The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2010 08:40 James Silverton wrote: > Brian wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:25:03 -0500: > >>> jmfbahciv wrote: > >>>> Bob Myers wrote: > >>>>> Andrew Usher wrote: > >>>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the >>>>>> Right Way that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the >>>>>> other way. > >>>>> Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, >>>>> counting out their money or the number of items they're >>>>> going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, >>>>> two..." > >>>>> ;-) > >>>> Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher >>>> wouldn't object when he gets a dollar short. > >>> Would he perhaps see some value in minting zero cent coins? > >> Probably: after all, its zero sense. > > I am trying to remember when Fortran introduced arrays with arbitrary > indexing, that is, starting at numbers other than 1. I have not > programmed in Fortran in years and I do remember the change but not when > it happened. > You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Feb 2010 08:52 Peter Moylan wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> I used to solve my really pesky problems by dreaming the solution, >> or workaround. Sleeping is useful. > > There once was a time when I was struggling with difficult theoretical > problems, and I would wake up in the middle of the night with solutions, > or at least with important insights. Once the morning arrived, I would > recall getting the insights, but couldn't remember what they were. > > To fix the problem I put a notepad and pen beside my bed, and went to > bed with the firm resolve to write down any ideas I got in the night. It > worked: I woke up with yet another brilliant idea, and spent some time > writing down all the details. > > In the morning, I found the sort of scrawl a two-year-old might have > written. > I didn't do that. If I couldn't remember, I just figured it was a dream (or nightmare). A lot of times, the dream would be figuring out something I needed to check. /BAH
From: James Silverton on 27 Feb 2010 08:48 jmfbahciv wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:48 -0500: > James Silverton wrote: >> Brian wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:25:03 -0500: >> >>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>>>> Bob Myers wrote: >> >>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote: >> >>>>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the >>>>>>> Right Way that I can't imagine why anyone would do it >>>>>>> the other way. >> >>>>>> Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every >>>>>> day, counting out their money or the number of items >>>>>> they're going to purchase, and saying to themselves >>>>>> "Zero, one, two..." >> >>>>>> ;-) >> >>>>> Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher >>>>> wouldn't object when he gets a dollar short. >> >>>> Would he perhaps see some value in minting zero cent coins? >> >>> Probably: after all, its zero sense. >> >> I am trying to remember when Fortran introduced arrays with >> arbitrary indexing, that is, starting at numbers other than >> 1. I have not programmed in Fortran in years and I do >> remember the change but not when it happened. >> > You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are > you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? Yes, there were ways of doing that but when you defined an array with, say, DIMENSION A(100) The array elements were A(1) to A(100). I think it was Fortran77 where, say, REAL (0:99) :: A became a valid declaration. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Feb 2010 09:37 On Feb 27, 1:07 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 11:13 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > >> > On Feb 25, 12:20 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > >> >> > On Feb 25, 10:20 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, > >> >> >> fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian > >> >> >> authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which > >> >> >> added it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. > > >> >> > Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no > >> >> > Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon. > > >> >> Well, at least no question-begging Christian church. But I'm curious > >> >> which documents you have in mind with your "similar". I wasn't aware > >> >> of any accepted by the church as having been written by an author of a > >> >> canonical text (which was, after all, the point of my statement). > > >> > Very few canonical texts were written by their "authors," so > >> > again I don't know what you're talking about. (Look up > >> > Pseudepigrapha in a Bible dictionary.) > > >> But all canonical texts were written by their authors. Again, I'm > >> not > > > No one knows who the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, > > some of the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and (at least) 2 > > Peter are. That's whey they're called pseudepigraphical. > > But it's a pretty good bet that they had authors. And while nobody Quite a few textual scholars would contest that assertion. the best we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written. > knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad > consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, > they were the same person. Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text. > >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that > >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same > >> author (whoever that might have been). And that at least most of the > >> Pauline epistles were considered to have been written by the same > >> person (who was believed to actually be St. Paul). What I'm talking > >> about is another letter asserted to be by Paul and enough in the style > >> of the others that Christian scholars believed it. Or a version of > >> Acts determined to be by the author of John. Or a "Second Acts" by > >> the guy who wrote Luke. > > > If something like that ever turns up, it will be appropriately > > assessed. > > And, I would have thought, if so determined, probably added to the > canon. The one you called "finalized" and for which "no option exists > within Christianity for adding to" it. Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are. > > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in > > novels. > > Not likely at all. > > > (The most common example being the Q document.) > > Someone's found a manuscript of Q? When did that happen? As far as I > knew it was hypothetical, inferred from the contents of Matthew and > Luke. There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to it yet? > >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying > >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it > >> has less status than the others because we didn't know about it > >> seventeen hundred years ago." > > > And how, exactly, would such a document suddenly come to light? > > Probably the same way all of the late-discovered non-canonical > gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like did. Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable climatic conditions prevail?
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 27 Feb 2010 11:43
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 27, 1:07�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >> >> > On Feb 26, 11:13 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 12:20 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >> >> > Very few canonical texts were written by their "authors," so >> >> > again I don't know what you're talking about. (Look up >> >> > Pseudepigrapha in a Bible dictionary.) >> >> >> But all canonical texts were written by their authors. Again, I'm >> >> not >> >> > No one knows who the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, >> > some of the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and (at least) 2 >> > Peter are. That's whey they're called pseudepigraphical. >> >> But it's a pretty good bet that they had authors. �And while nobody > > Quite a few textual scholars would contest that assertion. the best > we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits > of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written. So for you someone who takes "existing bits of (oral) tradition" and writes a document based on them isn't an "author" but merely a "redactor"? >> knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad >> consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, >> they were the same person. > > Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text. So now it's okay to trust what the text says? Then if another document comes to light that says in the text that it's written by the same author it should be a slam dunk. >> >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that >> >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same >> >> author (whoever that might have been). And that at least most of the >> >> Pauline epistles were considered to have been written by the same >> >> person (who was believed to actually be St. Paul). What I'm talking >> >> about is another letter asserted to be by Paul and enough in the style >> >> of the others that Christian scholars believed it. Or a version of >> >> Acts determined to be by the author of John. Or a "Second Acts" by >> >> the guy who wrote Luke. >> >> > If something like that ever turns up, it will be appropriately >> > assessed. >> >> And, I would have thought, if so determined, probably added to the >> canon. �The one you called "finalized" and for which "no option exists >> within Christianity for adding to" it. > > Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are. Something like, "From now on, this book will be considered part of the canon"? >> > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in >> > novels. >> >> Not likely at all. >> >> > (The most common example being the Q document.) >> >> Someone's found a manuscript of Q? �When did that happen? �As far as I >> knew it was hypothetical, inferred from the contents of Matthew and >> Luke. > > There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to > it yet? Sorry. I misread you as having been asserting that Q was an example of a document having been found. > >> >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying >> >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but >> >> it has less status than the others because we didn't know about >> >> it seventeen hundred years ago." >> >> > And how, exactly, would such a document suddenly come to light? >> >> Probably the same way all of the late-discovered non-canonical >> gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like did. > > Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable > climatic conditions prevail? It doesn't matter where he was writing to. What matters is that the letter (or a copy of it) found its way to such a place before all known copies disappeared. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |