On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:08:17 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:45:49 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:27:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them,
> > > even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life.
> >
> > Transactional morality (also called: “Contractarianism”) is one of the more
> > pragmatic versions of ethical behavior. It goes like this: we agree not to kill
> > each other, so you are safe and I am safe. But also: you pay taxes, so you got
> > roads and they're maintained. It's not much about "caring", it's just agreeing on
> > some rules which benefit you and me.
> My goodness you get things a bit wrong don't you. That's not even the right category.
Well, there are a lot of college freshmen who can disagree with you on that.. It's an
accepted school of ethics. But you're free to categorize it anywhere else. Just be
sure to give some argumentation why you classified it these, based on the characteristics
of that particular school. Kantian, Utilitarianism, Platonian - do your best.

> One does other people well who are not being right, and even though one does
> what is right responsibly and well, the uncaring are just rude enough not to do
> well at all and not do the minimum. It's about responsibility to do right in your
> actions and care, which you could learn.
Sounds like Platonian, maybe Kantian. As far as the latter goes, even his peers
found it problematic.

> If the person with the less need and more irresponsibility can not respect and
> do the minimum for the person with greatest need and responsibility and care,
> the person is a disrespectful jack ass.
Nietzsche would tend to disagree with that.

> You clinical analysis based on reduced knowledge,
All knowledge is reduced knowledge. The world is too complex to comprehend for
the human brain without generalization and abstraction. I guess you know your house
very well. Now try to remember it with photographic precision. You can't. Very few
people can. That's how the brain of mere mortals works.

> and therefore reduced accommodation not actual real aspects, is wrong as usual.
That's debatable. Although there are many distorting factors, I can calculate with
a certain precision what the terminal velocity is of a coin dropped from a sky
scraper. That's the power of abstraction and condensation of natural phenomena
into natural laws.

> I don't really expect you to get everything right here,bit at least not to stop limit
> yourself from getting things right, and interfering with others and trying to stop
> them from being right. It's irresponsible.
"Right" according to which standards? There is no such thing as natural right. Try Hume
for that one: "You can derive an 'ought' from an 'is". And yes, everyone trying has failed.
Hume rulez.

> Here's a challenging well documented case. You would have to watch the whole video,
> and the whole series to pick up the account. The Mexican health department was
> documenting this from memory
Ok, let's make one thing VERY clear. YouTube and Facebook are NOT recognized
scientific publications or publication channels. Some posting there give academic
references in the form of a list of DOI numbers. If you don't know what DOI is, you're
not debating material. If you think it's inaccessible, try Sci Hub.

So, clean up your act, come up with valid references and we'll cover those topics
again. It's very naive to take YouTube and Facebook serious. "Don't believe everything
the paper writes" has always been good advise - and applies here as well.

> How is a male defined? I actually know a guy with an extra y.
Simple: every living person that is not a woman. XYY or Klinefelter syndrome have no
effect on the original definition - or this one. Try it.

> How ridiculous. You basically have a dogmatic ethical system based on academia,
> which has mainly argued against over things and use itself as authority. But, you
> miss that, and can't see it. You also willfully missed many proofs, trying to smoother
> them with the wrong stuff. It's like a dogma cult.
You don't actually know what a "dogma" is, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't have made
this error.

> Just because one has a philosophy or publishes, or is an academic, it does not prove
> one is right, and that includes rules of engagement. There has been a whole history of
> pushing false academic beliefs.
If you would have know ANYTHING about science philosophy, you wouldn't have made
this error. Science doesn't do truth. It's always about likelihoods. "As far as we know now"
is a sentence you often find in popular publications. It expresses the margin of error that
is always present in knowing ANYTHING. There is even an entire science of "knowing"
called "epistemology".

However, science is the only movement that has derived an entire framework to minimize
errors in judgement. Like "how much of a phenomenon or an observation is explained by
a theory", "can the question asked be proven wrong", "can it be replicated", etc. etc.

It has been developed and perfected by trial and error over millennia. But - like any other
system - it can fail. First and foremost - because people have to execute it. And people are
far from flawless.

So - cherry picking examples is not quite the way to go. That's a VERY weak argument. Try
some simple statistics. Science brought us to the moon, improved our principles of farming
an make this remote debate possible. No other movement did that. If it were up to religion
we'd still be in the Middle Ages.

