2009 May 11 00:00:05  -*- inimino finishes 2.71
2009 May 11 00:02:08  <mariorz> i finished up to 2.67
2009 May 11 00:02:23  <mariorz> which did you go over last time?
2009 May 11 00:04:37  <inimino> I think we got up to 2.58 last time
2009 May 11 00:06:35  <inimino> Chris Conley mentioned that he wouldn't be able to make it today since he's travelling
2009 May 11 00:07:15  <inimino> aamar was in here earlier though, maybe he got disconnected or something
2009 May 11 00:07:54  <mariorz> should we wait a bit?
2009 May 11 00:09:07  <inimino> I don't mind waiting a few minutes
2009 May 11 00:09:39  <mariorz> cool im working on 2.68
2009 May 11 00:11:05  <mariorz> they dont mention it yet but this is a compressor no?
2009 May 11 00:11:33  <inimino> yes
2009 May 11 00:14:12  --> aamar (i=cc0e9fb9@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-01d4dd85747cf7be) has joined ##SICP
2009 May 11 00:14:23  --> seangrove (n=seangrov@cpe-76-90-50-75.socal.res.rr.com) has joined ##SICP
2009 May 11 00:14:44  <-- meanburrito920_ (n=John@76-217-6-100.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) has quit ("has been attacked by a grue")
2009 May 11 00:14:45  <aamar> started?
2009 May 11 00:15:40  <mariorz> not yet
2009 May 11 00:15:50  <mariorz> i guess we should start
2009 May 11 00:16:00  <inimino> ah
2009 May 11 00:16:05  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 00:16:15  <inimino> let's start
2009 May 11 00:16:27  <aamar> ok great
2009 May 11 00:16:53  <inimino> alright, 2.59?
2009 May 11 00:17:09  <aamar> Exercise 2.59.  Implement the union-set operation for the unordered-list representation of sets.
2009 May 11 00:17:17  <mariorz> http://github.com/mariorz/sicp/blob/ac0bc68bbe32d02af9fa90afdeb15bd6c355123c/2.ss#L1234
2009 May 11 00:17:26  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/X04dwS -- 2.59
2009 May 11 00:17:28  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.59
2009 May 11 00:17:55  -*- inimino waits for github
2009 May 11 00:18:15  <mariorz> ah yeah its a big download thats going to suck
2009 May 11 00:18:32  <mariorz> should ahve divided by problem
2009 May 11 00:20:28  <inimino> oh well I guess all the links will be on that page then
2009 May 11 00:20:39  <inimino> we can just scroll around
2009 May 11 00:20:41  <aamar> we probably could have done this one by repeatedly calling adjoin-set
2009 May 11 00:20:50  <aamar> and not calling element-of-set?
2009 May 11 00:21:47  <inimino> I don't know
2009 May 11 00:21:59  <inimino> does adjoin-set check for membership?
2009 May 11 00:22:06  <mariorz> yes
2009 May 11 00:22:07  <aamar> it does
2009 May 11 00:22:33  <inimino> oh it does
2009 May 11 00:22:44  <mariorz> yeah that should work
2009 May 11 00:22:46  <inimino> I should have used cons in mine then
2009 May 11 00:22:58  <inimino> it's inefficient as it is
2009 May 11 00:23:55  <inimino> or yeah, just with repeated calls to adjoin-set
2009 May 11 00:24:05  <inimino> that would have meen more elegant
2009 May 11 00:24:08  <aamar> ok, next one?
2009 May 11 00:24:11  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 00:24:18  <mariorz> yes
2009 May 11 00:24:23  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.60
2009 May 11 00:24:26  <mariorz> so you guys cna just scroll on mine?
2009 May 11 00:24:34  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 00:24:53  <aamar> yes
2009 May 11 00:25:07  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/8R6MvH -- 2.60
2009 May 11 00:26:51  <mariorz> ah i forgot not use checking for membership in union-set
2009 May 11 00:27:39  <inimino> ah
2009 May 11 00:28:23  <inimino> I didn't take "design procedures" to mean that we had to actually write them
2009 May 11 00:28:42  <aamar> otherwise seem the same, more or less
2009 May 11 00:29:00  <aamar> they're pretty trivial anyway
2009 May 11 00:29:05  <inimino> yes, they seem the same
2009 May 11 00:29:17  <inimino> yeah, these weren't that hard
2009 May 11 00:29:23  <inimino> ok, next?
2009 May 11 00:29:47  <aamar> ok
2009 May 11 00:30:15  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.61
2009 May 11 00:30:22  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/YwvFYt -- 2.61
2009 May 11 00:31:09  <inimino> mariorz: yours is exactly as mine
2009 May 11 00:31:26  <mariorz> all 3 are exactly the same
2009 May 11 00:31:29  <aamar> ok I have a mistake in the (null? set) case...
2009 May 11 00:31:33  <aamar> otherwise the same
2009 May 11 00:31:42  <inimino> ok, aamar's too
2009 May 11 00:31:45  <mariorz> ah yeah
2009 May 11 00:32:02  <inimino> oh yeah
2009 May 11 00:32:13  <inimino> alright, next one?
2009 May 11 00:32:15  <aamar> ok, 2.62?
2009 May 11 00:32:27  <mariorz> yeah
2009 May 11 00:32:30  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.62
2009 May 11 00:32:32  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/e3Yyrl -- 2.62
2009 May 11 00:34:08  <aamar> all seem equivalent
2009 May 11 00:34:08  <mariorz> again pretty much teh same
2009 May 11 00:34:20  <mariorz> except for the use of let
2009 May 11 00:34:21  <inimino> same again yeah
2009 May 11 00:34:24  <inimino> yes
2009 May 11 00:34:37  <inimino> I sort of assumed cons will be fast
2009 May 11 00:34:50  <inimino> it's named after a machine instruction after all ;)
2009 May 11 00:35:23  <aamar> 2.63 ?
2009 May 11 00:35:32  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/0LzhyN -- 2.63
2009 May 11 00:35:37  <inimino> I guess it will be implemented as nearly a direct memory read
2009 May 11 00:35:42  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 00:35:55  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.63
