asciilifeform: the fact that we have ordering.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform in general this "make new path and claim the work of others" is always available. i can make new path and claim the work of everyone right now, what's to stop me.
asciilifeform: '“This isn’t a joke,” said the captain, according to passenger Lucas Wojciechowski. “We’re going to turn on the lights and search everyone’s bag until we find it” ... “Ladies and gentlemen, we found the device,” said the captain. “Luckily only the name of the device was changed to ‘Galaxy Note 7'. It was not a GN7.”'
asciilifeform: great idea, from one pov, terrible from just about every other.
asciilifeform: the proposal imho belongs with thomas edison's concrete furniture.
asciilifeform: if mircea_popescu signs 'τῶν γὰρ φύσει συνεστώτων τὰ μέν ἐστι ...', he does not also sign his copy of aristotle, and after that, the publisher's original manuscript, and with it, the medieval copy, and with that, the arab copy, and with that, .... plus the book from which he learned greek, and its manuscript...
asciilifeform: orthogonally, but also quite painfully, not having 'a == a' also means that 'power rangers' can make new paths and claim credit for the works of others, and there will be NO mechanical means for a n00b to determine that this was done, other than to explore the exploding phase space.
asciilifeform: it is the devil from earlier thread, it can only happen if we are all retarded to begin with.
asciilifeform: i do not see this hypothetical world, where it is unclear who is who.
mircea_popescu: conflicts aren't liable to be resolvable in general other than through the above described avenue
mircea_popescu: but in practice, should prb decide to come to sanity, the only avenue open to them is to... try and get their patches on the v tree.
asciilifeform: you are permitted to go to the same place via 2+ paths, because the graph is mandatorily acyclic and directional.
asciilifeform: because in the extant scheme, 'a == a'.
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 ?
asciilifeform: and there is no way to erase this fact.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: with your algo, 'a' cannot produce the same thing as 'b', because their immediate antecedents were different.
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 ?
asciilifeform: draw for me the converger plox
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.
asciilifeform: it begins to resemble the popular picture of time travel.
asciilifeform: and if any two descendants pick variant paths, they create that many paths again ~squared~, and so on.
asciilifeform: because every descendant would be stuck having to pick, arbitrarily, one or the other path. and so on for ~each~ junction where this happened.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: if your branches cannot converge (and under your algo, they cannot, because path dependence ~everywhere~) your tree gets cancer, every single patch creates a wholly separate universe that can never touch others.
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.
asciilifeform: this ~is~ a solution to 'i never again want to lose the key'
asciilifeform: according to legend, once upon a time, long ago, mircea_popescu lost his house key. so the next day he ordered twenty wagons of glue, and glued everything together -- the gurlz, the keys, his keyboard, his chair, ...
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.
asciilifeform: which is same as not even using v at all, but signing the entire project again and again.
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.
asciilifeform: if each patch nails down an explicit 'and on top of THIS' press sequence, it drags the entire universe behind it, all of a sudden there is no such thing as 'sibling', i.e. a thing that goes from same ancestor to a different but nonconflicting place.
mircea_popescu: so what'd be the problem ?
asciilifeform: take mod6's latest, the makefiles patch.
mircea_popescu: seems to me it would look exactly the same.
mircea_popescu: in any case, "-if + for" is NOT the same thing wherever it appears. even if the strings are equal.
asciilifeform: all that cannot be calculated mechanically, is, for the purpose of making a mechanism, imaginary.
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.
asciilifeform: the mp-ness of a is provided by his seal.
mircea_popescu: ie, idiots can not have ideas. no matter what they do.
mircea_popescu: in the sense contemplated in http://trilema.com/2014/pro-idiotas-which-obviously-means-people-who-have-ideas-ie-idiots/
asciilifeform: so i hand-cranked the sequence using mircea_popescu's method, to agglomerate, forever, a record of the path through the tree. and he is right that this will keep the toposort from detecting a loop. but this is rather like whitening an rng, it confuses only the machine, but not the reader, who will see that the ~output~ resulting from following the path is identical.
