2012-08-04T00:34:42 *** Chris_0076 has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T00:39:03 *** foRei has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2012-08-04T01:04:26 *** GeorgeH_ is now known as GeorgeH 2012-08-04T01:04:51 *** GeorgeH has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T01:06:00 *** rofer has quit IRC (Read error: Operation timed out) 2012-08-04T01:09:26 *** rofer has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T03:38:02 *** amstan has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 2012-08-04T03:54:25 *** kilae has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T04:21:30 *** epicmonkey has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T04:30:21 *** antimatroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2012-08-04T04:30:31 *** antimatroid has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T05:10:29 *** antimatroid has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 2012-08-04T05:10:33 *** antimatroid1 has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T05:24:42 *** UncleVasya has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T05:34:50 *** pairofdice has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T05:50:41 *** mceier has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T05:51:21 *** alehorst1 has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T05:54:18 *** alehorst has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 2012-08-04T06:25:35 *** kilae has quit IRC (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88.2 [Firefox 14.0.1/20120713134347]) 2012-08-04T06:49:01 *** coeus has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T07:03:49 *** superflit has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 2012-08-04T07:21:53 mleise, I finished my tree :D 2012-08-04T07:24:28 *** antimatroid1 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 2012-08-04T07:27:06 *** foRei has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T08:15:40 *** sevikkk has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T08:35:50 *** mcstar has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T08:45:37 *** superflit has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T08:50:28 *** Scooper has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T08:53:22 file read in 679 2012-08-04T08:53:24 tree created in 2715 2012-08-04T08:53:26 checking in 365 2012-08-04T08:53:28 found all? true 2012-08-04T08:53:30 2012-08-04T08:53:32 real 0m3.806s 2012-08-04T08:53:34 UncleVasya: yours ^^ 2012-08-04T08:53:38 file read in 644 2012-08-04T08:53:40 tree created in 1346 2012-08-04T08:53:42 checking in 290 2012-08-04T08:53:44 found all? true 2012-08-04T08:53:46 real 0m2.428s 2012-08-04T08:53:48 mine ^^ 2012-08-04T08:56:18 UncleVasya: btw, good job 2012-08-04T08:56:21 mcstar: http://ideone.com/91pm3 2012-08-04T08:56:36 the problem with these simple tasks, is that both our codes look almost identical 2012-08-04T08:56:47 yep 2012-08-04T08:56:59 Can you upload your test file? 2012-08-04T08:57:15 it is uploaded already 2012-08-04T08:57:30 OK, can you give me a ink? :) 2012-08-04T08:58:13 http://liquid-phynix.minus.com/lYwJXSlqce8sq 2012-08-04T08:58:29 it should work 2012-08-04T08:58:39 but sometimes there are problems with minus links 2012-08-04T09:00:01 it has unix file endings 2012-08-04T09:03:51 mcstar: http://ideone.com/pE0HA 2012-08-04T09:06:28 because first way creates a value of dataType and then creates from that value new one of type nodeType while second way creates nodeType immediately? 2012-08-04T09:06:58 thats the difference 2012-08-04T09:07:07 but that doesnt explain the speed difference 2012-08-04T09:07:33 there is something that ocamlopt cant optimize away, in the first version 2012-08-04T09:07:49 it is faster to fully construct a value of a type 2012-08-04T09:08:12 but i dont know the details, so i cant say for sure 2012-08-04T09:08:25 how much faster? 2012-08-04T09:09:20 1073 vs 1250 2012-08-04T09:09:36 that's interpreter 2012-08-04T09:09:59 I didn't tested compiled second version yet. 2012-08-04T09:10:06 one sec 2012-08-04T09:10:15 ah 2012-08-04T09:10:24 you should always use ocamlopt 2012-08-04T09:10:29 if you are benchmarking 2012-08-04T09:10:40 it has totally different optimizational capabilities 2012-08-04T09:10:59 422 first way 2012-08-04T09:11:11 file read in 699 2012-08-04T09:11:13 tree created in 2994 2012-08-04T09:11:15 checking in 373 2012-08-04T09:11:17 found all? true 2012-08-04T09:11:19 real 0m4.117s 2012-08-04T09:11:28 this new version is slower then the first for me 2012-08-04T09:11:31 than* 2012-08-04T09:11:44 406 second 2012-08-04T09:12:49 UncleVasya: try to find out, why does my version build the tree 2x faster than yours 2012-08-04T09:14:49 because your tree is mutable? 2012-08-04T09:15:18 lol 2012-08-04T09:15:22 yes 2012-08-04T09:15:24 the last one is 2012-08-04T09:15:26 i forgot 2012-08-04T09:16:36 btw, my lookup fnction doesn't need a maxi :p 2012-08-04T09:16:59 I hope :) 2012-08-04T09:17:18 yes it does 2012-08-04T09:17:22 len - 1 2012-08-04T09:17:24 == maxi 2012-08-04T09:17:38 btw 2012-08-04T09:17:45 id write i <> len-1 2012-08-04T09:18:02 I meant checking if i > maxi then false 2012-08-04T09:18:03 as i < len -1 2012-08-04T09:18:14 ah 2012-08-04T09:18:17 yes i noticed 2012-08-04T09:19:00 tree created in 2882 2012-08-04T09:19:02 checking in 375 2012-08-04T09:19:06 yours, the faster ^^ 2012-08-04T09:19:09 created tree in 2675 2012-08-04T09:19:11 checking in 338 2012-08-04T09:19:14 mine, immutable 2012-08-04T09:19:23 tiny bit faster :) 2012-08-04T09:20:33 Does your haskell version faster than the mutable one in OCaml? 2012-08-04T09:20:49 Is* 2012-08-04T09:20:56 i dont think so 2012-08-04T09:20:58 ill check 2012-08-04T09:23:04 I suppose yours is faster because you use foldl. 2012-08-04T09:24:27 mine fastest pure haskell one, takes all in all the same time 2012-08-04T09:24:40 but aorund 0.4s from that is runtime initialization i thnk 2012-08-04T09:24:41 think* 2012-08-04T09:24:47 so it is faster a bit 2012-08-04T09:25:01 UncleVasya: foldl? 2012-08-04T09:25:10 list iteration 2012-08-04T09:25:16 i dont use fold in inser/lookup 2012-08-04T09:25:29 and i use the same driving code for your functions as mine 2012-08-04T09:28:48 maybe use of word.[i] every time is slower than let c = word.[i] ? But let's stop thinking about this, I have another question :) 2012-08-04T09:29:47 as your haskell tree is fully immutable than it rebuilds every time you insert something? 2012-08-04T09:31:19 it is as much immutable as yours 2012-08-04T09:31:30 they do the same thing 2012-08-04T09:31:47 you too, rebuld that part of the tree, that your insert function traverses 2012-08-04T09:32:20 you dont use mutable record fields, references, arrays, or objects 2012-08-04T09:32:28 so that code is pure 2012-08-04T09:32:32 (except IO) 2012-08-04T09:35:58 I'm surprised that haskell immutable version is not slower then OCaml mutable. Why? 2012-08-04T09:36:26 it is slower 2012-08-04T09:36:45 OK 2012-08-04T09:38:09 I checked word.[i] vs let ch = word.[i] - same time 2012-08-04T09:38:31 i did that for readability 2012-08-04T09:42:18 let me see your immutable OCaml tree. 2012-08-04T09:43:02 only the insert function is different 2012-08-04T09:43:57 http://sprunge.us/REfW?ocaml 2012-08-04T09:43:59 UncleVasya: ^^ 2012-08-04T09:46:17 UncleVasya: http://hpaste.org/72473 2012-08-04T09:46:50 thats an immutable haskell version, with a batch insert function, that works in the ST moand 2012-08-04T09:46:54 monad* 2012-08-04T09:47:09 it is sort of mutable, but when the tree is done, it becomes immutable 2012-08-04T09:47:36 anyway, it is slow, like 7 times slower than the original 2012-08-04T09:47:44 i have a long way to go with that oen 2012-08-04T09:48:56 sort of mutable, becomes immutable... is pure or not? 2012-08-04T09:50:18 Heheh, I've stack overflow on your file. 2012-08-04T09:50:26 *I've got 2012-08-04T09:52:49 it is pure in a sense 2012-08-04T09:57:49 when you asked about stack overflow on #ocaml, what was the answer? 2012-08-04T09:59:25 ill look at your code 2012-08-04T09:59:45 you probably are building up the input word list in a non tail recursive way 2012-08-04T09:59:52 no, don't waste time. 2012-08-04T10:01:54 (Str.split (Str.regexp "[, \t]+") head) @ strings_to_words tail 2012-08-04T10:02:03 you use append 2012-08-04T10:02:30 thats probably not a great idea to build a list 2012-08-04T10:02:41 you should use cons, :: 2012-08-04T10:02:49 and if needed, reverse the list 2012-08-04T10:03:10 line @ from_file file 2012-08-04T10:03:13 same here 2012-08-04T10:03:17 so this is the right time to start reading a book. To find out what the fold is and how to build list the right way :) 2012-08-04T10:04:06 and ofc, this isnt tail recursive at all 2012-08-04T10:04:13 but your try/with is at the right place 2012-08-04T10:04:34 UncleVasya: you build lists the right way, exactly as you decosntruct them 2012-08-04T10:04:46 head :: tail 2012-08-04T10:05:17 after split function i have a list of strings 2012-08-04T10:05:28 UncleVasya: and probably, it is better to use an option type, than a list for failure 2012-08-04T10:06:09 This is dirty Russian code, baby! :D 2012-08-04T10:08:12 in this case, the problem isnt that great 2012-08-04T10:08:22 only the first part of the list is copied 2012-08-04T10:08:26 up until @ 2012-08-04T10:09:18 strings_to_words tail @ (Str.split (Str.regexp "[, \t]+") head) would be far worse 2012-08-04T10:10:35 UncleVasya: anyway, you will have to write from_file and strings_to_words tail recursively 2012-08-04T10:11:07 or use a fold 2012-08-04T10:11:28 afaik fold_left in stdlib is tail recursive 2012-08-04T10:21:06 UncleVasya: i recommend this book 2012-08-04T10:21:08 http://pauillac.inria.fr/cousineau-mauny/ 2012-08-04T10:21:42 (they recommended it to me, seems solid, with code, and focuses on caml/ocaml) 2012-08-04T10:22:24 thanks 2012-08-04T10:25:01 UncleVasya: stop this stopspam message bullshit 2012-08-04T10:25:07 i talking to you in private 2012-08-04T10:25:08 m 2012-08-04T10:26:40 changed client some time ago (to Miranda). figuring out where private is :) 2012-08-04T10:37:30 btw, mcstar, haven't you seen nice cheatsheets for OCaml from Jane Street? Like http://camlunity.ru/files/cheatsheets/ocaml-lang.pdf 2012-08-04T10:47:21 *** coeus has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 2012-08-04T10:50:15 *** coeus has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T10:56:11 *** coeus has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 2012-08-04T11:10:39 *** epicmonkey has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 2012-08-04T11:27:33 *** antimatroid has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T11:28:14 * mleise proposes to solve ProjectEuler problems if the code for tree structures is too simple and looks the same 2012-08-04T11:31:30 mleise: lol, i got a job offer through PE 2012-08-04T11:31:42 i almost forgot.. 2012-08-04T11:31:59 hungarian startup looking for ruby programmers 2012-08-04T11:32:27 i have no idea, how could they have mistaken 'haskell' for 'ruby' 2012-08-04T11:35:03 oh very well. i guess they got frustrated with not finding ruby programmers, so they made it: interest in non mainstream langugages 2012-08-04T11:40:06 mcstar: wooo :D 2012-08-04T11:40:26 antimatroid: wooo what? 2012-08-04T11:42:29 * mcstar thinks antimatroid found a flash game, where you have to guide a lizard with the keyboard 2012-08-04T11:42:40 through a rainforest or soemthing 2012-08-04T11:42:52 (01:31:08) mcstar: mleise: lol, i got a job offer through PE 2012-08-04T11:43:03 not a job offer per say 2012-08-04T11:43:28 hmmm okay, i'm drunk :) 2012-08-04T11:43:44 antimatroid: just a message, to make contact with them if im interested 2012-08-04T11:43:51 mcstar: mleise said he likes my tree :p 2012-08-04T11:43:56 but they probably sent it to many people 2012-08-04T11:44:34 antimatroid: have fun, but stay away from the concrete with your bony parts 2012-08-04T11:44:41 boney* 2012-08-04T11:44:43 just got home 2012-08-04T11:44:45 safe for tonight 2012-08-04T11:45:21 UncleVasya: he was lying, the only likes his tree 2012-08-04T11:45:30 btw, i dont remember him saying he likes it 2012-08-04T11:45:34 i read the logs though 2012-08-04T11:45:43 you was offline 2012-08-04T11:45:58 were* 2012-08-04T11:46:07 your source codes are too short 2012-08-04T11:46:13 thats what he said 2012-08-04T11:46:32 when correcting teh english 2012-08-04T11:46:33 his word was 'clear' :) 2012-08-04T11:46:56 I understood it as 'love! love! love!' 2012-08-04T11:47:05 i were offline? 2012-08-04T11:47:09 ah i see 2012-08-04T11:47:28 (haha, some more grammatical errors for antimatroid) 2012-08-04T11:49:31 remember the day when we found out how bass is pronounced? 2012-08-04T11:50:08 yeah 2012-08-04T11:50:35 (i long for those great times...) 2012-08-04T11:50:46 we were innocent 2012-08-04T11:50:54 we thought, we could change the world 2012-08-04T11:50:59 make it a better place 2012-08-04T11:51:03 little did we know 2012-08-04T12:07:49 mleise: so you want to finish? 2012-08-04T12:07:54 or is that all? 2012-08-04T12:07:58 do* 2012-08-04T12:08:45 i missed that 2012-08-04T12:08:52 you didn't know it was pronounced base? 2012-08-04T12:08:57 how do you pronounce Euler? 2012-08-04T12:08:59 oiler i hope 2012-08-04T12:10:32 pfff 2012-08-04T12:10:35 dont troll 2012-08-04T12:10:35 mcstar: ^^ you nailed it 2012-08-04T12:11:05 ok...im not sure what did nail 2012-08-04T12:11:11 but its good that i nailed something 2012-08-04T12:11:18 been a long time i nailed something 2012-08-04T12:11:31 since 2012-08-04T12:37:00 *** Accoun has quit IRC () 2012-08-04T12:46:28 I rewrote those functions to tail-recursive. Well, I hope they are tail-recursive :) (now can read your file) 2012-08-04T12:46:41 *into 2012-08-04T12:48:20 mcstar: http://ideone.com/LMElA 2012-08-04T12:51:35 UncleVasya: http://ideone.com/q0cXV 2012-08-04T12:52:35 ofc, you can still rev the list if you want ot 2012-08-04T12:52:47 *** heinrich5991 has quit IRC (Read error: Operation timed out) 2012-08-04T12:53:19 UncleVasya: you made your first 'accumulator pattern', congratulations! 2012-08-04T12:53:57 what's the difference with Some? 2012-08-04T12:54:46 you dont give back the line in a list 2012-08-04T12:54:55 so you dont have to use @ 2012-08-04T12:55:05 use :: when you construct a list 2012-08-04T12:56:11 wow, I didn't managed to make line :: lst work and you did :) 2012-08-04T12:56:26 :) 2012-08-04T12:58:05 now I think I understand why that didn't work: with [] -> [] ocaml tought that line is a list, not a string. 2012-08-04T12:58:14 *wall* 2012-08-04T12:59:11 line == [input_line file] 2012-08-04T12:59:13 in your case 2012-08-04T12:59:17 line WAS a list 2012-08-04T12:59:23 a one element list 2012-08-04T12:59:47 but lst was a list of strings 2012-08-04T12:59:52 and lists are homohenous 2012-08-04T13:00:08 so you cant cons a [string] to a [string] 2012-08-04T13:00:16 only a string to a [string] 2012-08-04T13:03:08 *** heinrich5991 has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T13:04:16 understood, thanks 2012-08-04T13:13:13 mcstar: http://ideone.com/dcc0g 2012-08-04T13:19:47 UncleVasya: :) 2012-08-04T13:19:51 why did you do that? 2012-08-04T13:20:11 To exclude @-s :) 2012-08-04T13:20:12 strings_to_words was already tail recursive 2012-08-04T13:20:23 yeah, but in that case you shouldnt 2012-08-04T13:20:33 split already gaves a list of strings 2012-08-04T13:20:38 so it is natural to use append 2012-08-04T13:20:47 gave* 2012-08-04T13:21:30 UncleVasya: as i said, when you do: lst1 @ lst2, then lst1 is copied element by element 2012-08-04T13:21:35 i.e. it is reconstructed 2012-08-04T13:21:39 but lst2 isnt 2012-08-04T13:21:50 lst3 = lst1 @ lst2 2012-08-04T13:22:00 now lst3 shares its tail with lst2 2012-08-04T13:22:10 only lst1 is copied 2012-08-04T13:22:41 when lst1 is long, or it is the list that grows(for example in a recursive call) thats when it represents a problem 2012-08-04T13:22:58 since appending is an O(n) operation, where n is the length of the first list 2012-08-04T13:24:58 but second version is 300-500 ms faster in interpreter (no difference if compiled). 2012-08-04T13:26:26 ok 2012-08-04T13:26:36 but thanks for explanation, i'll try to remember 2012-08-04T13:31:35 *** Accoun has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T13:40:48 UncleVasya: 300-500ms is the absolute difference, but how much is the relative 2012-08-04T13:40:50 ? 2012-08-04T13:49:19 ~ 12700 vs 13200 2012-08-04T13:50:40 :) 2012-08-04T13:50:40 even 13400 2012-08-04T13:50:47 so nothing basically 2012-08-04T13:51:15 there are huge fluctuations compared to the absolute difference 2012-08-04T13:51:25 and the relative one is low 2012-08-04T13:51:39 so, theres not much difference after all 2012-08-04T13:52:37 what matters is thet they are the same with ocamlopt 2012-08-04T13:52:45 or roughly the same 2012-08-04T13:52:53 yep, but the difference is repeatable (not an accident) :p 2012-08-04T13:53:19 yeah, but the standard deviation is great 2012-08-04T13:53:59 you're right 2012-08-04T13:55:28 *** pairofdice has quit IRC (Quit: In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.) 2012-08-04T14:34:45 *** amstan has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T14:34:45 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o amstan 2012-08-04T14:48:05 *** UncleVasya has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 2012-08-04T14:50:01 *** sheerun has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T15:07:04 delt0r: hi 2012-08-04T15:12:40 *** amstan_ has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T15:12:41 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o amstan_ 2012-08-04T15:13:27 *** amstan has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 2012-08-04T15:14:14 *** Accoun has quit IRC () 2012-08-04T15:17:11 *** UncleVasya has joined #aichallenge 2012-08-04T15:19:10 hay 2012-08-04T15:19:16 mcstar: ^ 2012-08-04T15:19:36 hi 2012-08-04T15:19:39 The origin of mutants 2012-08-04T15:19:41 John Cairns, Julie Overbaugh & Stephan Miller 2012-08-04T15:19:47 do you know about this article? 2012-08-04T15:19:56 nature article from 88 2012-08-04T15:19:59 no 2012-08-04T15:20:37 its about a bacteria culture, they have a genetic defect 2012-08-04T15:20:54 they dont hace the genes to produce lactase, to metabolize lactose 2012-08-04T15:20:57 have* 2012-08-04T15:21:21 the authors put these cultures in dishes, they put lactose in it too 2012-08-04T15:21:39 Oh yea.. i know the experiment... 2012-08-04T15:21:41 and contraray to what they were expecting, the bacterial culture started to grow 2012-08-04T15:21:50 its been done quite a few times now in different settings.. 2012-08-04T15:21:55 ah 2012-08-04T15:22:02 ok, can you tell me something about this? 2012-08-04T15:22:10 how well understood is this process? 2012-08-04T15:22:13 my new boss even did and experiment similar in yeast 2012-08-04T15:22:16 and what is going on at all? 2012-08-04T15:22:24 haha 2012-08-04T15:22:36 They expected it too grow... well at least I would 2012-08-04T15:22:43 no 2012-08-04T15:22:57 they couldnt eat the energy source 2012-08-04T15:23:12 how would they grow/multiply if they cant metabolize lactose? 2012-08-04T15:23:35 and the bacteria apparently fixed their genes 2012-08-04T15:24:16 Well how many did they start with 2012-08-04T15:24:22 clearly if they are dead they are dead 2012-08-04T15:24:24 i havent read the article yet 2012-08-04T15:24:38 however bactieria have a *lot* of pathways to use things 2012-08-04T15:24:47 i was watching a talk, in which the speaker referred to this article 2012-08-04T15:24:53 ill read it later 2012-08-04T15:25:05 so it may be not efficenet to start with... but then it mutates and bobs your uncle 2012-08-04T15:25:36 Note that i can't just have 100% pure lactase 2012-08-04T15:25:40 but for the bacteria to mutate, it needs to produce offsprings, dont it? 2012-08-04T15:25:44 * UncleVasya is scared 2012-08-04T15:25:49 yea 2012-08-04T15:26:12 so? like i said... it must still have a media that it can survive on... 2012-08-04T15:26:13 what i was suspecting, is that the original selection of bacteria wasnt 100% percise 2012-08-04T15:26:53 the standard experiment is that you have mostly one or the other (glucose/lactase) 2012-08-04T15:27:06 but there needs to be a few other things as well... 2012-08-04T15:27:12 how long before a bacteria dies if theres no fuel around? 