> The stupid just assume it's true, the wise see there is something wrong, question what is
> right, and live by what is right.
Yes, yes, yes and no. The stupid believe YouTube and Facebook, the smart cross-check and
validate it, compose alternative explanations (and often - discard them on scientific grounds
or make a scientific break through - like Einstein) and KNOW that Hume was right - because
after so many centuries nobody has been able to defeat him in a way that can uphold
scientific scrutiny.

And then a lot off babbling that has been put to rest in Greek times - whatever you feel is
INVALID. Thinking that you're smart doesn't make you smart. Doing what you feel doesn't
bring you any closer to the "truth" - however you define it.

There are solid ways to do those things. And you won't find them with quacks, gurus or
other charlatans.

> Hans Bezemer a lot of misapplied stuff I' have deleted. Trying to reason with you has
> proven a waste of time.
I can imagine. Since you don't reason. It's all vague, incoherent gibberish..

> You don't listen to broader knowledge but hide yourself in other's opinions trying to
> strike people from there. Very uncool. Take the ego away. If you have a wife and kids,
> go ask them.
If you don't agree with ANYTHING I say, do the work, write a paper, get it accepted in the
scientific community and I'll listen. If you don't - and even fail to produce ANYTHING that
remotely resembles a valid (I don't mention sound) argument - you get called out for it.
I'm my wifes favorite nerd.

Hans Bezemer

On 15/09/2022 6:58 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:02:44 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 15/09/2022 10:30 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>>> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
>>>> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Hans Bezemer
>>>
>>> That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.
>> What was the plan again? Ah, raising Forth from the dead. Good that you've
>> started with something small.
>
> You are not very happy lately! You can do something yourself, every little bit helps? Expanding forth is a side benefit to you. As I've said, promoting reverse polish notation stack based processing. If you bothered to read it. You could use the language Joy if you want.

Nice try. Reflecting your needs and wants upon others may work on newcomers.
But it would only be the blind leading the blind.

On 15/09/2022 9:05 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:08:17 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
>> If the person with the less need and more irresponsibility can not respect and
>> do the minimum for the person with greatest need and responsibility and care,
>> the person is a disrespectful jack ass.
>
> Nietzsche would tend to disagree with that.

Lost track of the number of times I've heard politicians say they'd earn more in
the private sector. I wish them well :)

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:15:40 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 6:58 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:02:44 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 15/09/2022 10:30 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>>>> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> >>>> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hans Bezemer
> >>>
> >>> That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.
> >> What was the plan again? Ah, raising Forth from the dead. Good that you've
> >> started with something small.
> >
> > You are not very happy lately! You can do something yourself, every little bit helps? Expanding forth is a side benefit to you. As I've said, promoting reverse polish notation stack based processing. If you bothered to read it. You could use the language Joy if you want.
> Nice try. Reflecting your needs and wants upon others may work on newcomers.
> But it would only be the blind leading the blind.

Why is everybody going mad around here. You are acting up. You are welcome to do so ething yourself rather than criticise, and it's not my wants or needs. You made a wrong jive and I pointed it out, now you are diverting. You don't seem to have much Joy, lately. Am I supposed to be blind. Your reply to Hans..

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:12:59 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:30:56 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> > > I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
> > >
> > > Hans Bezemer
> > That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss.
> If you think that's an attack, you've never seen me attacking. This is just a friendly debate.

That might explain the issue.

> > And don't really think very well.
> Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

Just facts. Adults don't have to bring up and feed past mistakes. You should know by the conceits you are taught. So, you have no weight here. None before pointed out, dues not add to any now, or none to the one who pointed it out. When you get to a higher level you can see it. When I was really sick and couldn't read, I subconsciously picked up you were doing this.

> > You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality.
> Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

In denial. An mature moralist can correctly examine themselves and their actions.

> > It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please.
> Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

In denial..

> > There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid.
> Obviously you don't know it, otherwise you would have used it.

I don't know if I have ever called anybody a recalcitrant.

> > You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on.
> Unfounded. Contradiction without any arguments. Low score on "Grahams triangle of disagreement".

Denial.

> > Get with the plan, or get please.
> Which plan? Your "plan"? I don't think so.

It's not your topic or thread. So if you don't want to, please go. That was obvious from the beginning.