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: 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 ?
asciilifeform: but now i can also make 10,000,001 paths that lead to the same press, and cannot be easily distinguished by machine. which is a headache that normal v does not suffer from.
asciilifeform: without hash collisions, either.
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).
asciilifeform: nobody's diffing the patches, mircea_popescu
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.
asciilifeform: nobody's hashing ~the patches~. mircea_popescu wants to ?
asciilifeform: of the patch..?
asciilifeform: (which is what i gather mircea_popescu intended to do in his paste)
asciilifeform: they have entirely different paths, and so making them explicitly state their path, will not save you
mircea_popescu: mk lemme restate this then!
asciilifeform: a and b are on separate planets , and do not know about each other, and each was working from the genesis only.
asciilifeform: show me what 'correctly reference their antecedent hashes' would look like.
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
asciilifeform: the example i just posted involves two people, 'a' and 'b', who follow entirely different paths, come to same place, because they do not know about one another and there is no clock. now you can give them a place to put magical comment, but again they have to have a drumbeat or agreement method of one kind or another, or they can still follow this same path.
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.
asciilifeform: http://wotpaste.cascadianhacker.com/pastes/F4SWa/?raw=true << another example of convergence
mats: the butts are rising
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu takes the patch, writes it in corpses of usg soldiers in the desert, photographers come, it is printed in every paper in the world; now -- ordered.
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: the stoppage may require 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.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: for so long as you have the flame continuously burn, and at no point 'everyone died', it runs.
mircea_popescu: (it is uniquely idiotic to clock v patches by bitcoin - because for eg what happens in 2115 when v is the basis of bitcoin and a bug occurs which makes blocks not happen anymore and has to be fixed by a vpatch which can't exist because no blocks.)
mircea_popescu: in any case, as described v becomes an actual bitcoin , very much in the sense of "slavegirl powered btc" - each "block" ie vpatch is mined etc. this de facto allows to have things such as a "development clock" for perhaps other usage.
asciilifeform: there is no squaring for this circle, mircea_popescu .
asciilifeform: you cannot prevent the identical bitstrings, regardless of what epicycles you come up with. other than by ordering.
asciilifeform: martians make a copy of mircea_popescu ! which mircea_popescu shoots which other !
asciilifeform: which takes you to the same place.
asciilifeform: it does not in point of fact have a unique 'last patch applied', because there is no way to prevent two people who do not know about one another from both writing :
mircea_popescu: well, do we actually want this ? it doesn't seem to make sense ; in the sense that when you write the patch in question, you write it atop a specified code ; which is the result of a press ; which has a "last patch applied" necessarily. so that one should be the "antecedent" properly speaking.
asciilifeform: for starters, a patch can antecedentize 10,001 other patches.
asciilifeform: what does the string 'Patch for genesis' do in mircea_popescu's paste example ?
mircea_popescu: but yes, in the last instance, it's to demand that "same patch" can only mean, "same text" + "applied in same place".
mircea_popescu: by similarity to how we'd like block hashes inbitcoin to cover the whole block and not just parts.
mircea_popescu: well in fact, to demand that hashes cover the patch and its context, not merely the patch.
asciilifeform: the inequality can only be enforced by an outside synchronizer.
mircea_popescu: you propose we both write the same code on the same patch ? then yes, they come out the same. this is fine.
asciilifeform: we at the same time write '#Patch bfffhlerghhl' for our gensyms.
asciilifeform: and at the same time, mircea_popescu also does.
asciilifeform: there is no concept of 'previous' without a time order !
mircea_popescu: nono, just previous patch hash. whenever you sit down to write a patch, you sit down to write it atop a press, or at any rate the situation resulting from a press. that has a "last item pressed" by necessity, and THAT will be your header.
asciilifeform: a gensym, in case anyone forgot, is defined as a symbol that is guaranteed to be unequal to all other invocations of gensym.
asciilifeform: what you need ordering for is if someone ~does~ break the no-old-antecedent-hashes-as-descendants rule
asciilifeform: in mircea_popescu's paste, there is only 1 way.
mircea_popescu: isn't ordering therein implicit ?
