Comments for Retrograde Dynamic Tablature Assembly http://habitue01.wordpress.com A blog about various coding adventures. Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:27:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on How to Get a Perfect Game of Cursor*10 (with time to spare) by habitue01 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-get-a-perfect-game-of-cursor10-with-time-to-spare/#comment-14 habitue01 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:27:31 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-get-a-perfect-game-of-cursor10-with-time-to-spare/#comment-14 The main thing I wanted to do with this walkthrough was to make it relatively leisurely. There are certainly ways to make it through with less cursors, but it's a lot harder to click that fast and to get every single step right. The main thing I wanted to do with this walkthrough was to make it relatively leisurely. There are certainly ways to make it through with less cursors, but it’s a lot harder to click that fast and to get every single step right.

]]> Comment on How to Get a Perfect Game of Cursor*10 (with time to spare) by dick http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-get-a-perfect-game-of-cursor10-with-time-to-spare/#comment-13 dick Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:01:03 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-get-a-perfect-game-of-cursor10-with-time-to-spare/#comment-13 figured it out myself after 3 games.. dont even have to stress that much...-.- u could allso just have said: go as far as u can to help ur future cursurs, then go down and clear that shit out DONE. figured it out myself after 3 games.. dont even have to stress that much…-.- u could allso just have said: go as far as u can to help ur future cursurs, then go down and clear that shit out DONE.

]]> Comment on How to Get a Perfect Game of Cursor*10 (with time to spare) by kjhkljh http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-get-a-perfect-game-of-cursor10-with-time-to-spare/#comment-12 kjhkljh Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:10:08 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-get-a-perfect-game-of-cursor10-with-time-to-spare/#comment-12 good job! good job!

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by Bca http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-10 Bca Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:54:25 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-10 I always find blog comments a facinating peek into human nature. In particular, it seems like comment format brings out the most arrogant in us. Take any normal person who could carry a polite two-way conversaion in a bar for hours on end and give him a blog to read, and suddenly he feels the uncontrollable desire to take the blogger to task on every single little thing he knows, or seems to know, or thinks he almost kinda sorta grasps to a fractionally greater degree than the blogger. And not in a polite, "oh, by the way, here's a little theory behind that..." sort of way, but instread in a pissy "what gives you the right to think you can pollute the Internet with your ignorant spew" sort of way. In any case, I'm going to have to forego my usual lesson on Monadic theory and finite automata... there's another blogger who just completely mangled the symmetry identity of complex Fourier Transforms, and it's my duty to beat the mistake into the ignorant fool publicly. That'll show him... I always find blog comments a facinating peek into human nature. In particular, it seems like comment format brings out the most arrogant in us. Take any normal person who could carry a polite two-way conversaion in a bar for hours on end and give him a blog to read, and suddenly he feels the uncontrollable desire to take the blogger to task on every single little thing he knows, or seems to know, or thinks he almost kinda sorta grasps to a fractionally greater degree than the blogger. And not in a polite, “oh, by the way, here’s a little theory behind that…” sort of way, but instread in a pissy “what gives you the right to think you can pollute the Internet with your ignorant spew” sort of way.

In any case, I’m going to have to forego my usual lesson on Monadic theory and finite automata… there’s another blogger who just completely mangled the symmetry identity of complex Fourier Transforms, and it’s my duty to beat the mistake into the ignorant fool publicly. That’ll show him…

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by Max http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-9 Max Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:12:26 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-9 "I know monads are some kind of tricky way to avoid side effects for certain things like IO in functional languages." I'm afraid you don't even know that, because it isn't true. Yes, IO is a monad, but so are [] (the list datatype), Maybe, Either. Monad is a typeclass (similar to an interface in Java) for general computation. The IO monad presents sequential computation; [] presents non-deterministic computation (computation that might have one of several results); Maybe presents computations which might fail. And so on. The most important function in the monad typeclass is (>>=). a >>= b means "take the result of a, and apply b to it". That's really about all there is to it. “I know monads are some kind of tricky way to avoid side effects for certain things like IO in functional languages.”

I’m afraid you don’t even know that, because it isn’t true. Yes, IO is a monad, but so are [] (the list datatype), Maybe, Either.

Monad is a typeclass (similar to an interface in Java) for general computation. The IO monad presents sequential computation; [] presents non-deterministic computation (computation that might have one of several results); Maybe presents computations which might fail. And so on.

The most important function in the monad typeclass is (>>=). a >>= b means “take the result of a, and apply b to it”.

That’s really about all there is to it.

