| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Applicative-Order Fixed-Point Operator (Programming) by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. (λp
((λa (a a))
(λf
(p (λx ((f f) x))))))
Up the ladder:
How To Fish
Down the ladder:
A Blind Child Speaks
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.0
Posted: May 25, 2005 2:36 PM PDT; Last modified: May 25, 2005 2:47 PM PDTWeighted score: 5.0 Overall Rank: 7769 Comments:
You have 9 open and 8 closed. Remove the first open in the second line. If you'd used my method this would not have happened.
You don't have the faintest idea what this does. There are two opening brackets on the second line for a reason. Your suggestion is equivalent to yanking an arrow out of a cowboy, because it looks sharp.
Note only that, but THERE ARE IN FACT THE CORRECT NUMBER (9) OF BRACKETS OF EACH TYPE ANYWAY. You didn't even bother to count before you leapt in with your wrong, incorrect un-correction. You saw something you didn't understand, and you went "DEAR GOD IT'S DIFFERENT! THERE'S BEEN AN AWFUL MISTAKE!" You call this method, "Women's intuition." I call it "Being tremendously dense." Now to address your absurd suggestion that I use "your method", aka "The Ladies' method of Autocad." 1. The function definition would stretch over several useless lines for no reason, inhibit reformatting and refactoring, and be an utter waste of time. 2. I would be the laughing stock of the Lisp world. Nobody, NOBODY who writes Lisp puts closing brackets on separate lines, except people who write Autolisp tutorials. 3. Even if there had been a mistake, which there hadn't, my syntax highlighter would have caught it immediately. Fancy that: A program that does your drudgery for you, so you don't have to! Now if only there was a "Dovina-corrector" program!!!1
This is NOT the recipe for pumkin fritata? Damn.
If there were 99 instead of 9, nobody reading this would count or care. They probably donât care anyway, but rather consider the gentle swat of Dovina and the hard lash of -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I., then decide which they like best. So it goes here â all about rhetoric. We are wordmongers and consider them gold. If it were not so, I would not have pulled a rockmage 10 for a silly poem about a hawk dining at the city dump, or kudos from richa for a raven full of crap. Not so, you will no doubt say, the difference between 8 and 9 - the number 1 - is more real than words. But even if it is, the salesman wins, and we who wallow in reason, write poetry for relief.
Even when you've been utterly, utterly trumped on, you still can't stop your beak from flapping.
I) Instead of, perhaps, trying to understand the poeme, or at least learn something from the experience of making a colossal wally of yourself, your mind is instead fixated on what OTHER PEOPLE might be thinking. II) Of course nobody else reading this counts or cares. But you counted, I counted, I care, and clearly you care. I care because I want the function to be correct. Christ knows why you care. III) This poeme does not contain words. It contains parentheses, λs and variables. So yes, the difference between 8 parentheses and 9 parentheses clearly is more relevant than words. I'm fairly stunned that you can't see that. Why would you want to waffle on about words in evaluating this poeme?
Just tit for tat really. Make a comment, ignore the poem. Irritating, isn't it? in non-evaluable lambda sort of way.
Not really.
By the way, I've recently been reading about the role of ladies in computer science. My favourite historicum is that in the 19th century there was a mathematical journal called the "Ladies Diary." Apparently it was just for ladies!
Could you have solved this math question, which appeared in The Ladies Diary? No diagram was given, and all you have is a book of logarithms, a log-trig book, paper and a pencil.
âA circular vessel, whose top and bottom diameters are 70 and 92, and perpendicular depth 60 inches, is so elevated on side that the other becomes perpendicular to the horizon; required what quantity of liquor, ale measure, will just cover the bottom when in that position.â
The difficulty of the question is compounded by the fact that I have neither a book of logarithms nor a log-trip book nor indeed any paper. I possess only a pencil, an egg-timer, a pair of trussed kippers and an alarmingly small pair of socks.
Nevertheless, I estimate that the required quantity is just short of 189 gallons.
You didn't answer the question, unless you mean by this: "No, but I can cheat."
In a frictionless world, zero.
Wrong.
What an astonishingly ladylike question you've picked for a rebuttal, though! "Just cover the bottom"? What the fuck does that mean?
I didn't write the question. It appeared in The Ladies Diary in the nineteenth century. Consider the language in use then when interpreting it. You, a math major, should do better than a mere uneducated lady who probably had to steal into her husband's office to use a log-trig book late at night.
Can I ask you a question?
I have a square-bottomed container resting on its bottom, which is square. The bottom is 1 foot by 1 foot. How much beer would just cover the bottom? What if you were using a superfine atomiser-sprayer capable of spraying a layer of beer 1 molecule thick?
That depends on the angle between the bottom's plane and the horizontal.
You're not reading the question carefully. There is no such trickery as you imagine. The answer is a volume.
Oh. Crap. Guess I walked into that.
So, could you solve it?
Yes, once. Is that sufficient?
Look, victorian feminism is quite past you, me, and the entire subject at hand. Take some lsd, burn a wonder bra and call Martha Stewart for a Vodka Sisterhood Gathering in the fuddled morn, that or pull your cranium out thy puckered arse-cunt woman.
Honestly, I think it's true what they say... Woman speak to speak again, again, again, again, again. Even I had to shut up eventually. Then again, thankfully, I am not a woman.
I feel really sad you got no response on this other than mine. I have an ace response in mind, waiting for time and inclination.
I'll be ludicrous and say only this:
Fuck Fortran. And fuck you for reminding me that I suck in any mathematical area which peaks above the Introduction in my old 'n rotted Algebra One textbook.] And that shall be all, till we meet again, my pretty embrowned birdie.
What's Fortran got to do with it? This poeme isn't anything to do with Fortran. One couldn't even write it in Fortran.
Darkie, I know it ain't Fortran. T'was simply a jest. That is why I had mentioned being ludicrous.
Anyway, since we're on the issue, what language or script code does this happen to be? And what fuction does the above serve, and forgo repeating the title, layman definition required.
The poeme is written in a made-up version of Scheme where (λx ...) is short for (lambda (x) ...).
It can be used to write a recursive function without having to give it a name. It's quite mind-bending to think about. 433 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PSYCH! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!