2012-08-04T15:27:23 does it have some surplus energy? 2012-08-04T15:27:26 life... all life really needs quite a lot of different things to work 2012-08-04T15:27:34 mcstar: depends, most do 2012-08-04T15:27:39 quite a bit sometimes 2012-08-04T15:27:48 in mitochondia? 2012-08-04T15:27:52 mitochondria 2012-08-04T15:27:56 they can often enter a "hibernation" state 2012-08-04T15:28:09 no.. lipids... fats... in the cell 2012-08-04T15:28:44 but it depends on what it is... ecoli for example just has pathways to do just about anything 2012-08-04T15:28:45 anyway, the conlusion of the article, is that mutation is not random 2012-08-04T15:28:59 well mutation is random... selection is not 2012-08-04T15:29:06 yeah, it was ecoli 2012-08-04T15:29:27 and there is selection on mechanisms of mutation 2012-08-04T15:30:10 delt0r: what i want to know, basically, whether or not this article is still considered heresy 2012-08-04T15:31:00 it supposes a mechanism, that external conditions can affect genetic change 2012-08-04T15:31:06 no as far as i know... nature/science papers tend to be "tabloid" science... 2012-08-04T15:31:15 and i dont mean high energy radiation or the like 2012-08-04T15:31:28 lots of fanfar and often rather sensationlized headlines 2012-08-04T15:32:07 well, arent those articles published elsewhere too? in more specialized journals? 2012-08-04T15:32:21 well one thing people forget is that a simple bacteria is *not* simple... it is a really complicated piece of machinery.. 2012-08-04T15:32:29 mcstar: yes... 2012-08-04T15:32:36 typically more complete as well 2012-08-04T15:35:23 delt0r: on a sidenote, how much do you know about colloid suspensions? 2012-08-04T15:35:41 not so much... 2012-08-04T15:36:05 ive been reading some papers, it has relevance on what im doing 2012-08-04T15:36:25 i came across some controvery, so to speak 2012-08-04T15:36:25 colloid are like fluids through poreris media.. 2012-08-04T15:36:35 poreris? 2012-08-04T15:36:38 pories 2012-08-04T15:36:40 shit 2012-08-04T15:36:44 sponge 2012-08-04T15:37:08 soaking and wetting behaviors 2012-08-04T15:37:15 hm 2012-08-04T15:37:24 not really 2012-08-04T15:37:47 colloids are particles, orders of magniute bigger than the solution they are in 2012-08-04T15:37:52 well last i heard the outside layer on the particles in a colloid are rather important 2012-08-04T15:38:01 no 2012-08-04T15:38:04 add a surfactant 2012-08-04T15:38:05 those are vesicles 2012-08-04T15:38:48 a colloids are just really, hard spheres, if they are uncharged 2012-08-04T15:39:23 really? I am a bit doubtful . 2012-08-04T15:39:38 but often they are charged, and they mimick real particles under certain circumstances 2012-08-04T15:39:51 like, you can study solidification, nucleation with them 2012-08-04T15:40:10 The only time i got interested was with ferofluids... 2012-08-04T15:40:26 Keeping them in suspension is tricky 2012-08-04T15:41:40 are they in suspension, when they come in contact with an external field? 2012-08-04T15:42:00 yes 2012-08-04T15:42:25 what is their composition anyway? 2012-08-04T15:42:30 Magnetic fields switch the viscosity ... non newtonian as well 2012-08-04T15:42:47 typiclly iron oxide spheres. 2012-08-04T15:43:04 porous? 2012-08-04T15:43:09 no... 2012-08-04T15:43:20 why dont they sediment? 2012-08-04T15:43:51 maybe they do 2012-08-04T15:44:04 wait, are the suspended in water at all? 2012-08-04T15:44:19 yes 2012-08-04T15:44:23 i have no idea about ferrofluids, i only saw some youtube videos 2012-08-04T15:44:26