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by anon http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-8 anon Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:36:29 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-8 Right, but whether they can actually be calculated in a practical amount of time depends on how you construct your machine, as do what the complexity classes even are, what falls in them, and what they mean. But proving P=NP would be done by proving that the ordinary computers, as we currently have them, can reach such solutions in P time (or that they can't), which shows nothing about "real/actual" complexity. Anyways, just because it can be done in P time doesn't mean it can be done quickly, the exponent could easily be a few thousand or the algorithm might consume a huge amount of memory, etc. Nor would such a process be extremely useful in proving mathematical truths, as far as I can see. First of all many truths are simply unprovable (Godel, at least if math is consistent). Secondly most useful mathematical advancements come from developing new axioms systems, new formalisms, not proving things in existing ones. While I agree that it is an interesting abstract problem I honestly don't see much point in answering the question, because its primary consequences seem to be only for more abstract mathematics, which also lack practical consequences. But perhaps this reflects more my beef with abstract mathematics in general, which I find often forgets what the point of math is. Right, but whether they can actually be calculated in a practical amount of time depends on how you construct your machine, as do what the complexity classes even are, what falls in them, and what they mean. But proving P=NP would be done by proving that the ordinary computers, as we currently have them, can reach such solutions in P time (or that they can’t), which shows nothing about “real/actual” complexity. Anyways, just because it can be done in P time doesn’t mean it can be done quickly, the exponent could easily be a few thousand or the algorithm might consume a huge amount of memory, etc. Nor would such a process be extremely useful in proving mathematical truths, as far as I can see. First of all many truths are simply unprovable (Godel, at least if math is consistent). Secondly most useful mathematical advancements come from developing new axioms systems, new formalisms, not proving things in existing ones. While I agree that it is an interesting abstract problem I honestly don’t see much point in answering the question, because its primary consequences seem to be only for more abstract mathematics, which also lack practical consequences. But perhaps this reflects more my beef with abstract mathematics in general, which I find often forgets what the point of math is.

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by habitue01 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-7 habitue01 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:23:46 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-7 Oh don't get me wrong, I am perfectly content with completely abstract thought with no real application (and Haskell is in my langeages I want to learn up there). But actually an answer to P=NP? has infinite practical applications. Specifically if there were a constructive proof that P=NP(one that gives an algorithm for an NP-Complete problem in polynomial time) then we could prove or disprove just about every theorem out there. It really is a practical question, just framed in terms of theoretical limits. It's not asking whether a given set of problems are computable, but whether they can be calculated in a practical amount of time. Even if someone proved P!=NP, there is a good chance such a proof would shed some light on what the real differences between complexity classes are. Oh don’t get me wrong, I am perfectly content with completely abstract thought with no real application (and Haskell is in my langeages I want to learn up there). But actually an answer to P=NP? has infinite practical applications. Specifically if there were a constructive proof that P=NP(one that gives an algorithm for an NP-Complete problem in polynomial time) then we could prove or disprove just about every theorem out there. It really is a practical question, just framed in terms of theoretical limits. It’s not asking whether a given set of problems are computable, but whether they can be calculated in a practical amount of time.

Even if someone proved P!=NP, there is a good chance such a proof would shed some light on what the real differences between complexity classes are.

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by Giovans http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-6 Giovans Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:21:09 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-6 I too don't know those things. It don't matter how many tutorials I read, this stuff doesn't stick to my brain. I'm doomed, I suppose. Or maybe I'm just plain dumb. Ciao I too don’t know those things.
It don’t matter how many tutorials I read,
this stuff doesn’t stick to my brain.

I’m doomed, I suppose.
Or maybe I’m just plain dumb.

Ciao

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by anon http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-5 anon Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:42:11 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-5 Tell me then, what do you find interesting about it, given that an answer to it doesn't necessarily have any real world consequences concerning actual computation, since you seem to be hardly the kind of person who likes to lose themselves in a world of abstraction without any regard for reality? (I deduce this from your lack of Haskell-love, which is common among mathematicians.) Tell me then, what do you find interesting about it, given that an answer to it doesn’t necessarily have any real world consequences concerning actual computation, since you seem to be hardly the kind of person who likes to lose themselves in a world of abstraction without any regard for reality? (I deduce this from your lack of Haskell-love, which is common among mathematicians.)

]]> Comment on Things I don’t know. by habitue01 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-4 habitue01 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:13:55 +0000 http://habitue01.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/things-i-dont-know/#comment-4 You're right, the P=NP problem is sort of based on the methods we currently use to compute. So it wouldn't have any bearing on what is computable quickly with say, a quantum computer. But I still find the question interesting! You’re right, the P=NP problem is sort of based on the methods we currently use to compute. So it wouldn’t have any bearing on what is computable quickly with say, a quantum computer. But I still find the question interesting!

]]>