Newest at the top
| 2026-06-24 00:59:28 +0000 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p54ad50b4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) |
| 2026-06-24 00:58:58 +0000 | acidjnk_new | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e74def43ec2141b26299b177.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-06-24 00:57:46 +0000 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) vanishingideal |
| 2026-06-24 00:52:45 +0000 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:9353:b8c8:c41e:444d) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-06-24 00:51:19 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-06-24 00:44:17 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-24 00:33:05 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-06-24 00:28:56 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-24 00:19:23 +0000 | pavonia | (~user@user/siracusa) siracusa |
| 2026-06-24 00:17:56 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-06-24 00:14:15 +0000 | schuelermine | (~Thunderbi@user/schuelermine) schuelermine |
| 2026-06-24 00:13:33 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-24 00:02:49 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2026-06-23 23:58:10 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-23 23:47:32 +0000 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:340e:2700:e1be:7d8f:de85:da97) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2026-06-23 23:47:27 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-06-23 23:42:48 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-23 23:41:07 +0000 | <dolio> | That is the 'productive' part of totality. |
| 2026-06-23 23:40:38 +0000 | <dolio> | Like, 'non-termination' is fine if your witness of the infinitude of primes is a stream of distinct prime numbers, as long as there's no point in the stream where it goes, "hold on a second," and then never comes back. |
| 2026-06-23 23:38:54 +0000 | <EvanR> | a term which can be used at any type |
| 2026-06-23 23:38:39 +0000 | <dolio> | That was my point. |
| 2026-06-23 23:38:32 +0000 | <dolio> | Not really non-termination, I guess, depending on what you mean. |
| 2026-06-23 23:37:16 +0000 | <dolio> | Non-termination allows vacuous proofs of false things, usually. |
| 2026-06-23 23:37:04 +0000 | <EvanR> | something on top of that would need to identify that you're talking about a turing machine |
| 2026-06-23 23:36:37 +0000 | <EvanR> | base haskell being not particularly expressive as a logic, you basically proved some stream exists |
| 2026-06-23 23:36:23 +0000 | <jreicher> | And how does that relate to termination? |
| 2026-06-23 23:35:58 +0000 | <dolio> | The type is what is being proved. |
| 2026-06-23 23:35:35 +0000 | <jreicher> | dolio: the analogy is not straightforward. You still have to be clear what is being proven by the program you are taking as a proof |
| 2026-06-23 23:35:01 +0000 | <dolio> | The connection is that proofs are analogous to Haskell programs, but saying that the text of a Haskell program is finite doesn't really tell you whether it stops or not, and some Haskell programs are not 'supposed' to stop, depending on what you mean by that. |
| 2026-06-23 23:33:52 +0000 | czan | (~czan@user/mange) czan |
| 2026-06-23 23:33:51 +0000 | <EvanR> | presumably, for this case |
| 2026-06-23 23:33:26 +0000 | <EvanR> | each WHNF step terminates |
| 2026-06-23 23:32:18 +0000 | <EvanR> | yeah the proof would be the program in this case, not the semantics value (the infinite stream) |
| 2026-06-23 23:31:02 +0000 | <jreicher> | How does that relate to what we're talking about? |
| 2026-06-23 23:30:59 +0000 | <dolio> | The ones that don't finish in pathological ways, too. |
| 2026-06-23 23:30:27 +0000 | <dolio> | All Haskell programs are finite, including the ones that don't finish. |
| 2026-06-23 23:30:24 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-06-23 23:29:54 +0000 | <jreicher> | "Good" theorem prover. :p |
| 2026-06-23 23:29:40 +0000 | <EvanR> | if you carefully walk the space of sentences |
| 2026-06-23 23:29:20 +0000 | <jreicher> | So a theorem prover will always terminate if a proof exists. |
| 2026-06-23 23:29:12 +0000 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@71.84.33.135) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-06-23 23:29:04 +0000 | <jreicher> | dolio: exactly. And that's the proof. |
| 2026-06-23 23:28:52 +0000 | <EvanR> | this program would need to be verfified |
| 2026-06-23 23:28:41 +0000 | <dolio> | Everything you write on a page is described finitely. |
| 2026-06-23 23:28:30 +0000 | <EvanR> | yeah you'd need a valid program which constructs the turing machine's stream, without failing to pick a next move |
| 2026-06-23 23:28:28 +0000 | <dolio> | Yeah, it's an infinite stream described in a finite way. |
| 2026-06-23 23:27:27 +0000 | <dolio> | Like `data Stream a = Cons a (Stream a)` |
| 2026-06-23 23:27:22 +0000 | <jreicher> | dolio: I don't think what you've said makes sense. How do you know the Turing machine is going to have an infinite sequence of steps unless you can demonstrate that with a FINITE set of SENTENCES? |
| 2026-06-23 23:27:18 +0000 | <EvanR> | if you have a meta proof of that, then great |
| 2026-06-23 23:27:07 +0000 | <dolio> | Well, it's infinite by construction. |