Відео

The answer given in the video is (kind of) wrong. Suppose the left path does contain wolves, and the fairy is lying. When you ask the question this video suggests as the correct solution to the puzzle, the fairy could still answer "No", with the subtext being "No, I would instead stay silent/turn into a pink elephant", which is a lie. The answer doesn't really work as intended because the fairy's "No" in this instance doesn't necessarily imply "No, I would answer in the negative", which is the truth. The "No" here is ambivalent without further elaboration on the fairy's part, not true or false by itself. You are essentially giving the fairy a free pass to decide which is which, and they will obviously choose the option most misleading to you, thus winning the game.

Dang

3200

Maybe you could do a conlang based on cellular automata? (but please dont use CGoL)

I understand why you don't have the time to verbally recite some of these concepts in the conlang but I was hoping you'd do some of the shorter ones. Maybe you could have a speech synthesis do it for you.

For a really interesting numbering system, try Kaktovik Counting (base 20).

Yup, going on my playlist.

imagine an 1 letter lauguage 0000 00 0 0000 0 000 0 0 00 0 00000 00 0000 00 000 000 00 000 00 000 0 000 000 000 000 00 00 00 0000 000 000 000 00 00

When they start adding Latin (English) letters to math 😌 When they start adding Greek letters to math 😕 When they start adding Hebrew letters to math 😱

I’ve never heard of an eon defined as 1 billion years. Is this different than eons in biology/geology which are defined by fossils becoming different (Hadean, Archaean, Proterozoic, Phanerozoic)?

I do really hope jan Misali sees this

Okay, I don't mean to bother, but in 3:03, it’s called the «*chinese numeral system*», not Japanese, and you have missed a stroke in 百. (sorry)

That's not a bad langugae. I'd like to see a compiler for it. I might consider it as the base of some programming language I make. It's easy to turn it into something usable by adding a few convenience things: - macros: allow some way to define new symbols or terms to have a more complex meaning - programmable macros: add some way to algorithmically define some data (like numbers, so you don't have to define each number manually) - maybe allow custom types, so the langugae doesn't rely on our current undrestanding of physics, but is also able to express more abstract objects/concepst (how would you define feelings or stylistic devices using physics? And how would you define humans, persons, specific animals?) - maybe add some implicit parentheses like natural language often has, so you don't need explicit parentheses anymore (I already thought about this a lot, would be too much for this comment, I think)

Taking some notes from Principia Mathematica: "If a, then b" (a?b) can be defined as "not a or b" (!aVb) "a And b" (a+b) can be defined as "not (not a or not b)" [!(!aV!b)] They do eventually get to set theory and likely equals and repeat, but I haven't gotten that far into it yet. They've described mostly everything in terms of "not" and "or" or from symbols derived from them though, so =, R, O, S, C, E, |, N, and A have the potential of being defined via V and !. Also, if I understand Wikipedia correctly, Spin is Angular Momentum and can be described as Mass times Length-squared over Time, all three of which are already defined (though space and time are defined as one, but if that's the case it would have to be defined as a set of numbers, which means you can use 'N' on it). 19:12 - You could convert it into its phonetic spelling and put it into a text-to-speech converter so you don't have to read it out loud yourself, and then you can upload it as an unlisted video and link to it here.

5:10 Oh, this is already very close to the conlang I have in mind. But I think it's better if instead of "All things" you would have something like "an undefined subset of all things". Because in natural language, when saying "a few things" or "some things" or "many things", etc., you also have some lower and upper bound in mind, which might also depend on the context (but it's not clearly defined). Then you would have functions to specify the set more accurately. Either it specifies the amount more clearly or the specific elements. For example "a" would take a random element of a set, not changing the elements, but only the amount. Same is true for "a few" or "some". And other extractors would work like adjectives. Like "male" would query all males, and "child" would query all children. And every syllable has only one meaning, so if it's ma->male, la->child, a->everything, then "malaa" means "boys".

This videomade my head go around and around and around... Beautiful

Why did the algo take so long to show me this channel. Incredible! Thank you for this.

Since functions have to be determined beforehand, are they themselves not words? Not to take away from how impressive this is, but I wouldn't know how else to describe them but a thing that describes another thing within a language, and I'd call that a word, or am I misunderstanding

I literally saw this video and said “Oh I HAVE to watch this video” LMAO

Bro got harder lambda calculus

Infinity laughting in corner :

Just curious, does the complete description of the carbon atom at the end of the video include the definitions of the functions used?

Lisp flashbacks

Words❌ Letters✅

His voice is slow because his brain is lagging

the way you defined the empty set seems a bit off to me, because the negation of an absolute is not another absolute but a specific, i.e. the negation of "all men are named John" is "at least one man is not named John", and not "no men are named John". so the negation of a set that contains everything is not a set that contains nothing, it's just a set that doesn't contain everything. I feel like it would be easier to just define a symbol for the empty set and go from there (like classical set theory), plus you don't get into russel's paradox trying to define a set that contains everything

1:46 i see ur channel there

Why are the fairy’s wings eszetts/scharfes s/ß’s?

Regular expressions with extra steps

This conlang is like if Brainf**k and Toaq had a baby which is also an eldritch horror

0:08 So ducking annoying. It is Indian Number system. Europeans got it from Arabs, who got it from Indians.

IO 2.0 ahh conlang

1-Ω?

0 is not a number you can't possibly convince me otherwise, it breaks everything, it's either a crazy idea like "infinity" or a linguistical representation of "nothing", not a mathematical one

Great! *now define youtube*

can you spell people's names in this conlang? (e.g. Abdul, Smith, John, Nathan, ...)

You forgot our good ol friend, the Fictional Googology Wiki, which includes things like Absolute Infinity (Ω), Absolute solar (ΩxΩ), Absolute galaxy (ΩxXΩ), Never (⍰). (ik they're not actual infinities but isn't that cool?)

I am ready to give in my next test empty and justify it by writing all numbers in the nullary system. Math is beautiful.

3:44 explosion.gif

Cringe but 3d tho or not 3d tho 2:10 gmod physics be like:

He didn’t make a conlang, he possibly made a coding conlang

Aw, no quater-imaginary base?

4:30 τ mentioned! :D

The universe is not based on Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry only describes 2D planes and 3D solids. The universe (so far as we know) is based on a hyperbolic geometry (as per Einstein).

Briggs personality types are hokum. D&D alignment charts are simple but fun. Astrology is pseudoscience yet legitimately useful.

Based 10

Antimatter Dimensions players: Base 1.8e308

Reminds me of IO

Is it okay if I make a “creole” of this language that is actually usable?