asciilifeform: you can ban it, as shown above in mircea_popescu's paste, by demanding that no new patch produce the antecedent of an old one.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: this destroys the ability to see that we in fact returned to genesis. has it occurred to you to wonder why even to have patches at all? why not everyone just signs the entire hindenburg titanic of trb every time he changes a line ?!
mod6: any others while i'm at it?
mod6: so i think i've tested exactly what you laid out, asciilifeform, with V99995 (the current version out there), and this is the result:
asciilifeform: the alarm -- rings.
asciilifeform: and there is no confusion.
mircea_popescu: but this is a->b->c->d(=b). the only reason d is confused with b is because we don't hash correctly.
asciilifeform: http://wotpaste.cascadianhacker.com/pastes/TwMUZ/?raw=true << this sets off the alarm.
asciilifeform: yours rings the alarm bell.
davout: and why is it considered an issue? i mean, what if we realize all these patches were retarded, that we roll them all back, but want to keep the flow for historical purposes?
asciilifeform: there is no colour of bits.
asciilifeform: davout: those are the same thing
davout: why is it "returning to genesis" rather than "pressing something that happens to be equal to the genesis" ?
asciilifeform: (this was an aesthetic choice of mine, it can be revoked quite simply)
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i specifically want a cycle (n >1) where one element traces back to genesis. it seems to me that because one patch can only identify one antecedent, it is not possible to create cycles for the ~same reason organic chemistry doesn't work on hydrogen and oxygen only.
asciilifeform: returning to genesis is permitted, because the toposort still terminates.
asciilifeform: note the '--- a/foo.txt false'.
asciilifeform: the genesis, note, is not merely a string of code.
asciilifeform: so it would appear, if you naively drew the graph, that the genesis now has an antecedent
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: because dr.mengele makes a patch that ~produces~ the genesis, thinking he is oh so clever
asciilifeform: that is the definition of genesis, it has no antecessor.
mircea_popescu: so then how is it a cycle ?
mod6: yeah, i certainly tried. and i thought i even tested this before... so maybe there was a regression. but i'll admit, that python code is very strange to me eith the for with the else.
mircea_popescu: i don't get it, the genesis has an antecessor ?
asciilifeform: 'the buck stops here.'
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: it is a cycle topologically, but given as it contains the genesis, the 'ant walker' stops at the genesis, and does not walk in circles.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: it is not illegal in my vtron because the toposort still provably terminates.
mod6: well, i was trying to discern weather my toposort is correct or not.
asciilifeform: you never walk the entire loop, full circle.
asciilifeform: mod6: take a paper and draw a loop containing the genesis.
asciilifeform: returns to genesis are topologically harmless and so were legal in my vtron (they cannot cause any kind of inconsistent behaviour.) note that a deedbotted vtron as discussed in today's thread, would still ban them.
mod6: so 'b72b573' ... and drop this into a down-flow vpatch that touches net.cpp, that should cause the cycle right? like so:
mircea_popescu: ordering is provided by hashing ; we're currently not actually using this, no idea why, but whatever. i really mean it when i say the discussion's exhausted itself, im not gonna sit here an' retrace the same circle witcha.
mircea_popescu: you're very kind, but the problem doesn't need that redefinition.
asciilifeform: and this is rapidly turning into the one-time-pad thread.
asciilifeform: if mircea_popescu or anybody else wants to try to 'square the circle' and make a v-prime algo that doesn't need ordering, i will helpfully show how it breaks.
mircea_popescu: (also that it's not currently implemented anywhere, but that's minor. the reason it's not implemented is that it doesn't, at least to my eyes, make much sense.)
asciilifeform: why continue to pretend that this is an open problem ? do you see an issue with the blocktime algo ?
mircea_popescu: ~so long as we ban niggers, politics will work ok. sure, the issue is how to ban them.
asciilifeform: for so long as you ban cycles, the graph is guaranteed to behave in the predictable and sane way i described when first released v.
mircea_popescu: actually, because of how we build the presses, ALL contexts are "so short" as this one ; in the sense the antecedent hash always suffices.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: the antecedent hash in this example ~is~ the entire context, because the example is so short.
