However, my political Facebook posts have been about how the world ruling class composed of Hobbesians, Hamiltonians and Muslims believe that Mankind is an ultraviolent monster that needs all-powerful government put upon it in order to survive and you have to be the biggest monster in order to impose said government and how we need to replace it and them, and I get likes from people who I am fairly certain never thought about it that way before, so there's the distinct possibility that I am the exception.
No, but when undesirables come sniffing around they find a way to make themselves irritable, like trying to use that data to guess passwords for your accounts and who knows what else. I could try to come up with more what elses, but where there's a will...
You missed my change in word usage, from defined to describes, The mathematical proof in showing that the truth of the system taken as a whole cannot be defined describes the very nature of truth and how it is illusive. The truth of the system can break down sn any second is all that really means. There's no net that competely prevents you from setting something down and it suddenly ceasing to exist, for example, and one more concrete example is that of electronics failing. One thing goes wrong and suddenly a phone becomes a nonphone. You may think that things that are not mathematically definable exist, but in fact they do not. Another way of looking at things is tha.t.a.function.that never returns can never return true. God himself is merely machine, whatever else you believe about him. The supernatural is merely more nature. Mixing.things in a single course has never even been tried, because your conclusion has always been presumed and never tested. That goes to the second element in my thesis, that of how they are holding back on students, one reason being that they are too afraid of the consequences were their theory to be proven right.
I find there tend to be several miscommunications when talking about the reality of concepts. There would be no flaw in how the language was used, just that our concepts about the way things are were far apart from each other. I have learned much once the miscommunications were cleared u and hope the reverse was the case as well..
What do you mean it doesn't work? Is there a syntax error somewhere? Did i get my math wrong that something raised to the power of 1/3 is the cube root? What does the number of programmers using this version over the one in a standard library have to do with anything? Your statement as I interpreted it was thst the computer could not be told that trim() has a different meaning from the commonly used one, so I attempted to show you how it wasn't the case. What did you really mean, then? Resigning yourself to the possibility that I possibly do not understand either is not the way to go in attempting to enhance your intellect.
I get a new phone about once a year and use prepaid. Swirxhing carriers so bought a new phone for the new carrier in advance and am using it with WiFi. I still use old phones, but they are glitchier than when new. I have never paid more than $100 for a phone. Though the carriwrs try to scam you wirh fees to have the salesperson switch over and broken site functionality to do it for free.
Mostly speculation, but you can engineer plants that will sequester more carbon or make the parts we don't eat more amenable to being turned into fuel so we don't unsequester more carbon. But people also tend to confuse the heat in global warming with entropic heat unusable for work.
One thing you said that I missed in my initial response to this post is your notion of mathematically defined. I believe that no corner of reality can escape being able to be described mathematically.
No, I was claiming that you could use the concepts of the mechanics of jet flight to understand how swans fly. Or at least that's closer to what's going on.
You weren't paying attention to your link very closely because Wikipedia just did.
You bring up recursion and then proceed to contradict your point.
My point is that level of rigor is useful in natural language too. If we taught people that they can apply that level of rigor to natural language but that natural languages are a special case where you don't necessarily have to, we'd be further ahead in the game.
Not entirely true you can reassign a keyword to mean whatever you want it to mean according to certain rules. Ever hear of the #undef operator? Even if it does not work in as a complete a fashion as i think it might, surely you can see how it might work if extended to the fullest. And simply checking a global variable can change the meaning of the function. Here's one way that your bad example can be represented in psudo-code: IF WithOldMan then BadMeansBad = True ELSE IF WithFriends THEN EnergeticBadMeansGreat = True
That's not too far different from what people do in their heads to decide what a word means.
> trim() is never going to find a cube root
Challenge accepted! Mind if I use QB64?
DIM SHARED TrimIn!, TrimOut!
SUB trim()
TrimOut! = Trimin!^(1/3)
END SUB
If I remember my math correctly, I think you will now find that trim calculates cube roots quite nicely now.
