/prog/ - /prog/ writes a monad tutorial

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 7:57

One word at a time. I'll start.

Monads

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:03

is

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:21

a

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:29

way

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:31

way

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:38

away

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:39

of

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:40

seeples

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:06

abstract

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:07

nonsense

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:45

which

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:46

implements

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:51

nothing

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:56

Xarnic

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:57

Xoala

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 11:13

>>14-15
Fuck you, now I have to clean my keyboard and get a new coffee.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 13:46

Disperse

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 16:03

/prog/'s ULTIMATE GUIDE TO MONADS:
Monads is a way way away of seeples abstract nonsense wich implements nothing. -- Xarnic Xoala.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 16:04

>>18
s/wi/whi/

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 18:24

>>18
s/Monads is a way way away of seeples abstract nonsense wich implements nothing/I'm a huge Faggot please rape my face/

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 18:35

A case for Colaborative knowledge!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 18:52

None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 19:40

>>22
1. None of us is as dumb as all of us.
2. All of us are as dumb as none of us. (1: commutativity of “as ___ as”)
3. Total dumbness of group = ∑_{x ∈ group} dumbness(x) .
4. A measurable dumbness is impossible without a positive number of people to be dumb. (3: |group| = 0)
5. None of us are 0 dumb. (4: "none of us" → group = { x | x ∈ us && x ∉ us } → |group| = 0)
6. All of us are 0 dumb. (2, 5)
7. Dumbness is a lack of intelligence. (A dictionary (usually the second definition, the first may be “unable to speak”))
8. All of us are intelligent. (6, 7: dumbness = 0; intelligence = 1 - dumbness; intelligence = fully intelligent)
9. None of us are intelligent. (6: I'm not even sure where I was going with this)

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 19:56

8. All of us are intelligent. ∀_{x ∈ us} P(x)
9. None of us are intelligent. ∄_{x ∈ us} P(x)

∴ us = Ø

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 0:37

>>24
I lol'd.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 1:04

Fuqin white ass Xarn, man.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 1:32

>>23
Revolutionary approach to the three-person lemma!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 8:09

>>23
x∀rn-kun? Is that you?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-05 14:33

stars is a faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-05 16:03

>>29
yep

/prog/ writes a monad tutorial

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 7:57

2 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:03

3 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:21

4 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:29

5 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:31

6 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:38

7 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:39

8 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 8:40

9 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:06

10 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:07

11 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:45

12 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:46

13 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:51

14 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:56

15 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 10:57

16 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 11:13

17 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 13:46

18 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 16:03

19 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 16:04

20 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 18:24

21 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 18:35

22 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 18:52

23 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 19:40

24 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 19:56

25 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 0:37

26 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 1:04

27 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 1:32

28 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-04 8:09

29 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-05 14:33

30 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-05 16:03

31 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 14:38