mircea_popescu: this is because the "same" string (Foo Genesis, modified.) is NOT THE SAME string, depending on the contemplated context. it is a string in 846fdf... and ANOTHER string in whatever other context.
asciilifeform: i dun get the problem here?
asciilifeform: ^ for the l0gz.
mircea_popescu: so then all strings S must incluide the antecedent hash. and in this definition string S = foo.txt ; nothing else.
asciilifeform: it would be a Bad Thing. if we were to do it. which we don't, because the antecedent hash gives us the context.
mircea_popescu: then therefore, do you agree with the proposition that signing S as long as S consists strtictly of computer code with no indication of context is a meaningless at best and dangerous at worst activity ?
asciilifeform: quite so, and is half the reason why v is necessary to begin with.
mircea_popescu: let me approach this matter from a different pov. do you agree that a string S consisting of computer code can be, depending on the context in which it is patched, the right thing or a deliberate subversion ?
mircea_popescu: i don't actually see any of these. to start with, "hash everything" is exactly not what was done in the example. it hashed ~the text~, it did not hash ~the antecessor's hash~. this is the problem. that it doesn't hash everything, but just the text.
asciilifeform: (imagine instead of doctor mengele, each of the 3 patches had been signed by different people)
asciilifeform: notice, in the munchausen example, we had only 1 file, this is equivalent to 'hash everything'
mircea_popescu: yes. this is the point - that order can be introduced by hashing. all items are earlier than all other items whose hashes they know.
asciilifeform: the word 'later' implies an order.
asciilifeform: you used the word 'later'
asciilifeform: you're still making use of the order.
mircea_popescu: earlier a knowing later b's hash is equivalent to either time travel or hash breaking.
mircea_popescu: but arguably the latter we already depend on anytway
mircea_popescu: it's not altogether clear why the "hash whole thing, not just parts like fucking bitcoin blocks do" isn't a better solution. moves the clock externality to a strong hash externality
asciilifeform: but imho the problem is thoroughly nailed.
mircea_popescu: the cycle issue may require more thinking.
asciilifeform: not sure that deedbot as-it-now-is would do the trick though
asciilifeform: rather than clock.
asciilifeform: i asked many times for the clock, and pretty sure i explained ~why~
mircea_popescu: but in any case, turns out v actually has a previously poorly understood externality, in the sense of, requires a clock.
asciilifeform: 'there is mud on my hands' 'faucet is right there, go wash' 'don't discuss solution, let's discuss problem!'
mircea_popescu: again : there's no point in discussing solutions as part of discussing problems.
asciilifeform: with 1-patch-per-block, there can be no ambiguity as to who is responsible for closing a cycle.
asciilifeform: it isn't though. it is mathematically bulletproof.
mircea_popescu: well this immediately is problematic, because a cycle could be claimed to have been closed more than one way, is the point.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: for the two paths to begin to exist, someone has to take a shit in the graph
asciilifeform: if only for the n00bz.
asciilifeform: this also would give mircea_popescu the thing he asked for, which was a litmus that'd let him reject a cycle-creating patch immediately from his light cone, before it can get into his vtron and cause headache. and that is, 'no patch may have a descendant that is also an antecedent of itself or of an earlier-blocktimed patch.'
asciilifeform: so my cyclic(T)==false, cyclic(T+1)==true, culprit is the signator(s) of the patch closing the loop, worx great, when this condition is adhered to
asciilifeform: otherwise he sits in hell playing cards with the other devils, where he belongs, and daren't stick out his nose.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: your 'cycle arbitrageur' is precisely the same devil as my cornered-node-creator and panopticonic gossipd observer.
asciilifeform: i'll add that f, g, e ~may~ be pressable together in some combination, or may not, it depends on the actual 'patchons' inside
asciilifeform: (notation seen here is simply the order in which patches apply.)
asciilifeform: the valid presses in the given graph are: a; a->b; a->b->f; a->b->c; a->b->c->d; a->b->c->d->g; and a->b->c->d->e.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: i drew the graph, not seeing what is meant in your example: what means 'now both g->d->e->f->b->a and g->d->c->b->a are valid presses' ?