Oh, it was meant as a counterexample and not an attempt to extend my logic in my initial example into an area that you thought it applied and I did not. Sorry, I misunderstood you. I still do not understand how it serves as a counterexample though.
The implication isn't that it is completely unknown or unutilized, but to elaborate on the other part of my thesis, (my experience with learning a second language in formal education is three years of high school German, and I have been working on learning Japanese informally) languages were strictly regimented. They taught you how to improve your native English, and then once they deemed you were of an ahe where you were "ready" for other human languages you could pick between German, French and Spanish. And in German, they focused more on vocabulary than on how German worked a little differently to string a sentence together. In fact, they didn't really do much diagramming a sentence in English. This is why you cannot let the states decide tjr curriculum, but I digress. The point is that they keep holding off on concepts you could handle and even help you lesrn better the skills that they insist are must haves in order for you to progress. In fact, Ican steal your so called counterexample and use it to further my own point. If you didn't have the notion that human languages are so far removed from programming languages, you could use the concept of conjugating verbs in your programming, maybe use verbs with different endings as functions or variables. I am beginning to see why you thought it was a counterexample. You thought that conjugation is useful in human languages but not in programming, so you constructed an example where something you thought would be useless in programming, by the logic you thought I was using would be useless in human languages, when actually my logic is that conjugating verbs is useful in both domains.
Lets start with something simple then. To my understanding there is nothing that can be done that cannot be reduced to computations on a Turing machine. Also, operations can be reduced to machines that have connections between logic gates that process an AND, OR, NOT, 1 or 0 or a generator that randomly emits one of the above. I may have missed an operator; I'm not certain. Where would you like to go from there?
Easy to say, but more difficult to show evidence. I see you didn't present any. Care to have a go. I don't require absolute proof just the preponderance of evidence. All swans are white until they found a black swan. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
In human language the apparent ambiguity is usually resolved with context and programming languages can also have statements that need context to be resolved. See also logos naki world https://youtube.com/results?q=... The song has meaningless sounds designed to trick the hearer into resolving them into words.
I am also working on constructing a programming language thst incorporates as many features as can be implemented together of all existing programming languages. You can use DO as an instruction to begin a loop in one subroutine and as a variable in another as long as certain scoping rules are followed and most ambiguity in human language is resolved in a similar fashion.
You saw a pattern and decided to attempt to apply it in a situation where it doesn't apply. In doing so, you created a stawman to attack. I am not entirely sure, but conjugation might be an area where talking more about the concept may aid in handling all the cases. And one more thing about language education: It might be more advantageous to teach by concept instead of by language. If the similarities between laguages and their roots are taught first, you are better off. Vater in German and father in English are similar for a reason that isn't adressed in language teaching. Papa is also a variation on the same theme but sound migration isn't really addessed in much detail either.
There is nothing fundamentally different from spoken languages in programming languages. Difficulties with learning programming languages or any second language has more to do with how we teach people to learn more than anything else. We spend so much time trying to have students focus on the boring aspects of literacy when there is no evidence that they are prerequisites for everything else. Knowing the multiplication table doesn't prepare you for other mathematics.
Oppose not only the TPP but the Constitution as well. The Founding Fathers were actually split on the matter of a strong government. Read Thomas Paine's Common Sense. He was against strong government and explained why
Well to paraphrase Captain Kirk, "Who said anything about a new constitutional convention. We're taking over." We as a world, not a nation need to sit down and have a talk about the government we think we want to have and start living by them. However we arrange the economy, we will end up not sending taxes to the old system and taking care of the underprivileged that were useful to the old system, that despite whatever hold the old system may have over the military, it will collapse. Have some reading: http://www.lightspeedmagazine....
Slashdot Mirror
However, my political Facebook posts have been about how the world ruling class composed of Hobbesians, Hamiltonians and Muslims believe that Mankind is an ultraviolent monster that needs all-powerful government put upon it in order to survive and you have to be the biggest monster in order to impose said government and how we need to replace it and them, and I get likes from people who I am fairly certain never thought about it that way before, so there's the distinct possibility that I am the exception.
No, but when undesirables come sniffing around they find a way to make themselves irritable, like trying to use that data to guess passwords for your accounts and who knows what else. I could try to come up with more what elses, but where there's a will...
You missed my change in word usage, from defined to describes, The mathematical proof in showing that the truth of the system taken as a whole cannot be defined describes the very nature of truth and how it is illusive. The truth of the system can break down sn any second is all that really means. There's no net that competely prevents you from setting something down and it suddenly ceasing to exist, for example, and one more concrete example is that of electronics failing. One thing goes wrong and suddenly a phone becomes a nonphone. You may think that things that are not mathematically definable exist, but in fact they do not. Another way of looking at things is tha.t.a.function.that never returns can never return true. God himself is merely machine, whatever else you believe about him. The supernatural is merely more nature. Mixing.things in a single course has never even been tried, because your conclusion has always been presumed and never tested. That goes to the second element in my thesis, that of how they are holding back on students, one reason being that they are too afraid of the consequences were their theory to be proven right.
I find there tend to be several miscommunications when talking about the reality of concepts. There would be no flaw in how the language was used, just that our concepts about the way things are were far apart from each other. I have learned much once the miscommunications were cleared u and hope the reverse was the case as well..
What do you mean it doesn't work? Is there a syntax error somewhere? Did i get my math wrong that something raised to the power of 1/3 is the cube root? What does the number of programmers using this version over the one in a standard library have to do with anything? Your statement as I interpreted it was thst the computer could not be told that trim() has a different meaning from the commonly used one, so I attempted to show you how it wasn't the case. What did you really mean, then? Resigning yourself to the possibility that I possibly do not understand either is not the way to go in attempting to enhance your intellect.
Yeah and have undesirables come sniffing around. I'd rather the information be visioly to friends and employers vetted by something or someone.
I think the word you are looking for is hypocrisy, not irony... Just saying.
I get a new phone about once a year and use prepaid. Swirxhing carriers so bought a new phone for the new carrier in advance and am using it with WiFi. I still use old phones, but they are glitchier than when new. I have never paid more than $100 for a phone. Though the carriwrs try to scam you wirh fees to have the salesperson switch over and broken site functionality to do it for free.
Mostly speculation, but you can engineer plants that will sequester more carbon or make the parts we don't eat more amenable to being turned into fuel so we don't unsequester more carbon.
But people also tend to confuse the heat in global warming with entropic heat unusable for work.
One thing you said that I missed in my initial response to this post is your notion of mathematically defined. I believe that no corner of reality can escape being able to be described mathematically.
I think you fleshed out what I was trying to say about the connection between natural languages rather well, so good job.
No, I was claiming that you could use the concepts of the mechanics of jet flight to understand how swans fly. Or at least that's closer to what's going on.
You weren't paying attention to your link very closely because Wikipedia just did.
You bring up recursion and then proceed to contradict your point.
My point is that level of rigor is useful in natural language too. If we taught people that they can apply that level of rigor to natural language but that natural languages are a special case where you don't necessarily have to, we'd be further ahead in the game.
Not entirely true you can reassign a keyword to mean whatever you want it to mean according to certain rules. Ever hear of the #undef operator? Even if it does not work in as a complete a fashion as i think it might, surely you can see how it might work if extended to the fullest. And simply checking a global variable can change the meaning of the function. Here's one way that your bad example can be represented in psudo-code: IF WithOldMan then BadMeansBad = True ELSE IF WithFriends THEN EnergeticBadMeansGreat = True
That's not too far different from what people do in their heads to decide what a word means.
> trim() is never going to find a cube root
Challenge accepted! Mind if I use QB64?
DIM SHARED TrimIn!, TrimOut!
SUB trim()
TrimOut! = Trimin!^(1/3)
END SUB
If I remember my math correctly, I think you will now find that trim calculates cube roots quite nicely now.
