Category Archives: discussion

Project Hapax needs your help

UPDATE (16.06.2019): Check out the original
is more fun. Faster! animations coming but now you can see what it means.
UPDATE (15.06.2019): I made a github repository. Compared with the page available at my home page, I corrected some bugs, two subtle errors and sped the thing a little.
While at homepage you can play with ackermann_2_2 (which does not end well because subtle errors in the algorithm, will update tomorrow that page), at
you can play with the 9quine. See how much it lives!
I’m working on a project called “hapax cheon” (means “poured only once in Ancient Greek) and I tried for this javascript and used chemlambda as an example.

It is incredibly slow, at least compared with the original chemlambda version. I tried it with ackermann(2,2), used many times before related to chemlambda. Here is it:

and the fun thing is to read the annotated js sources which are used in that page.
Why is so slow?
  • I am a js noob and I made some time consuming mistakes, I hope so!
  • or the program, which is written this time for humans, it spends the most time to give meaning to stuff, which is of course time consuming,
  • or js is not good for this and I should pass to something else, like C.
Which is which? I want to do lots of stuff with this basis. There are even tokens there 🙂
I don’t know which is which but the js sources are annotated aplenty and mathematically the formalism is fun.
If you know your javascript then please show me!
Some more context:
  • the project asks how can we anchor a cost to a computation?
  • also, there is nothing special to the models of computation we have. Probably we just fond a drop in the ocean of possibilities. See the 14400 alternatives to the beta rewrite.
  • which hopefully brings the desire to have your own, private, “poured only once”, model of computation, incomprehensible to anybody else.
  • if you don’t think that there are as many other models of computation, I can prove you wrong by showing several other alternatives, which you know (or specialist know) as calculus, or knot theory 🙂

But for this, and also for other reasons (like if I want to paint a canvas 5 times/second to show you the molecules and (reasonable) physics in action), I have to know if I can do it as fast as I did it with not for humans scripts in awk used previously.

Not to talk about gamifying all this stuff, which is certainly possible if this first step is sufficiently fast.

And finally, I ask: why does a browser have a 1GB footprint if I can’t do fast things like this? Is like I am in a kitchen, preparing some fancy food, and over my shoulder there is always a policeman which asks me: “is this a crumb of bread? let me put it in the heap of bread crumbs. Is this a piece of a potato, let me put it in the heap of potato pieces”. Why, policeman? Who gives a shit? I certainly know what to keep and what to throw away! “Is for your help”, says the policeman. Well, FY, if so, give me back the GOTO and give me a  break.

But probably I am a js noob. Hope so. Prove me so.

How time flows: Gutenberg time vs Internet time

Based on  a HN comment, I made a page which proposes the hypothesis:

(Δ t-historic) = (Δ t-today)^(log 5/ log 2)


where the Δ t-historic is the time in decades from the invention of the printing press and Δ t-today is the time in decades from the opening of the ARPANET.

A collection of interesting correspondences is given, as well as some predictions, if this hypothesis is to be taken seriously.

The page has a small JS script for a calculator t-historic to t-today, so you can easily find new correspondences if you like the game. Please let me know in case.

UPDATE: There is now a very amusing python3 script by 4lhc, at this gist. It lets you write a year, recent or old, then it proposes two events, one from the old time and one from recent time. I played with it on my computer and it’s just cute!

[I had to install the wikipedia module and then the correct command is


wait a short moment and get the pair of events!]



An example of “Official EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 URLs as Terrorist Content”

Today I read Official EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 URLs as Terrorist Content.  Two comments on this.

1. It happened to me in Feb 2019. I archived one of my stories from the chemical sneakernet universe. The original story is posted on Here is the message which appeared when I checked the archived link:


What? I contacted and got an answer from the webmaster, pretty fast. The problem was with, not with my link in particular. Now the archived link is available.

After I sent the message to archive but before I received the answer, I searched for a way to contact EU IRU, to ask what the problem might be.  I was unable to identify any such way. However there was a way to send a message to EU officials, who might redirect my message to whom it may concern. It worked, but it took longer than the time needed by archive webmaster to respond and unblock the link. I was not contacted since.

2. As you see in the post from archive, it was not EU IRU the institution which sent the blocking orders. But nevermind, how can one try to block arXiv articles? This reminded me of a very recent story: Google Scholar lost my Molecular computers arXiv article. As the article is on the same subject as the story from point 1, I wonder if by any (mis)chance Google Scholar received a blocking order.

System X, semantic pain and disturbing news to some

This is a temporary post. Soon some news will come, some disturbing for some. This is just to entertain you with the System X, a small graph rewrite system proposed as a replacement for slide equivalence. Here is some prose I wrote while trying to understand 3 tiny graphic beta rewrites. This qualifies as semantic pain, but it was a very good exercice because it gives ideas (to those prone to have them, as opposed to those who lack personal ideas and take them without acknowledgement).

Google Scholar lost my molecular computers

Today I noticed that my Molecular computers article arXiv:1811.04960 is replaced by Google Scholar with the unrelated article  Defining Big Data Analytics Benchmarks for Next Generation Supercomputers, arXiv:1811.02287. I’m not an author of that article.

Screenshot from 2019-04-07 21:52:00


A cosmic ray is the cause?

Google search can still find it, but Google Scholar gives the wrong result.

UPDATE: I added the article by hand, but the link to the source (i.e. arXiv article) is not present. How can they loose arXiv articles? Or more precisely  arXiv e-prints , in no place arXiv uses the name “preprint arXiv”. Maybe google scholar merged with legacy publishers, who knows, these days…

Do you experience errors in Google Scholar?

Intermezzo (small graph rewrite systems)

Between the last post on small graph rewrite systems and a new one to follow, here are some other, real world examples of such systems.

Where is this from? Answer: M. Khovanov,   New geometrical constructions in low-dimensional topology, preprint 1990, fig. 20


Where is this from? Answer: L.H. Kauffman, Knots and Physics, World Scientific 1991, p. 336.


How can we put this in order?