[02:03:57] *** Quits: wmacmil (~wmacmil@c83-252-138-144.bredband.comhem.se) (Remote host closed the connection) [02:04:16] *** Joins: wmacmil (~wmacmil@c83-252-138-144.bredband.comhem.se) [03:55:16] *** Quits: anniepoo (~anniepoo@81-204-9-9.fixed.kpn.net) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [04:36:11] *** Joins: drbean (~drbean@TC210-63-209-202.static.apol.com.tw) [04:44:40] *** Quits: wmacmil (~wmacmil@c83-252-138-144.bredband.comhem.se) (Remote host closed the connection) [05:37:16] *** Quits: drbean (~drbean@TC210-63-209-202.static.apol.com.tw) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [08:54:48] *** Joins: anniepoo (~anniepoo@81-204-9-9.fixed.kpn.net) [09:32:08] fl0_id: I interpreted it as "example code" [09:35:26] the world is also consistent if annie failed to get the key down far enough to type the o, and intended to type 'code', and doesn't think that clearly when falling asleep. Leading to some scary world where we model reasoning under sleepiness? [10:11:25] inariksit right that makes total sense. But somehow it was late and that didn't occur to me anymore [10:11:38] anniepoo are your * sure * ? ;) [10:11:48] no, of course not. [10:14:49] consider an appelate criminal case. What if the original case failed to consider a theory of the crime, and the appelant is arguing ineffective counsel? [10:18:41] Martin, are you one of these folks? [10:44:53] what is 'a theory of the crime' [10:45:15] I'd say like that there is no answer to this question, at least not on a legal level [11:51:33] The state charges Bob with burglary. The prosecution says he broke a window and entered a house and stole money. That's their 'theory of the crime'. Bob says he spent the night drinking at a bar, left very drunk, leaned against the window and broke it, and continued on his way. Someone unknown saw the broken window and took advantage to take the money. That's his lawyer's theory of the crime. [11:52:40] in actual criminal law the prosecution must have a theory of the crime, but the defense could have an alternate as a defense. (They don't have to say how the money winded up missing) [11:55:05] anniepoo: martin is not on this channel, but I guess you found out that already [11:55:35] yup, was just coordinating the video call. He's doing nifty stuff. [11:55:38] how did your chat with martin go? more logic, less chitchat? :-D [14:58:09] *** Joins: proteus-guy (~proteusgu@cm-58-10-154-202.revip7.asianet.co.th) [14:58:20] *** Quits: proteus-guy (~proteusgu@cm-58-10-154-202.revip7.asianet.co.th) (Remote host closed the connection) [14:59:04] *** Joins: proteusguy (~proteusgu@cm-58-10-154-202.revip7.asianet.co.th) [15:41:52] what is your favourite prolog IDE/editor? [15:43:48] I use the IDE built into SWI-Prolog [15:45:35] And the chat with Martin went great - actually, no, I think more chitchat! [18:27:34] I see, cool! [19:38:34] *** Joins: wmacmil (~wmacmil@c83-252-138-144.bredband.comhem.se) [19:40:16] hi wmacmil! [19:41:58] hejjj [19:42:07] how was it [19:42:41] I liked it! no reason to not put the video up, I'd say [19:46:18] coo [19:46:30] now I also thought of an actual question and not random remarks like 30 minutes after the comment: [19:47:00] the thing where NP has the type (e -> t) -> t, is it only for a subject NP (or object NP?), and would the type be different for a different role? [19:48:06] or maybe you just want to take a break from any natural language semantics for now :-D [20:23:12] which np do you mean [20:23:43] I thought I saw a definition like that in some of the slides, but at least here https://github.com/wmacmil/TT-NL-Semantics/blob/main/MS20191029.agda#L10 [20:23:57] I know you didn't write that code, so maybe that answers the question [20:25:11] inariksit: it depends on which of the montague languages it is [20:25:40] usually NPs are of just type e [20:26:38] i guess you end up with the type VP -> t if you try to have function applications only from left to right [20:26:44] yeah i have no idea [20:27:07] okay right, maybe I just hallucinated a line like that on your slides [20:27:09] i got confused trying to present jean philippes example, i shouldnt have [20:27:19] i had a line similair, but not with that type signature [20:27:23] i have one where [20:27:26] cn : e -> t [20:27:29] yeah it's horrible to present other people's code [20:27:44] yeah [20:28:17] i honestly dont think it was clear enough at some points to indict me forever on the internet with [20:28:44] also, dunno if you heard me talkin to nachi, but my camera wasnt properly focused [20:28:54] aha, no I didn't [20:29:03] so the images weren't clear [20:29:21] was it readable for you at all? [20:29:52] no pressure to publish the video, I just thought it was nice and you seemed like you knew what you were talking about, including the things you didn't know about and explicitly said so! [20:29:54] yes, it was [20:30:04] it was a bit small, but the picture quality was fine [20:31:06] (haha that was a weird formulation from me, I meant that there's no shame to not know every single thing someone might ask :-D) [20:31:43] my talk has gotten 38 views, exciting! [20:32:46] (we're talking about this https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwvKoqTyyMFaqq6PORBlhnQ for the non-gothenburg folks here) [20:35:50] wmacmil: if you are interested in a deeper dive into montague semantics i can recommend the book "introduction to montague semantics" by dowty, wall, and peters [20:39:33] @daherb, yeah i had referenced that in the readings [20:45:44] but yeah i wanna read it in detail [20:46:38] @inari ha lots of self flagelation [20:46:42] flagellation*