tmsr - Search: " T"

176700+ entries in 0.105s

mod6 sprays down the whiteboard

asciilifeform: ( and -- damningly -- i can't think of why. )

a111: Logged on 2017-07-10 23:07 jurov: re: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-07-09#1681019 i tried and liked https://github.com/conspack/cl-conspack

shinohai: Cornhole datwith this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEahtE1W0AEnWxa.jpg

mircea_popescu: EIC did you figure out how to reg a key ?

a111: Logged on 2017-07-09 16:29 phf: note that common lisp's sexps are not an ideal data exchange format

jurov: re: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-07-09#1681019 i tried and liked https://github.com/conspack/cl-conspack ☝︎☟︎

asciilifeform: the tightest, in practice, space of all, however, is.. the head

asciilifeform: ( lessay you had to put one in a very... tight space. e.g. 'uci' payload... )

asciilifeform: part of what asciilifeform was even doing re 'p' is answering the q of 'what is the minimal practical rsatron'

mircea_popescu: it should not take the average artist a year of labour to produce the optorsatron out of cheap lasers and stuff ~free in any collegiate lab, once he's stolen the unrolling and idea from log.

a111: Logged on 2017-07-07 18:01 mircea_popescu: if they did that sort of shit, i could almost respect artists.

mircea_popescu: but it'd make fine ART, to go back to http://btcbase.org/log/2017-07-07#1680182 ☝︎

mircea_popescu: the two aren't that distinct in this application

asciilifeform: probably an ada build and a handrolled asm, per cpu make, is best that can be had.

mircea_popescu: which suggests the very important point : bitewise equality over the result space is not sufficient proof of program equivalence.

asciilifeform: i don't expect to see many reimplementations, sadly, however, because one of the items of said spec is 'the following ops are in constant spacetime...'

a111: Logged on 2017-07-04 15:06 mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-07-04#1679054 << this is a fine approach. "here's the per spec impl, here's the optimized impl. you can verify they agree wrt results ; and you can trivially verify the former is spec-accurate."

asciilifeform: p ain't a 'code is the spec' crock-o-shit tho. up asciilifeform's sleeve, is an actual spec

mircea_popescu: just as should be. first spec code then optimized code

asciilifeform: but try and get back lost clarity!!

asciilifeform: we can always get the speed BACK later

asciilifeform: upstack, ffa wants to double as a 'how to rsa' 'b00k' , i.e. at every point tradeoff was made for clarity rather than speed.

mircea_popescu: well yes, i imagined the 4kb one also composite.

asciilifeform: the way folx used to stitch shifters together.

asciilifeform: and if made correctly they oughta plug in for longer arity.

asciilifeform: in my mind's eye thing would be a 32kBit-arity alu...lol

mircea_popescu: unrolled loops means fixed time eh.

asciilifeform: ( i dun know of any compelling practical reason to do this, outside of something like a hand-sewn gossipd packet filter in asm on bare iron, for max horsepower )

mircea_popescu: part of the point

asciilifeform: but iirc this came up in old thread.

asciilifeform: pretty lulzy, jmpless rsatron then

asciilifeform: phunphakt -- if you nail down, to a fixed bitness, the N-arity of the arithmetic, you can unroll all of the loops.

asciilifeform: ( ffa in asm is - somewhat surprisingly - easier than ada or even c )

asciilifeform: in the interest of bootstrapology.

asciilifeform: ftr asciilifeform doing this chore does not excuse other folx from same

asciilifeform: seems like it works - almost astonishingly - as printed on the box...

asciilifeform: mod6: aha. i wanted to see how the bounds checks are done, and whether gcc4.9 takes any liberties with'em

asciilifeform: i've been reading, btw, the output

asciilifeform: in some critical applications (airplane, rsatron) this is still unacceptable and hence spark

mod6: im just dumb. it seemed to be smarter than i am.

mod6: or whatever it was. no did not seem to be a segfault.

asciilifeform: mod6: note that 'blow up' still dun mean 'segfault'

asciilifeform: every single time it was 'guess wat, this is How It Works in the adult hut. for reasons that Make Sense'...

mod6: all i can say thus far is; stuff seems to be strict. my code may compile, but indeed blows up at runtime.

asciilifeform: quite possibly i'dve given up long ago if not for this repeated experience

asciilifeform: 'oooh hey turns out, Right Thing'

asciilifeform: every time, to date, when i bashed head against wall and went 'WAI DOES IT DOOO THAT!1!!1' i ended up repenting

asciilifeform: ada is a thing for a reason, i found. hence this entire thread.

