis as substitutes for the >>= operator. Reducing bind traversals improves performance, so killing 🐱 operators is fine. |
| 2025-04-29 13:53:54 +0200 | Typedfern | (~Typedfern@135.red-83-37-43.dynamicip.rima-tde.net) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-04-29 13:52:55 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:81f6:6a75:5fad:c9b4) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2025-04-29 13:52:43 +0200 | internatetional | (~nate@2404:c0:2020::118:9ffb) internatetional |
| 2025-04-29 13:52:40 +0200 | fp | (~Thunderbi@2001:708:20:1406::1370) fp |
| 2025-04-29 13:46:48 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | phew |
| 2025-04-29 13:46:38 +0200 | <shapr> | they're virtual kittens, it's okay |
| 2025-04-29 13:46:29 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I'm currently using a list as an ad-hoc data structure |
| 2025-04-29 13:46:14 +0200 | <lambdabot> | jonrafkind says: every time you use a list as an ad-hoc datastructure, a kitten dies |
| 2025-04-29 13:46:14 +0200 | <shapr> | @quote |
| 2025-04-29 13:46:07 +0200 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-04-29 13:39:29 +0200 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |