Taneb

@JacquesC2@types.pl @dpk@chaos.social pointed me to @sperbsen@discuss.systems 's paper Things We Never Told Anyone About Functional Programming, which in turn has a lot of relevant citations

@alisonkiddle@mathstodon.xyz my solution: I note that those are one in 2^10 and one in 6^4 respectively, so it's whether 2^10 is greater or less than 6^4. While I do know 2^10 from memory, I don't know 6^4 and I've got a little bit of a cold and would rather not work it out. But I can divide both by 2^4, to get 2^6 and 3^4, and I know those! Is 64 greater than or less than 81? It's less than! So 2^10 is less than 6^4 and 1/2^10 is greater than 1/6^4. So flipping 10 heads in a row is more likely. Which wasn't what I expected!

@simontatham and it can be really hard to tell the last three cases apart when you're in them

I'm in the mood to help friends assemble IKEA furniture. I should get more local friends.

And, just like that, I am once more out of salty liquorice

@dziban@functional.cafe Tunic comes to mind

I'm especially interested in research on libraries in functional or dependently typed languages

@cxandru@types.pl using agda-categories over cubical also has the advantage that you can actually compile your programs

@simontatham what's the intended method here?

@simontatham Thanks for the explanation!

@dpk "want to" and "able to" sadly do not match for me

@christianp first question is, do you actually want bamboo canes?

One's bullshit is the best thing to be back on

How smart is Agda's compiler at erasing coinduction fuel at runtime

@byorgey@mathstodon.xyz nice! How does it compare to the implementation I made for agda-stdlib? https://agda.github.io/agda-stdlib/master/Data.Nat.Primality.Factorisation.html

@cxandru@types.pl any reason this is using cubical for its definition of categories rather than agda-categories (which I think works better with stdlib)?

@sliminality@types.pl I didn't find it obvious, but when I was about 11 or 12 I remember noticing it, unprompted