 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:49 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I think you just broke my brain.
>
> Does exactly what it says on the tin.
It's tinned, to? Wow. :-)
>> And here I was thinking it was a joke you made up. :-)
>
> Oh no, it's definitely not a joke. ;-)
Well, for some values of 'joke' anyways. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:27:10 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:33:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>> googled:
>>> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>>>
>>> I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
>>
>> I think you just broke my brain.
>
> You mean he f**ked your brain?
More or less, yes.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Looks like YAFFI [Yet Another Factorial Function] to me. ;-)
Yet Another Factorial Function Implementation.
Damn it, I should just stop typing! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now I *have* seen it all. :-)
Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:16:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Now I *have* seen it all. :-)
>
> Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
I gave up at integral calculus. Too much memorisation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
>
> I gave up at integral calculus. Too much memorisation.
I wonder what "calculus" actually means.
I mean, there's differential calculus and integral calculus. Then
there's the relational calculus, which is completely different. And then
there are various combinator calculi, which are utterly different again.
So what does "calculus" actually mean?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:46:16 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake, saying:
>>> Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
>> I gave up at integral calculus. Too much memorisation.
>
> I wonder what "calculus" actually means.
>
> I mean, there's differential calculus and integral calculus. Then
> there's the relational calculus, which is completely different. And then
> there are various combinator calculi, which are utterly different again.
> So what does "calculus" actually mean?
Small stone, used for counting; IOW counting small 'things'.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.t6tif914c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:46:16 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
>> So what does "calculus" actually mean?
>
> Small stone, used for counting; IOW counting small 'things'.
Hard deposits of bacterially-displaced calcium carbonate that the dentist
scrapes off your teeth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:46:16 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
>>
>> I gave up at integral calculus. Too much memorisation.
>
> I wonder what "calculus" actually means.
From the OED:
L.; = ‘small stone’, dim. of calx stone, pebble; also, a stone or counter
used in playing draughts, a stone used in reckoning on the abacus or
counting board, whence, reckoning, calculation, account; and a stone used
in voting, whence, vote, sentence.
> I mean, there's differential calculus and integral calculus. Then
> there's the relational calculus, which is completely different. And then
> there are various combinator calculi, which are utterly different again.
> So what does "calculus" actually mean?
See above. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> In Scheme and Lisp, let introduces new lexical scoped bindings for values, just
>> like in Haskell. Except someone can use set! on them and break all referential
>> transparency apart...
>
> Maybe I confused "let" with "set".
I *have* seen "let" used in mathematical proofs alot.
"Let x be the smallest number in the set. Then, ...."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
