231200+ entries in 0.201s
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so
this makes it a uniquely poor example, seeing how it will conceivably sink
the extant scheme.
mircea_popescu: if a and b are conflictors
then
the resolution of
their differences will be in either a or b
tree ; importing code from either b or a respectively
to satisfy ; and
the other branch may die.
mircea_popescu: much like currently mod6's latest,
the makefiles patch.
takes 'mod6_der_high_low_s' , 'malleus_mikehearnificarum', and 'asciilifeform_maxint_locks_corrected' .
mircea_popescu: but
this does not prevent c from calling both of
them, does it ?
mircea_popescu: maybe we're not
talking of
the same
thing, but isn't
the very patch in question, with its 3 references, a converger ?
mircea_popescu: anyway - so you list all 3 if
there's 3. fine. why does
this make convergence impossible ?
mircea_popescu: yes, but
this
time a clock is no longer necessary for
the beheadings.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-23 19:26 mircea_popescu:
there's multiple approaches available. a) each patch nails down
the whole list of direct antecedents, so it'd be 3 in
this case ; b) each patch signer picks an arbitrary antecedent
to reference of
the list (of here - 3), others are free
to "fork" it by picking a different one or w/e.
mircea_popescu: the next day, bee dog saw a duck. because it wasn't blue
therefore it was white and because it didn't have arms it
therefore had claws and
the bee dog ran back
to
town and warned everyone of
the white wolf
mircea_popescu: according
to similar legend,
there was once a bee dog who saw a glass bottle. because it wasn't red it
therefore was grey and because it wasn't fleecy it
therefopre was
toothy and so
the bee dog ran
to
town and warned everyone of
the wolf.
mircea_popescu: i also dun get such grumbles ? apparently
there's a lot of divergence
to be discussed here lol.
mircea_popescu: well i dunno,
the idea of code kinda is
to be massive verticals. it;s unclear
to me whence
this "Signing entire project" comes from either.
mircea_popescu: there's multiple approaches available. a) each patch nails down
the whole list of direct antecedents, so it'd be 3 in
this case ; b) each patch signer picks an arbitrary antecedent
to reference of
the list (of here - 3), others are free
to "fork" it by picking a different one or w/e.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: in any case, "-if + for" is NOT
the same
thing wherever it appears. even if
the strings are equal.
mircea_popescu: the context is not imagined, but very mach part of a corrent understanding of
text.
mircea_popescu: right, which is what happens here.
there's no such
thing as "code", but only "x's code" even
the same word "for" is not
the same word.
mircea_popescu:
the same exact string, if said by me, is an idea - if said by rando, is nothing.
mircea_popescu: ie, idiots can not have ideas. no matter what
they do.
mircea_popescu: no, my contention is
that
this "Sameness" is entirely illusory.
mircea_popescu: so yes, monkey makes ballista, shoots man.
then monkey settles down, forgets about balista for a minute, spends
TWO CENTURIES
trying
to figure out what man had already said. a rather hollow sort of victory, at least
to my eyes.
mircea_popescu: her
than
the obvious renounciation of
the constructivist delusion.
mircea_popescu: at issue is, of course,
the constructivist approach
to sets ; ZFC (which is
the predominant, if unexamined, contemporaneous basis for set
theory) disposes with
this naivity, and instead approaches
the matter greek-style : all sets are "constructed" by criteria in
the sense of carving subsets from
the superset V (ie
the v Neumann universe). it is perhaps worth noting
that russel's own solution favoured ~fucking over logic~ rat
a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 19:03 mircea_popescu: should be pretty evident
that a dimension defined in
terms of divisibility is very fundamentally not
the same
thing as
the latin notion of dimension-as-extensibility.
mircea_popescu: and while he's incapacitated,
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-21#1587343 <<
to briefly revisit
the whole "greeks were actually smarter
than you"
thread : naive set
theory (as expoused by, say, frege) runs into a problem known as russel's paradox : should
the set of sets
that don't include
themselves include itself ?
☝︎ mircea_popescu: i am saying however it makes cycles impossible, so let's see
that part.
mircea_popescu: yeah, i'm not saying
this is some sort of great improvement.
mircea_popescu: adding
the hash of
the antecedent
to
the actual file makes
that hash part of
the diff of
the actual file, which makes it part of
the hash of
the patch (ie, diff of files).
mircea_popescu: dude. adding it in
the actual file makes it part of
the diff of
the patch which makes it part of
the hash.
mircea_popescu: adding it in
the actual file makes it part of
the hash for
the file.
mircea_popescu: note
that "insert random garbage" has not actually been proposed as far as i know.
mircea_popescu: i have nfi what i'm looking at here ; none of
them correctly reference
their antecedent hashes, so it's just random garbage
mircea_popescu: now, because of a naive "repetition creates cycles" and "index=text content" joint assumption, you automatically imagine
that
two people signing
the same (text+context) pair would create a cycle. not anymore -
the situation neatly reduces
to "two people sign
the same patch", ie, having multiple seals for
the same patch.
mircea_popescu: mplemented as introducing a comment which references
the previous item in
the indexed set - but
this is by no means
the only, or
the required, or standards-candidate implementation.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless,
two different solutions have been considered. one is
to attach an outside clock
to
the process.
this has
the obvious disadvantage of attaching an outside clock
to
the process.
the other is
to modify
the indexing process for
the set, from
the current "index is hash of
textual content"
to a more advanced "index is hash of
textual content + its context". as an exemplary poc it was proposed
that
this change may be i
mircea_popescu: this outlines a
theoretical problem, which is present. it does not have many practical implications at
the present
time for purely political ("thou shalt not cycle!" is an imperative) and sociological (not
that many people hammering out
that many patches yet) reasons.
therefore its solution is not in any sense pressing.
mircea_popescu: 1. all ordered sets will create cycles whenever
the index repeats ; 2.
tmsr uses ordered sets
to resolve specific problems of code development ;
the application is called v ; 3. for
the purpose
tmsr uses ordered sets for, cycles are intolerable (the
turing problem resolves
to "acyclic set graph" in
this particular case) ; 4.
there is no way
to guarantee numbers do not repeat.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform lemme state
this
thing from my pov for
teh record here.
mircea_popescu: except woe, you can't make it because someone already made a patch for
this block and you aren't going
to see another block without a patch.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform if you mean
that you and i both sign
the same patch
text in
the same
tree context,
the result here has been
the very common, and very benign, MULTIPLE SEALS. which we currently have.