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: Skitt on 28 Feb 2010 16:59 Hatunen wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >> I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're >> baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then >> you're a Christian. > > There are those who claim so. Just to provide some data -- I was so baptized (at the age of 16), but it didn't make me a Christian, at least, not in my beliefs. I mean, even if I do or say certain things, maybe my fingers are crossed behind my back. <g> -- Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU) "The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Feb 2010 17:10 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. The reason you get so many "array overrun" errors in C - it seems to be the means most used by hackers to break system security - is not the confusing "count from zero" convention, but the fact that the language doesn't really have the concept of "array". Instead, it has a kludge that lets you write pointer arithmetic in a way that looks like array subscripting notation. As a result, the language specification more or less explicitly prohibits compilers from inserting checks for subscript errors. Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, such an error will make itself evident the first time you run the program, when you run off the end of the array; and the exception information will quickly lead you to the cause of the crash. It's safe to declare subscript ranges in any way that is natural to the application, as long as the generated code includes range checks. The main thing that makes C so unsuitable for real-world applications is the paucity of run-time checks. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Feb 2010 17:15 Robert Bannister wrote: > 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... To the best of my knowledge, my dream subsystem doesn't delete the dirty pictures. They still turn up in subsequent dreams. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 17:22 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >There's no such thing as "a Catechism." When I was little, the few >Catholics I knew had to memorize something called "the Baltimore >Catechism," which had no parallel whatsoever in either my Presbyterian >church or my Episcopal school. The term may not have been explicitly used, but see http://www.pcusa.org/catech/studycat.htm and http://anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html >The Baltimore Catechism, however, was >rendered obsolete by Vatican II. I don't know what "a Catechism" would >be, fifty years later. Hm. See http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Google reveals many, many more pointers to - catholic catechism - -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Feb 2010 17:26
Skitt wrote: > Hatunen wrote: >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: > >>> I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're >>> baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then >>> you're a Christian. >> >> There are those who claim so. > > Just to provide some data -- I was so baptized (at the age of 16), but > it didn't make me a Christian, at least, not in my beliefs. I mean, > even if I do or say certain things, maybe my fingers are crossed behind > my back. <g> > 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. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. |