>
> Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:05:52 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:08:17 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 11:45:49 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:27:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > Being dysfunctional in the caring department, it's not reciprocal from them,
> > > > even though I am careful to do the right thing and not to stuff up my life.
> > >
> > > Transactional morality (also called: “Contractarianism”) is one of the more
> > > pragmatic versions of ethical behavior. It goes like this: we agree not to kill
> > > each other, so you are safe and I am safe. But also: you pay taxes, so you got
> > > roads and they're maintained. It's not much about "caring", it's just agreeing on
> > > some rules which benefit you and me.
> > My goodness you get things a bit wrong don't you. That's not even the right category.
> Well, there are a lot of college freshmen who can disagree with you on that. It's an
> accepted school of ethics. But you're free to categorize it anywhere else.. Just be
> sure to give some argumentation why you classified it these, based on the characteristics
> of that particular school. Kantian, Utilitarianism, Platonian - do your best.
> > One does other people well who are not being right, and even though one does
> > what is right responsibly and well, the uncaring are just rude enough not to do
> > well at all and not do the minimum. It's about responsibility to do right in your
> > actions and care, which you could learn.
> Sounds like Platonian, maybe Kantian. As far as the latter goes, even his peers
> found it problematic.

My goodness blind leading the blind. If you blindly believe men, without thinking about it, you are bound to pickup their mistakes and even increase the mistakes.

> > If the person with the less need and more irresponsibility can not respect and
> > do the minimum for the person with greatest need and responsibility and care,
> > the person is a disrespectful jack ass.
> Nietzsche would tend to disagree with that.

Exactly, how much do you know about the final part of his life, when he woke up to it all being a fake, hugged a horse, but his sister kept the deception going. There were some deep issues going on there.

> > You clinical analysis based on reduced knowledge,
> All knowledge is reduced knowledge. The world is too complex to comprehend for
> the human brain without generalization and abstraction. I guess you know your house
> very well. Now try to remember it with photographic precision. You can't. Very few
> people can. That's how the brain of mere mortals works.

I can see you doing this.

> > and therefore reduced accommodation not actual real aspects, is wrong as usual.
> That's debatable. Although there are many distorting factors, I can calculate with
> a certain precision what the terminal velocity is of a coin dropped from a sky
> scraper. That's the power of abstraction and condensation of natural phenomena
> into natural laws.

Good grief, that not much at all, unless you don't know about acceleration and terminal velocity, even then it's not much, it's just a calculation based on variables. Do you go around doing this to people? Unfortunately I'm knocked out, so going have to finish up.

The rest is ego intelligence striking again, but of no substance. Closed minded, disregarding observing facts to a significant degree. Gullibily believing one set of delusions over reality.

I apologise for getting the xy chromosome definitions reversed, brain damage again. But the point was that males have x and y, I think. Crashing her.

However, the digms thing is right:

From ba quick ddg search
"A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion.
A principle or statement of ideas, or a group of such principles or statements, especially when considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically.
A settled opinion; a principle, maxim, or tenet held as being firmly established."

That sounds like what you have been doing.

You divert my use of the term philosophy, as Science Philosophy instead . Was that deliberate? Even then, you have forgotten that basic number maths has definite functioning, that 1+1=2.

> > I don't really expect you to get everything right here,bit at least not to stop limit
> > yourself from getting things right, and interfering with others and trying to stop
> > them from being right. It's irresponsible.

> > How ridiculous. You basically have a dogmatic ethical system based on academia,
> > which has mainly argued against over things and use itself as authority.. But, you
> > miss that, and can't see it. You also willfully missed many proofs, trying to smoother
> > them with the wrong stuff. It's like a dogma cult.

> > Just because one has a philosophy or publishes, or is an academic, it does not prove
> > one is right, and that includes rules of engagement. There has been a whole history of
> > pushing false academic beliefs.

> > Hans Bezemer a lot of misapplied stuff I' have deleted. Trying to reason with you has
> > proven a waste of time.

> > You don't listen to broader knowledge but hide yourself in other's opinions trying to
> > strike people from there. Very uncool. Take the ego away. If you have a wife and kids,
> > go ask them.

Ask them for the honest truth mate!

On 15/09/2022 11:57 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:15:40 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 15/09/2022 6:58 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>
>>> You are not very happy lately! You can do something yourself, every little bit helps? Expanding forth is a side benefit to you. As I've said, promoting reverse polish notation stack based processing. If you bothered to read it. You could use the language Joy if you want.
>> Nice try. Reflecting your needs and wants upon others may work on newcomers.
>> But it would only be the blind leading the blind.
>
> Why is everybody going mad around here. You are acting up. You are welcome to do so ething yourself rather than criticise, and it's not my wants or needs. You made a wrong jive and I pointed it out, now you are diverting. You don't seem to have much Joy, lately. Am I supposed to be blind. Your reply to Hans..