mircea_popescu: (similarly, from a different pov - does this scheme open up cycle-negrate-arbutrage whereby an attacker could go around closing cycles and hoping we misidentify the culprit because of timing issues ?)
mircea_popescu: see, basically the fear here is that we DON'T escape the "swelf aware monstrosity" no matter what we do ; we may merely choose whether its in the comments or "somewhere else" magically.
asciilifeform: at T+1 (after one patch) -- there is.
asciilifeform: say at time T there is no cycle.
asciilifeform: the creator of a cycle is in all cases identifiable. kick his teeth in, negrate.
asciilifeform: imho my solution is the correct one.
mircea_popescu: now whether this is actually a good idea is unclear.
asciilifeform: you can still hash-mine for them.
mircea_popescu: if all patches are required to change a comment line in all files they touch, so that it contains the hash of that patch's intended antecessor ; then it is no longer possible to build cycles without deliberately hash-mining for them (because to close the cycle you will have to at one point claim as anterior an ulterior item).
asciilifeform: give example of how, using the munchausen set.
asciilifeform: and the culprit is immediately and mechanically identifiable.
mircea_popescu: yes but why should this be enforced at the promise level.
asciilifeform: and anyone who creates one, is quite obviously in the wrong
mircea_popescu: specifically whether it shouldn't include a comment requirement as above.
asciilifeform: it will ring alarm if you run it on the munchausen.tar.gz set.
asciilifeform: they can be applied in the legal order and strictly in the legal order, that's what v is ~for~
mircea_popescu: they do come in a definite order, yes ?
asciilifeform: but -- and i'd rather that mircea_popescu do this in his head -- you can make a 'munchausen' where both steps (or however many, it can be as long as you like) reference the genesis.
mircea_popescu: suppose we had a rule stating that "all patches must include as a comment the patch upon they are to be applied" ?
mircea_popescu: yes. so what started all of this in my head, i been trying to lead like three times with "but the problem is :" - we may have a very bitcoin block-esque problem on our hands. specifically, the fact that the hash of a block doth not include the intended hash of its antecessor opens up to a problem we needn't be open to.
asciilifeform: but of course i made them the simple way, by vdiffing from genesis, but then deleting one link of the chain.
asciilifeform: the hashes, first of all, check out (make the file consisting of the text line and one newline and see)
mircea_popescu: hm, actually, the hashes don't even check out. how was 702d... produced ?
mircea_popescu: what you can't do is go back in time and agree at the juncture you actually meant to ; but the important point here is :
asciilifeform: i can make you another that follows whatever shape you like.
asciilifeform: you can make entirely similar example where they do, that still contains loop.
asciilifeform: it'd make no difference if they did
mircea_popescu might have just made the world's subtlest point about recursion.
a111: Logged on 2016-12-21 17:23 trinque trying to wrap brain around whether this is a failure mode or universally true, but will have to implement tail recursion optimization in his own head first
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-21#1587182 << speaking of this, here's a question for the eager : a diophantine equation is a multivariate polynomial, something like ax+by^2 = 0. the question is : given an arbitrary finite set of known-good equations, can you use recursion to decide whether an arbitrary equation in the same variables is good (has integer solution) or no good ?
davout: the first things i get when looking into this waka thing are indeed nasty
mircea_popescu: all this would have been avoided if a) people correctly observed that roy fielding is fundamentally incapable of having ideas, through not being in the wot.
mircea_popescu: something ; and the decerebrated mechanism will try to shoehorn it in, python 3 style, because IF THEY DO NOT, then academiatardism collapses altogether. they are if you will the academia fans, expending their own labour to support the fiction they enjoy.
mircea_popescu: davout i am fwiw satisfied the problem is as follows : that fielding schmuck is an academitard. therefore publish or perish. meanwhile for incomprehensible reasons people decided to name some obvious item "rest" and reference him, as if he had anything to do. this created the basis for an academitard position for him, and put him in the publish or perish wringer. so he came up with the other thing, because gotta come up with
mircea_popescu: post the example i guess ?
mircea_popescu: so let's examine this theoretically. in order to make c, you must have a's hash, yes ?
asciilifeform: i'ma post the example.