The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Feb 2010 02:24 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:15:15 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hmd4vq$9nr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Roland Hutchinson wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:21:36 -0800, Mensanator wrote: >>> On Feb 26, 12:33 pm, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:00:40 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote: >>>>> Adam Funk wrote: >>>>>> On 2010-02-24, 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..." >>>>>> The initialized state of my shopping basket contains >>>>>> 0 items. Each item I put in increments it. If I >>>>>> initialized at 1, my shopping would crash with a >>>>>> 1-off error on unpacking. >>>>> If your shopping basket had been designed by a C >>>>> programmer, its initial state would be the state just >>>>> before the zeroth item was inserted. That suggests >>>>> that initially the basket contains -1 items. >>>> "So I said to him, 'Moore, have you less than no apples >>>> in that basket?"..." >>> False, of course. >> Hard to tell definitively without empirical observation. >> Let's toss an apple in and see if any remain in the >> basket after we don't take any more out. > If the basket contained a (large) unknown negative number > of apples this method could be quite expensive. I propose > to weigh the basket, then tip the negative apples out of > the basket and weigh it again. Calculate the difference > and divide it by an average weight of an apple. This > method works reasonably well unless the basket also > contains some negative watermelons. In which case it's long since achieved escape velocity and is no longer our problem. Brian
From: sjdevnull on 28 Feb 2010 02:57 On Feb 27, 3:48 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 9:57 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 2:29 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 12:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 9:04 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". > > > > > > Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene > > > > > Creed. > > > > > That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to > > > > It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent > > > of the original statement. > > > No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your > > original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the > > Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" That's clearly > > Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent > was. Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. With an ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed statements in this thread and others, and altered them. In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. I have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an idiosyncrasy of mine). > (I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of > conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one > parish in the city that had dispensation from Rome to say Mass in > Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about > such questions.) Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist).
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 03:28 Robert Bannister wrote: > Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On 23 Feb 2010 17:41:22 -0800, R H Draney >> <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote in >> <news:hm204201q19(a)drn.newsguy.com> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> Robert Bannister filted: >> >>>> The eternal rift between morning and evening people. I >>>> get very ratty when politicians force me to get up in >>>> the dark more often than need be, whereas I think >>>> dinner is best eaten when it is dark outside. >> >>> Quite right...I had breakfast yesterday at noon, and >>> dinner at midnight....r >> >> That sounds about right, though my dinner might well be >> later than that. > > This reminds me of difficulties I had in reading some Russian novels: > "breakfast" was 2-4 pm, supper at midnight and dinner in the early hours > of the morning. Do all the Russian novel characters you know lead life of Goncharov's Oblomov? :-) pjk
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 03:33 Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:39 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > <news:hmd328$27q$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > [...] > >>> What does Korsakov indicate? > >> To me, it doesn't immediately indicate anything obvious. > > It's from <корсак> 'steppe fox'. Thanks, I didn't know that. Neither did my pocket Russian dictionary. pjk > > [...] > > Brian
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 03:39
Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:15:15 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > <news:hmd4vq$9nr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Roland Hutchinson wrote: > >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:21:36 -0800, Mensanator wrote: > >>>> On Feb 26, 12:33 pm, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:00:40 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote: >>>>>> Adam Funk wrote: >>>>>>> On 2010-02-24, 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..." > >>>>>>> The initialized state of my shopping basket contains >>>>>>> 0 items. Each item I put in increments it. If I >>>>>>> initialized at 1, my shopping would crash with a >>>>>>> 1-off error on unpacking. > >>>>>> If your shopping basket had been designed by a C >>>>>> programmer, its initial state would be the state just >>>>>> before the zeroth item was inserted. That suggests >>>>>> that initially the basket contains -1 items. > >>>>> "So I said to him, 'Moore, have you less than no apples >>>>> in that basket?"..." > >>>> False, of course. > >>> Hard to tell definitively without empirical observation. >>> Let's toss an apple in and see if any remain in the >>> basket after we don't take any more out. > >> If the basket contained a (large) unknown negative number >> of apples this method could be quite expensive. I propose >> to weigh the basket, then tip the negative apples out of >> the basket and weigh it again. Calculate the difference >> and divide it by an average weight of an apple. This >> method works reasonably well unless the basket also >> contains some negative watermelons. > > In which case it's long since achieved escape velocity and > is no longer our problem. Hah! Objects with negative weight do not need escape velocity to escape to space. They can ascend slowly with impressive majestic grace. pjk > > Brian |