Oh, it was meant as a counterexample and not an attempt to extend my logic in my initial example into an area that you thought it applied and I did not. Sorry, I misunderstood you. I still do not understand how it serves as a counterexample though.
The implication isn't that it is completely unknown or unutilized, but to elaborate on the other part of my thesis, (my experience with learning a second language in formal education is three years of high school German, and I have been working on learning Japanese informally) languages were strictly regimented. They taught you how to improve your native English, and then once they deemed you were of an ahe where you were "ready" for other human languages you could pick between German, French and Spanish. And in German, they focused more on vocabulary than on how German worked a little differently to string a sentence together. In fact, they didn't really do much diagramming a sentence in English. This is why you cannot let the states decide tjr curriculum, but I digress. The point is that they keep holding off on concepts you could handle and even help you lesrn better the skills that they insist are must haves in order for you to progress.
In fact, Ican steal your so called counterexample and use it to further my own point. If you didn't have the notion that human languages are so far removed from programming languages, you could use the concept of conjugating verbs in your programming, maybe use verbs with different endings as functions or variables. I am beginning to see why you thought it was a counterexample. You thought that conjugation is useful in human languages but not in programming, so you constructed an example where something you thought would be useless in programming, by the logic you thought I was using would be useless in human languages, when actually my logic is that conjugating verbs is useful in both domains.
Lets start with something simple then. To my understanding there is nothing that can be done that cannot be reduced to computations on a Turing machine. Also, operations can be reduced to machines that have connections between logic gates that process an AND, OR, NOT, 1 or 0 or a generator that randomly emits one of the above. I may have missed an operator; I'm not certain. Where would you like to go from there?
No, no it would not be a travesty. Your whole argument presumes too much.
Easy to say, but more difficult to show evidence. I see you didn't present any. Care to have a go. I don't require absolute proof just the preponderance of evidence. All swans are white until they found a black swan. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
In human language the apparent ambiguity is usually resolved with context and programming languages can also have statements that need context to be resolved. See also logos naki world https://youtube.com/results?q=... The song has meaningless sounds designed to trick the hearer into resolving them into words.
I am also working on constructing a programming language thst incorporates as many features as can be implemented together of all existing programming languages. You can use DO as an instruction to begin a loop in one subroutine and as a variable in another as long as certain scoping rules are followed and most ambiguity in human language is resolved in a similar fashion.
You saw a pattern and decided to attempt to apply it in a situation where it doesn't apply. In doing so, you created a stawman to attack. I am not entirely sure, but conjugation might be an area where talking more about the concept may aid in handling all the cases. And one more thing about language education: It might be more advantageous to teach by concept instead of by language. If the similarities between laguages and their roots are taught first, you are better off. Vater in German and father in English are similar for a reason that isn't adressed in language teaching. Papa is also a variation on the same theme but sound migration isn't really addessed in much detail either.
Oh? Care to elaborate, or are you satisfied with mere posturing?
There is nothing fundamentally different from spoken languages in programming languages. Difficulties with learning programming languages or any second language has more to do with how we teach people to learn more than anything else. We spend so much time trying to have students focus on the boring aspects of literacy when there is no evidence that they are prerequisites for everything else. Knowing the multiplication table doesn't prepare you for other mathematics.
Oppose not only the TPP but the Constitution as well. The Founding Fathers were actually split on the matter of a strong government. Read Thomas Paine's Common Sense. He was against strong government and explained why
I hope the people of the world soon realize that the world ruling class is the tyrant.
Well to paraphrase Captain Kirk, "Who said anything about a new constitutional convention. We're taking over." We as a world, not a nation need to sit down and have a talk about the government we think we want to have and start living by them. However we arrange the economy, we will end up not sending taxes to the old system and taking care of the underprivileged that were useful to the old system, that despite whatever hold the old system may have over the military, it will collapse. Have some reading: http://www.lightspeedmagazine....
The project costs $300 million. As stated elsewhere on this thread, the project consists of more than just 5 turbines.
The lesser than sign is also the opening character of an HTML tag. Try <