Expanding forth, promoting RPN and using JOY isn't my need. If it's no longer yours,
you may end this thread and mark it closed.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:59:41 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Sounds like Platonian, maybe Kantian. As far as the latter goes, even his peers
> > found it problematic.
> My goodness blind leading the blind. If you blindly believe men, without thinking
> about it, you are bound to pickup their mistakes and even increase the mistakes.
Where did I state I either a Kantian or Platonian? Nowhere. I just accessed your
"ethical principles" and tried to place them in some category. Not that you gave me
much to work with.

> > Nietzsche would tend to disagree with that.
> Exactly, how much do you know about the final part of his life, when he woke up to
> it all being a fake, hugged a horse, but his sister kept the deception going. There
> were some deep issues going on there.
Smart people subscribe to ideas. Dumb ones to prophets. You obviously subscribe
to be classified to be in the latter ones, since you commit a logical fallacy.

> Good grief, that not much at all, unless you don't know about acceleration and
> terminal velocity, even then it's not much, it's just a calculation based on variables.
> Do you go around doing this to people? Unfortunately I'm knocked out, so going
> have to finish up.
I don't say it's much - it is merely a very simple example of how generalized and
abstracted knowledge is condensed - "reduced" in your words.

> The rest is ego intelligence striking again, but of no substance. Closed minded,
> disregarding observing facts to a significant degree. Gullibily believing one set
> of delusions over reality.
I'm not close minded - it's you failing to come up with the goods.

> "A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and
> faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion.
> A principle or statement of ideas, or a group of such principles or statements,
> especially when considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically.
> A settled opinion; a principle, maxim, or tenet held as being firmly established."
Exactly. It's a set of rules, principles or statements that are placed outside the
realm of discussion, since they are critical to whatever they apply to.
"Articles of creed" are a good example. If you don't agree to that you cannot be
a good Catholic. The same goes for the works of Marx for communists - or the
basic concepts of wokism.

If you state such a thing without any reference or proper justification, you're by
very definition "dogmatic".

> That sounds like what you have been doing.
Not really. There is proper scientific justification for those ones. I don't have to
invent every single thing myself.

> You divert my use of the term philosophy, as Science Philosophy instead . Was that
> deliberate? Even then, you have forgotten that basic number maths has definite
> functioning, that 1+1=2.
There are many branches and schools of philosophy. "Continental" and "Analytic" come
to mind. Science Philosophy is just one of the specializations of philosophy - which
concerns itself with the scientific method. Russell, Popper are a few of the big names
in that area. It's not "disconnected" with the vast body of philosophy if you think so.

> Ask them for the honest truth mate!
You want to imply my wife is lying?

Hans Bezemer

My appologies folks. Plenty of blind sick logic meltdowns and misdirection. But this is not a half way house. It's a charity. I appreciate all the constructive people, but not those that constantly mistake but don't apologise, in monstrosity. Have you noticed, I'm about the only one apologizing for genuine mistakes, but others make many mistakes but do not? Thats worth noting. I don't know if it's defined as border line personality disorder or sociopathic, but it's hardly sane (incidentally it's usually just people with mental issues that give me problems in real life, who have problems rationalising their minds in order to feel and think properly. Even as a small child, I did nothing, said hardly anything, but was always a target of sociopathic bullies. Anybody you see acting in that way, you should not trust.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:08:52 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 11:57 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:15:40 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 15/09/2022 6:58 pm.

> Expanding forth, promoting RPN and using JOY isn't my need. If it's no longer yours,
> you may end this thread and mark it closed.

It's not your business, nor being here. What you said is most dubious.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:20:39 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hans Bezemer

What ever you just trted to waste my time with, is likely irrelevant.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:21:26 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> but others make many mistakes but do not?
You're not even remotely capable of setting up a coherent discourse in order
to prove someone wrong.

Hans Bezemer

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:32:25 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:21:26 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > but others make many mistakes but do not?
> You're not even remotely capable of setting up a coherent discourse in order
> to prove someone wrong.
>
> Hans Bezemer

I did, but you are not remotely able to even recognise how wrong you are.