2009 May 11 00:36:08  <inimino> I did not test this one but tried to prove it
2009 May 11 00:36:11  <inimino> I may be wrong
2009 May 11 00:36:30  <mariorz> i did tests
2009 May 11 00:36:45  <mariorz> they return the same
2009 May 11 00:37:04  <mariorz> didnbt copy the session
2009 May 11 00:37:27  <aamar> I skimped in my explanation compared to you
2009 May 11 00:37:54  <inimino> aamar, yours and mine also disagree about the number of steps
2009 May 11 00:37:58  <aamar> Yes, they do return the same; I think induction is the way to prove it.
2009 May 11 00:38:05  <mariorz> theyre both O(n) no?
2009 May 11 00:38:17  <aamar> I do agree that the number of steps is greater.
2009 May 11 00:38:27  <aamar> O( constant * n) = O(n)
2009 May 11 00:38:35  <mariorz> right
2009 May 11 00:38:48  <aamar> So the "order of growth" I think is the same.
2009 May 11 00:39:07  <inimino> yeah they may both be linear, just one is slower
2009 May 11 00:39:28  <inimino> hm
2009 May 11 00:39:35  <inimino> append is O(n) though right?
2009 May 11 00:39:53  <inimino> since it has to walk all the way down the list
2009 May 11 00:40:22  <mariorz> yes
2009 May 11 00:40:32  <inimino> so I think the first one might be O(n²)
2009 May 11 00:41:06  <mariorz> yes i think it is
2009 May 11 00:41:13  <aamar> hm... why does append have to walk the list?
2009 May 11 00:41:30  <mariorz> how else does it get to the end of the first list?
2009 May 11 00:42:01  <aamar> I thought there was a way, but I guess not.
2009 May 11 00:42:42  <inimino> not without storing a pointer to the end of the list
2009 May 11 00:43:36  <aamar> ok, think you're probably right
2009 May 11 00:43:41  <inimino> alright, next one?
2009 May 11 00:43:57  <aamar> The first seems to be O(n^2)
2009 May 11 00:43:59  <aamar> ok
2009 May 11 00:44:00  <mariorz> what happens if it was O(1)?
2009 May 11 00:44:03  <mariorz> yes
2009 May 11 00:44:23  <mariorz> if it was O(1) (append i mean= then it would be O(n)
2009 May 11 00:44:29  <mariorz> or am i confused?
2009 May 11 00:44:42  <inimino> if append was O(1) then I think both list->tree-1 and -2 would be O(n)
2009 May 11 00:44:50  <aamar> yes
2009 May 11 00:45:00  <aamar> which is what I had thought was the answer
2009 May 11 00:45:38  <mariorz> so the first one is O(n^2)
2009 May 11 00:46:05  <inimino> yeah I think so
2009 May 11 00:46:22  <inimino> 2.64?
2009 May 11 00:46:58  <mariorz> k
2009 May 11 00:47:07  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.64
2009 May 11 00:47:28  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/Fq9MVg -- 2.64
2009 May 11 00:47:33  <inimino> hm, looks like I forgot to draw the tree
2009 May 11 00:48:01  <aamar> my explanation is pretty meager.
2009 May 11 00:48:20  <mariorz> i didnt draw the tree either
2009 May 11 00:48:26  <mariorz> but i concur with aamar :)
2009 May 11 00:48:27  <aamar> Most crucially, I didn't think it was linear... trying to figure out if I'm right.
2009 May 11 00:50:03  <mariorz> ah
2009 May 11 00:50:10  <inimino> mariorz: we had the same answers, I think
2009 May 11 00:50:11  <mariorz> i think youre right
2009 May 11 00:50:38  <aamar> I think it must be linear, since it does have to parse the whole list at some point
2009 May 11 00:50:41  <mariorz> inimino are you sure?
2009 May 11 00:50:50  <aamar> And it is essentially handling each element at some point
2009 May 11 00:51:12  <mariorz> true
2009 May 11 00:51:28  <mariorz> yes in case of a binary tree search one half is disscarded
2009 May 11 00:51:39  <mariorz> whihc accounts for the log growth
2009 May 11 00:52:00  <mariorz> not here
2009 May 11 00:52:23  <inimino> I think aamar's drawing actually has 9 and 11 reversed
2009 May 11 00:52:45  <aamar> so if you had a list of N items, and then instead gave it a list of 2N items, would you expect it to have a single extra step?
2009 May 11 00:52:57  <inimino> about O() I think it cannot be less than linear
2009 May 11 00:53:09  <inimino> since every element has to be places somethere
2009 May 11 00:53:25  <inimino> s/places somethere/placed somewhere/
2009 May 11 00:53:46  <mariorz> aamar: when searching a tree yes, not here
2009 May 11 00:54:02  <mariorz> ok i agree
2009 May 11 00:54:04  <aamar> Okay, I think you're right that here it would take twice as many steps.
2009 May 11 00:54:24  <aamar> So definitely my drawing wouldn't be right if the 9 and 11 were switched.
2009 May 11 00:54:36  <aamar> But it's possible I should have the 5 at the root of the tree instead of the 7.
2009 May 11 00:55:10  <aamar> Yes, I think it should have the 5 at the top
2009 May 11 00:55:52  <inimino> hm
2009 May 11 00:56:29  <inimino> I think 7 is at the top
2009 May 11 00:56:51  <inimino> I have drawn the tree, if you reload that page
2009 May 11 00:56:58  <inimino> as I think it should be
2009 May 11 00:57:14  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/zGYK5q -- 2.64 revised
2009 May 11 00:58:00  <inimino> hm I think I might be wrong
2009 May 11 00:58:24  <inimino> I think my description of what the algorithm does, and my drawing, agree with each other
2009 May 11 00:58:27  <inimino> but both are wrong
2009 May 11 00:59:15  <mariorz> 5 is going to be on top
2009 May 11 00:59:22  <aamar> agreed
2009 May 11 00:59:28  <inimino> on the first call to partial-tree, left-size will be 2
2009 May 11 00:59:35  <inimino> so yeah, 5 should be on top
2009 May 11 00:59:38  <mariorz> so it has to be that second one
2009 May 11 00:59:42  <mariorz> you linked
2009 May 11 00:59:49  <mariorz> yup
2009 May 11 00:59:53  <inimino> and my description - calculates the size of the left branch, as half the value of n, 
2009 May 11 00:59:53  <inimino>   rounded down if n is odd.
2009 May 11 00:59:59  <inimino> is wrong
2009 May 11 01:00:14  <inimino> size of left branch is (n - 1) / 2
2009 May 11 01:00:25  <inimino> rounded down if n was even
2009 May 11 01:00:30  <aamar> right
2009 May 11 01:00:35  <inimino> alright
2009 May 11 01:01:10  <inimino> ok, next one then?
2009 May 11 01:01:44  <aamar> ok
2009 May 11 01:01:48  <mariorz> k
2009 May 11 01:01:54  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.65
2009 May 11 01:02:17  <inimino> ah, this one took me a long time
2009 May 11 01:02:25  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/m8mNwg -- 2.65
2009 May 11 01:03:05  <mariorz> aamar we have exactly the same
2009 May 11 01:03:45  <aamar> all of us have the same, looks like
2009 May 11 01:04:07  <inimino> looks the same
2009 May 11 01:04:14  <inimino> I guess I rewrote some stuff
2009 May 11 01:04:24  <mariorz> yeah basically the same
2009 May 11 01:04:38  <inimino> and I think aamar your intersection-set-tree is missing a tree->list
2009 May 11 01:04:48  <inimino> erm, list->tree I mean
2009 May 11 01:05:02  <inimino> anyway the same other than that
2009 May 11 01:05:08  <aamar> right, thanks.
2009 May 11 01:05:14  <inimino> I kept trying to think of some clever way to do this one
2009 May 11 01:05:15  <mariorz> true
2009 May 11 01:05:30  <inimino> some way to combine the branches
2009 May 11 01:05:33  <mariorz> and all agreed on the O(n) no?
2009 May 11 01:05:39  <inimino> but I think it might not be possible
2009 May 11 01:05:45  <inimino> yeah I think these are all O(n)
2009 May 11 01:06:08  <inimino> (assuming using tree->list-2)
2009 May 11 01:06:12  <aamar> rebalancing the tree would be quite a bit of work
2009 May 11 01:06:25  <mariorz> good point
2009 May 11 01:06:26  <aamar> And I agree that this is O(n)
2009 May 11 01:06:59  <inimino> aamar: yeah it turned out to be complicated
2009 May 11 01:07:09  <inimino> I didn't really get anywhere with it
2009 May 11 01:07:24  <inimino> alright, next one?
2009 May 11 01:08:01  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/GAeUFh -- 2.66
2009 May 11 01:08:09  <inimino> oh, yeah this one
2009 May 11 01:08:10  <inimino> (a d a b b c a)
2009 May 11 01:08:19  <inimino> the URI is longer than the answer ;-)
2009 May 11 01:08:46  <inimino> hm, did I skip one?
2009 May 11 01:08:52  <mariorz> think so
2009 May 11 01:08:58  <mariorz> 2.66
2009 May 11 01:08:58  <inimino> whoops
2009 May 11 01:09:02  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.66
2009 May 11 01:09:46  <mariorz> ok all very similar it seems
2009 May 11 01:10:08  <aamar> yes
2009 May 11 01:10:48  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 01:11:09  <inimino> did we all get the same answer on 2.67?
2009 May 11 01:11:14  <mariorz> this would be O(log*n) growth now no?
2009 May 11 01:11:23  <inimino> hm...
2009 May 11 01:11:32  <mariorz> ok 2.67
2009 May 11 01:11:43  <aamar> mariorz: which one?
2009 May 11 01:11:51  <inimino> log n right
2009 May 11 01:12:04  <aamar> agreed
2009 May 11 01:12:06  <inimino> I agree 2.66 is O(log n)
2009 May 11 01:12:44  <aamar> inimino: on 2.67, agreed, I got the same decoded message.
2009 May 11 01:12:44  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 01:12:46  <mariorz> lookup
2009 May 11 01:12:51  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 01:12:59  <aamar> It was pretty disappointing, thought it would be a real secret message.
