The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 03:01 James Silverton wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:37:01 -0500: > >> Peter Moylan wrote: >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> James Silverton wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't >>>> remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs. >>> >>> I've never used Fortran 77, but I don't see how that would >>> cause bugs. If the array bounds have to be declared, the >>> compiler can insert checks for subscripts being out of >>> bounds, and in fact that is what is done in most of the >>> modern programming languages I know something about. > >> Those checks are usually done at compile time, not runtime. Your >> FORTRAN example implies that indexing doesn't have to be an integer. >> That's what I was thinking about when I made the >> statement about "had to cause bugs". Someday I should reread the 77 >> standard again. > > The REAL statement refers to the contents of the array, You could also > have, say, > > INTEGER (-33:33) :: A. > > I believe Fortran90 allows non integer indices Algol 60, i.e. thirty years before Fortan90, allowed general expressions in array declarations, e.g. real array A(i*2 : fcall(p,3)); It wasn't particularly difficult to compile, since all code to compile general arithmetical expressions was already there. The expression (i*2) and the function call (fcall(p,3)) had to be evaluated at run time but that wasn't difficult either. The whole array declaration was evaluated at run time as if it were a function call which resulted in an area of memory being reserved on the top of the stack by pointing the top of the stack pointer beyond it. pjk > but how they worked, I > don't know, since I only scanned a book on that. I had been using C and > C++ for a while then. Fortran compilers did not check for "out of > bounds" errors as far as I remember.
From: Nick on 2 Mar 2010 03:04 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > Then where are you posting from? You're the persistent Google groups user IIRC. Look it up, or don't care. Actually, of course, it's "somewhere in England". > >> > Don't you know the difference between converses and inverses versus >> > contrapositives? >> >> No I don't. > > It's very simple. Given the statement "If A, then B," there is only > one valid inference: "If not B, then not A." The inferences "If not A, > then not B" and "If B, then A" are not valid. > > For instance: > > If "state" means 'nation-state', then it has some sort of > qualification. > > If "state" doesn't have some sort of qualification, then it doesn't > mean 'nation-state'. > > But not > > If "state" doesn't mean 'nation-state', then it doesn't have some sort > of qualification. > > and not > > If "state" has some sort of qualification, then it means 'nation- > state'. > > (And, of course, I didn't say "never"; I said "not useful.") > >> I don't know why I'm doing this either. But let's try again. >> >> In the world according to you, "state" means a state of the US >> because that's what state always means when used by an American. Unless > > Where did I say "always"? > >> it's qualified. When it's qualified by "rogue" or "failed" then it >> means a country, but when it's qualified by "Pacific" it goes back to >> meaning a part of the US. >> >> So what rule applies? Is a "govinde state" part of the US or not? And >> how on earth are the rest of us meant to know? > > Why do you think there is a single "rule" that applies? Because you said there was. First you said words to the effect that "state means part of the US", then you changed that "not when qualified it doesn't". > I've no idea what a "govinde state" is, if such a thing exists. So how do you know whether it's a "US-type" or a "nation-type" state? And if you don't, how can you make such absolute statements about what "state" means in the mouth of a speaker of US English? Face it, you made another gross generalisation. Just for once, accept it and move on. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 03:25 Adam Funk wrote: > On 2010-03-01, Hatunen wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:16:10 +1300, "PaulJK" >> <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >>> Hatunen wrote: > >>>> When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" >>>> or "F". >>> >>> Don't forget "R" and "K" ! >> >> I, for one, make very few posts requiring either. > > I don't think I've every seen an R or K thermometer (except in > books). Still, that shouldn't stop you from mentioning temperatures in Kelvins or Réaumurs. :-) BTW, when I was growing up in my old family's home we had a room thermometer with a C scale on one side and R scale on the other. When I asked my mum what was the R scale for, she said: "Oh, they are some Reomírs, don't worry about them." pjk
From: Lewis on 2 Mar 2010 04:38 On 28-Feb-10 18:07, Peter Moylan wrote: > Nick wrote: >> Peter Moylan<gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > >>> At my confirmation my fingers definitely were crossed. In addition, I >>> was muttering under my breath "a promise made under duress is not >>> legally binding". >>> >>> Nobody asked me whether I wanted to be baptised or confirmed, and in any >>> case I was too young to make an informed decision. Especially in the >>> case of the baptism. >> >> Seems a bit pointless to me. You might as well go through it >> wholeheartedly. After all, if it's rubbish then it's harmless - and if >> it's not you probably wanted to do it. > > And if I picked the wrong god? I can think of at least one god who is > hostile towards those who worship a different god. Aren't they all this way? Brings to mind a quote from the sig file, attached as my sig. -- BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, an dangerous if you don't believe in them! HENRY: Why can't all these God just get along? I mean, they're omni- potent and omnipresent, what's the problem?
From: Peter Moylan on 2 Mar 2010 05:01
Lewis wrote: > On 28-Feb-10 18:40, Peter Moylan wrote: >> The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times >> as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. > > My first computer had a 1MHz processor. My current machine has a 4 core > processor running at 2Ghz. 8 *thousand* times faster. Sorry, my calculation error. I was better at working out orders of magnitude back in the slide rule days. Of course, software bloat has mucked around with my intuition. Everything seems to run a bit more slowly than it did on the 1 MHz processor. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. |