One word keeps coming to mind, out of shock, reading what's wrong with your attempts at reasoning, it starts with i and it's not about me, and it can go down each paragraph. That should give you an idea. Now, stop with your behaviour and go away.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:02:29 AM UTC+10, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:32:25 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:21:26 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > but others make many mistakes but do not?
> > You're not even remotely capable of setting up a coherent discourse in order
> > to prove someone wrong.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
> I did, but you are not remotely able to even recognise how wrong you are.
>
> One word keeps coming to mind, out of shock, reading what's wrong with your attempts at reasoning, it starts with i and it's not about me, and it can go down each paragraph. That should give you an idea. Now, stop with your behaviour and go away.

Please.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 1:05:52 PM UTC+2, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]
> Although there are many distorting factors, I can calculate with
> a certain precision what the terminal velocity is of a coin dropped from a sky
> scraper.

If hurled off a skyscraper, pennies achieve their terminal velocity after only
about 50 feet (15 meters) of descent. After that point, they flutter to the
ground at a measly 25 mph.

-marcel

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:02:29 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> I did, but you are not remotely able to even recognise how wrong you are.
Again - no arguments, only statements.
> One word keeps coming to mind, out of shock, reading what's wrong with
> your attempts at reasoning.
Well, point them out. According to the rules of logic. Define your premises
- either agreed upon or sufficiently proven - and makes the proper deductions.

I'm eagerly waiting - it would be a first, though.

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:26:35 PM UTC+2, Marcel Hendrix wrote:
> If hurled off a skyscraper, pennies achieve their terminal velocity after only
> about 50 feet (15 meters) of descent. After that point, they flutter to the
> ground at a measly 25 mph.
I know. For a penny you can get away with a pretty simple equation, since it
experiences a negligible drag force.

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:04:40 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Please.
Shall we call it a draw?

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, dxforth wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 10:30 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> >> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
> >>
> >> Hans Bezemer
> >
> > That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.
> What was the plan again? Ah, raising Forth from the dead. Good that you've
> started with something small.

LOL The eternal optimist, as usual.

--

Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

In article <81c65e21-60a4-41b8-9b07-85fba28592d4n@googlegroups.com>,
the.beez.speaks@gmail.com says...
>
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:08:16 AM UTC+2, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> > In article <c9f97ad2-7a76-4e01...@googlegroups.com>,
> > the.bee...@gmail.com says...
> > >
> > > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what
> > it, what ever
> > > > the eye of the observer is.
> > > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > > the radix.
> > >
> > Small point - is anyone aware of base '1' notation?
> Yes - and it doesn't work for two reasons:
> - first, the radix figure is NEVER part of the allowed figure set of that radix; 2 isn't part of binary (only 0 and 1),
> 8 isn't part of octal (0-7), A isn't part of decimal (0-9);
> - second, the radix is always expressed as 10 under that radix (10 is 2 in binary, 8 in octal, 10 in decimal and 16 in hex).
>
> So, radix 1 cannot contain a 1, only a zero. But it makes it also impossible to express 10 for
> obvious reasons.
>
> Radix 1? I don't think so.
>
> Hans Bezemer

I was thinking more along the lines of how arithmetic values are
sometimes represented in the simple Turing machine model. Yes, in
the abstract base '1' would use strings of zeros, but for the
Turing tape zeros are blanks and ones are the marks.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:05:51 AM UTC+2, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> I was thinking more along the lines of how arithmetic values are
> sometimes represented in the simple Turing machine model. Yes, in
> the abstract base '1' would use strings of zeros, but for the
> Turing tape zeros are blanks and ones are the marks.
You're saying it correctly - STRINGS of zeros.

Since for obvious reasons, any set of zeroes collapses to zero. Or:

In binary:
x*2^0 + y*2^1 + z*2^2..

Which means that 101 = 1*2^0 + 0*2^1 + 1*2^2 = 5

In decimal:

x*10^0 + y*10^1 + z*10^2..

So "5" = 5*10^0

In base 1:
x*1^0 + y*1^1 + z*1^2..

Which nicely comes out as 1+1+1..

However 00000 becomes:

0*1^0 + 0* 1^1 + 0*1^2 + 0* 1^3 + 0*1^4

Which amounts to zero. QED.

Hans Bezemer

In article <4d03cde0-4a77-42f6-9d4f-7432f2aafa93n@googlegroups.com>,
Marcel Hendrix <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 1:05:52 PM UTC+2, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>[..]
>> Although there are many distorting factors, I can calculate with
>> a certain precision what the terminal velocity is of a coin dropped from a sky
>> scraper.
>
>If hurled off a skyscraper, pennies achieve their terminal velocity after only
>about 50 feet (15 meters) of descent. After that point, they flutter to the
>ground at a measly 25 mph.

meter per hour ?

My calculation is at most 17 m/s (if the assumption of a terminal velocity
after 15 m is right.)

Even dropping a canon ball from 300 m, you can't ignore drag.

>
>-marcel

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:23:04 PM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
> Even dropping a canon ball from 300 m, you can't ignore drag.
True - that one is 0.5. A coin is a bit of a problem, since it has several sides.
I'm not enough of a physicist to determine whether a coin would tumble,
drop face down or go face down.

But this page may help: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/drag-coefficient-d_627.html

Terminal velocity is just: SQRT(2mg/CdA), where:

g = gravitational constant
m = mass
C = drag coefficient
d = medium density
A = area

Hans Bezemer

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:05:51 PM UTC+10, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> In article <81c65e21-60a4-41b8...@googlegroups.com>,
> the.bee...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 9:08:16 AM UTC+2, Fred J. Scipione wrote:
> > > In article <c9f97ad2-7a76-4e01...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > the.bee...@gmail.com says...
> > > >
> > > > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what
> > > it, what ever
> > > > > the eye of the observer is.
> > > > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > > > the radix.
> > > >
> > > Small point - is anyone aware of base '1' notation?
> > Yes - and it doesn't work for two reasons:
> > - first, the radix figure is NEVER part of the allowed figure set of that radix; 2 isn't part of binary (only 0 and 1),
> > 8 isn't part of octal (0-7), A isn't part of decimal (0-9);
> > - second, the radix is always expressed as 10 under that radix (10 is 2 in binary, 8 in octal, 10 in decimal and 16 in hex).
> >
> > So, radix 1 cannot contain a 1, only a zero. But it makes it also impossible to express 10 for
> > obvious reasons.
> >
> > Radix 1? I don't think so.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of how arithmetic values are
> sometimes represented in the simple Turing machine model. Yes, in
> the abstract base '1' would use strings of zeros, but for the
> Turing tape zeros are blanks and ones are the marks.
Fred. Sorry I missed replying to it before, but good job. Hans is very optimistic, but he doesn't get it. 0, dots, 1, they all mean the existence of a proportion in your system, not necessarily "0'. Say a hole, which is both empty, and a value (as somebody was referring too :)

It's just too sensibly unconventional to understand, even though a 3 year old might get it.

In your system you just leave a blank for zero, and 10 zeros for a 10, as the 0 is unneeded. Simplicity. Maybe somebody can find him some pebbles to work it out? We can draw zeros on them, to see if he thinks it's impossible, and declares it illogical magic.

Good to see the level of rationality here hasn't improved in my absence.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 4:08:15 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, dxforth wrote:
> > On 15/09/2022 10:30 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:23:41 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:44:25 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > >>> Stubborn selfish self centred people who come for help, are often a pain, and considering listening poison (unless they are the ones talking). I'm a bit shy on helping people now, because of the problems with it.
> > >> I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're repeating yourself.
> > >>
> > >> Hans Bezemer
> > >
> > > That's ridiculous! You have been attacking for months, with little gain, and lots of loss. And don't really think very well. You mistake convention of action as truth, even though it contradicts reality. It's all not the most smart, logical or fluid of situations. Be humble and pick yourself up please. There is a word for stubborn, influid and stupid. You are just causing looses for everybody here. Your instance in being here and dumping garbage is not on. Get with the plan, or get please.
> > What was the plan again? Ah, raising Forth from the dead. Good that you've
> > started with something small.
> LOL The eternal optimist, as usual.
>
> --
>
> Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

Again, read the thread and the reply. Revival of forth is a side effect, for your benefit, I want to promote misc. If promoting misc promotes forth, you should get in. Like colorforth is a nice name with marketable colours and there is machineforth to x386 instructions to use as a VM, which can translate to the instruction set I wish to do, and I have my own language to design anyway, some of that coming to forth, with easy coding, and operating system. Yeah, doing a little processor or using a misc processor in a retro gaming system, is going be so much more, or less, than an 8bit 6502? Baby steps and Heard's.