2009 May 11 01:13:04  <inimino> yeah me too
2009 May 11 01:13:08  <inimino> I was let down
2009 May 11 01:13:12  <mariorz> lol
2009 May 11 01:13:14  <mariorz> yeah
2009 May 11 01:13:18  <aamar> i.e. "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."
2009 May 11 01:13:29  <inimino> that would have been impressive :-)
2009 May 11 01:13:31  <aamar> oh well
2009 May 11 01:13:57  <aamar> 2.68 was interesting
2009 May 11 01:14:00  <inimino> alright, 2.68 then?
2009 May 11 01:14:01  <mariorz> yes considering the dict
2009 May 11 01:14:12  <inimino> oh yeah
2009 May 11 01:14:17  <inimino> this one was fun
2009 May 11 01:14:26  <inimino> mariorz: yeah, exactly :)
2009 May 11 01:14:31  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.68
2009 May 11 01:14:31  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/zEP99N -- 2.68
2009 May 11 01:14:34  <mariorz> well this is as far as i go gentlemen
2009 May 11 01:14:56  <mariorz> these look like fun sim going to try them on my own
2009 May 11 01:15:02  <mariorz> s/sim/own/
2009 May 11 01:15:25  <inimino> s/sim/so I'm/ ?
2009 May 11 01:15:49  <aamar> heh
2009 May 11 01:15:51  <aamar> ok
2009 May 11 01:15:57  <mariorz> er
2009 May 11 01:16:06  <mariorz> what inimino said
2009 May 11 01:16:19  <inimino> alright
2009 May 11 01:16:43  <mariorz> see you guys later
2009 May 11 01:16:47  <aamar> later
2009 May 11 01:16:51  <inimino> mariorz: alright, see you next time
2009 May 11 01:16:56  <inimino> aamar, you want to keep going or knock off for today?
2009 May 11 01:17:11  <aamar> I'd be happy to continue -- just 5 more problems anyway
2009 May 11 01:17:22  <inimino> I kind of want to see them, ok lets continue
2009 May 11 01:18:06  <aamar> your answer to 2.68 is really different from mine...
2009 May 11 01:18:10  <aamar> reading through it.
2009 May 11 01:18:29  <inimino> yeah I did something a little different
2009 May 11 01:18:54  <inimino> I thought about using memq but didn't like it
2009 May 11 01:19:53  <aamar> so you head down to check each leaf instead
2009 May 11 01:21:20  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 01:22:06  <aamar> and then you carry false all the way up the 'failed' branches
2009 May 11 01:22:19  <aamar> and then you need an additional check at the top level to turn a 'false' into an error
2009 May 11 01:22:27  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 01:22:33  <aamar> Okay.
2009 May 11 01:22:40  <inimino> brb 2m sorry
2009 May 11 01:22:55  <aamar> np
2009 May 11 01:23:19  <aamar> It's helpful to see these alternate versions; considered doing them, but liked the simplicity of the memq solution, since it was available.
2009 May 11 01:23:46  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/4oIzxl -- 2.69
2009 May 11 01:24:09  <inimino> ok, back
2009 May 11 01:24:41  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.69
2009 May 11 01:25:48  <inimino> ok, these look the same
2009 May 11 01:26:51  <inimino> I used (null? (cdr x)) to avoid testing the length
2009 May 11 01:27:37  <inimino> there's probably some native singleton? test for lists, but I don't know what it is
2009 May 11 01:27:41  <aamar> is that better?
2009 May 11 01:27:53  <aamar> ok
2009 May 11 01:28:02  <inimino> well, unless it's optimized, it would have to calculate the length
2009 May 11 01:28:18  <inimino> which is also O(n)
2009 May 11 01:28:23  <inimino> and the compare it to 1
2009 May 11 01:28:40  <aamar> I see, thanks
2009 May 11 01:29:04  <inimino> an interpreter could obviously optimize that away pretty easily but I didn't want to rely on it
