The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Feb 2010 09:01 Robert Bannister wrote: > DKleinecke wrote: >> On Feb 26, 5:12 pm, Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 26, 6:08 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> 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. >>> My subconscience was not, in fact, >>> dreaming up useful ideas. I wasn't missing anything by not writing >>> them down. >> >> I generally put myself to sleep by working on one or another kind of >> intellectual task - writing a paper or solving a problem. I find it >> very soporific. >> >> While I am dozing off I will jerk back from my line of thought to >> something resembling a waking state and generally discover that I have >> instantly forgotten the chain of thought. The relatively few times I >> do remember something have convinced me I have lost nothing >> worthwhile. My subconscious or whatever is guiding me deals, it seems, >> entirely in nonsense. > > My first computer at the beginning of the 80s used to spend up to 4 > minutes "cleaning up" every couple of days. I figure that is what dreams > are about: wiping unused variables, erasing unnecessary data, having one > last check before erasure on the dirty pictures... Or switching connections so you get (or not get) a reality check. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Feb 2010 09:05 James Silverton wrote: > 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. > Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs. /BAH
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 08:59 On Feb 28, 1:30 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government > official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? I'm observing that over here, birth certificates are done in the hospital (presumably for home etc. births there are equivalent provisions) and signed by witnesses on the spot, not a week later. What about folks who didn't get baptized?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 09:05 On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > >>> Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? > > >> Ignoring the various pay, satellite, and cable channels, there > >> are about twelve free-to-air locally broadcast channels. > >> One of the free-to-air channels (Prime) broadcasts Winter > >> Olympics every day nonstop from 5:30am to 6:30pm. Looking > >> at today's Friday schedule, apart from the half-hour WO news > >> at 5:30am and Cross Country skiing at 10:30-11:30am all the > >> events are live. > > >> If by "same coverage" you mean "identical programming" then > >> the answer is no. All commentators are either New Zealanders > >> or people who are aware of commenting for the downunder > >> or specifically kiwi audience. Now and then they interrupt > >> the program to switch to another competition to show > >> a kiwi athlete, who would we normally not see, perform > >> their shtick and then switch back. > > > Eh? You take "Pacific states" -- in the context of time zones -- to > > include New Zealand?? > > Whoops, sorry, I didn't realise that by "Pacific states" you meant > "US Pacific states". We very, very, very rarely use "state" to mean 'independent nation'.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 09:10
On Feb 28, 2:20 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > <news:d71436df-5a65-4a7a-9949-8653dd7bf080(a)f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > >> <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > >> in > >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >>> On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> [...] > >>>> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an > >>>> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to > >>>> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not > >>>> really much left to discuss.- > >>> Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have > >>> no special handle on truth, especially as concerns > >>> technical terminology. > >> But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a > >> technical term. > > When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what > > constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. > > It never does. Individual brands of Christianity can have > official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but > since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that > Christians in general have an official definition of what > constitutes a Christian is patently absurd. Where did I say "Christians in general"? Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to be mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that unquantified nouns have only universal reference, as opposed to the normal interpretation that the omitted quantifier is an existential? |