asciilifeform: slice has own bounds, the correct ones.

mircea_popescu: wedll that's something.

mircea_popescu: but can i overflow THE SLICE ?

asciilifeform: every. time.

asciilifeform: they get checked against the bounds

mircea_popescu: ~same as the relation between pointer and its content, "better hope programmer didn't fuck up ; and also it usually blows up if he did so there's that"

mircea_popescu: what particular can i prove re the relation between an array slice and the index fixer variable ?

asciilifeform: in that they are replaced with a far more constrained item

mircea_popescu: i am sitting here wondering if this is "getting rid" as in, rid or rid as in, hid.

asciilifeform: in much the same way as 'in' parameters (in ada procedures)

asciilifeform: upstack, array slices ( which commonlisp also has ) are important to being rid of having to use c-style pointers

mod6: gotta take it the whiteboard a bit later perhaps.

mod6: i've read, so far seems ok -- i've got to wrap my mind around the second ("high loop") as I did before.

asciilifeform: ( behind the curtain )

asciilifeform: seekrit : in the 'most fascist' restriction mode, ada... copies slices

asciilifeform: and bloats the algo.

asciilifeform: nope. blows the cache.

mircea_popescu: wouldn't it be actually proper to copy the slice into its own array and to maintain a pairing of slices and new arrays ; rather trhan do index magics on the mult code ?

asciilifeform: that's a copy, we do this also sometimes.

mircea_popescu: wouldn't it actually be proper to copy the slice into its own array ?

asciilifeform: and ergo retain the original's indexing.

asciilifeform: slices are not arrays in their own right, they are offsets into another array

mircea_popescu: i realyl don't like this "and now we magic-variable the numbers". it's one step up from magic constant

asciilifeform: though i also found it at first difficult to understand why.

asciilifeform: because not doing it would lead to increased ugly.

mircea_popescu: why does ada do that, anyway ?

asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: it ain't tho.

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this sounds like the ugliest of hacks.

mod6: asciilifeform: thx, will read

asciilifeform: rot13 spoiler: Nqn neenl fyvprf xrrc gur 'Svefg naq 'Ynfg bs jurerire va gur cnerag gurl pnzr sebz! sbe fbzr ernfba guvf vf abg zragvbarq naljurer ohg va gur fgnaqneq. Xnengfhon bs pbhefr raqf hc vaibxvat gur onfrpnfr zhygvcyvre jvgu fyvprf gung qba'g ortva jvgu mreb, naq gb qrfgvangvba neenl gung yvxrjvfr qbrfa'g. Fb jr tbggn abeznyvmr.

asciilifeform: incidentally, (imaginary) prize to the first d00d who understands why this had to be rewritten with the loops indexing from 0 .. L-1, rather than, e.g., for i in X'Range ... as formerly

asciilifeform: btw, nobody's exempt from having to eventually grasp how ^ worx

mircea_popescu: got all this iron, let's do dumbass bayesianisms on it, instead of you know, what people correctly did up to the 90s or so.

a111: Logged on 2017-07-10 19:50 asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: this'd be an interesting adjunct to the dh tests even.

mod6: oohh right. thx

mircea_popescu: meanwhile in tit-hello, http://68.media.tumblr.com/5bbc9e2c1caaf38357bb956d156600f6/tumblr_oimi8cQ5Xq1uwwy5ko1_1280.jpg

mircea_popescu: does this make you suffer greatly ?

mircea_popescu: there is no gold standard to which you could compare the gold standard ?

asciilifeform: there is no 'gold standard' to which i could compare fg, etc

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform by my lights, exact answer re prime distribution prerequisite to trivial factorization of rsa.

asciilifeform: recall the dh thread

mircea_popescu: what do you mean there exists no gold rng ?

asciilifeform: which is frustrating because you can't resort to 'empirical test' here , because circular, there EXISTS NO 'gold rng'

mircea_popescu: i would very much like an exact bound, rather than an exact solution

asciilifeform: prolly hadamard's thing re prime distribution is the closest we're likely to get to an exact answer

mircea_popescu: they have the p k, 1 < 4 ** (2 - sqrt(k))* k**2 , which is useful, but i also want the p k, m

mircea_popescu: this is still less than my graph.

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i had actually read this text, though pretty sure not in this paper. but i recall the 100,10 bounds etc

mircea_popescu: not terrible even

asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: for completeness, exp with 4096 operands takes ~0.3s. per. on current ffa.

shinohai curled it and piped through pdf2text, seems readable ....