2009 May 11 01:29:31  <inimino> alright, 2.70?
2009 May 11 01:29:49  <aamar> yes
2009 May 11 01:29:59  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/mFRx0E -- 2.70
2009 May 11 01:29:59  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.70
2009 May 11 01:30:34  <inimino> nice, same answer
2009 May 11 01:30:51  <aamar> I didn't bother including the encoded string, but looks like the same
2009 May 11 01:31:19  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 01:31:27  <aamar> ok, next?
2009 May 11 01:31:29  <inimino> sure
2009 May 11 01:31:39  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.71
2009 May 11 01:31:54  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/TK2qS2 -- 2.71
2009 May 11 01:32:35  <aamar> mirror image
2009 May 11 01:32:55  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 01:33:05  <inimino> I didn't do the additions, but same otherwise
2009 May 11 01:33:16  <inimino> and same answer at the end
2009 May 11 01:33:24  <inimino> next one?
2009 May 11 01:33:25  <aamar> I think according to the code above yours comes up in the right orientation, but it is basically arbitrary.
2009 May 11 01:33:35  <aamar> Yes, the end answers are the same.
2009 May 11 01:34:05  <inimino> yeah I think the choice of left and right branch is basically arbitrary
2009 May 11 01:34:24  <aamar> yes, ok
2009 May 11 01:34:34  <aamar> http://mibbit.com/pb/pXHLTy -- 2.72
2009 May 11 01:34:47  <inimino> http://inimino.org/~inimino/projects/2009/SICP/chap_2/2.72
2009 May 11 01:36:56  <aamar> Okay, we agree that the most frequent symbol can be made to be an O(1) search, if one is trying to make that one fast.
2009 May 11 01:37:24  <inimino> yes
2009 May 11 01:37:49  <aamar> I'm not sure I buy your second paragraph yet.
2009 May 11 01:38:25  <aamar> If you search the most frequent character last, then you're going to do a lot of comparisons with very infrequent characters before you get there, no?
2009 May 11 01:38:39  <inimino> well
2009 May 11 01:38:57  <inimino> the code that I wrote in 2.68 is different
2009 May 11 01:39:27  <aamar> Yes, sure.
2009 May 11 01:40:03  <inimino> the second paragraph or third?
2009 May 11 01:40:44  <aamar> Third, I meant.
2009 May 11 01:40:48  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 01:41:08  <inimino> it will compare once with every other character before it gets there, yes
2009 May 11 01:41:26  <aamar> Actually, I do buy it.
2009 May 11 01:41:32  <inimino> so if there are n-1 other characters then it does that every time it has to encode the most frequent symbol
2009 May 11 01:41:39  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 01:42:00  <aamar> Interesting point.
2009 May 11 01:42:36  <aamar> So for the least common character, in your code, with the trees drawn in the direction you have them, would take O(1).
2009 May 11 01:42:37  <aamar> ?
2009 May 11 01:43:26  <aamar> And if you switch operations, it would really take O(n) ?
2009 May 11 01:43:46  <inimino> I think it would take the least amount it can take on the least frequent character
2009 May 11 01:44:25  <inimino> it still has to cons all the 0s onto the encoding, so I think it's O(n), but it only does one comparison
2009 May 11 01:45:02  <inimino> and then all the 'if left' things short-circuit back up and it conses all the 0s on and returns that result
2009 May 11 01:45:07  <aamar> Ok right
2009 May 11 01:47:00  <aamar> okay, so that's it for today?
2009 May 11 01:47:21  <inimino> yeah, I'm good
2009 May 11 01:47:49  <inimino> what should we aim for next time?
2009 May 11 01:48:36  <aamar> At a minimum, wrap chapter 2
2009 May 11 01:48:50  <aamar> So that would give us 2.73 - 2.97
2009 May 11 01:49:13  <inimino> 2.4 has only 4 problems
2009 May 11 01:49:16  <inimino> ok
2009 May 11 01:50:00  <inimino> ok, sounds good to me
2009 May 11 01:50:04  <aamar> 2.5 seems to have some meat on it.
2009 May 11 01:50:05  <aamar> great
2009 May 11 01:50:09  <inimino> yeah
2009 May 11 01:50:30  <inimino> alright, I'll send out logs later this evening
2009 May 11 01:50:58  <inimino> see you on May 24 then :)
2009 May 11 01:51:17  <aamar> see you then!