On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:46:32 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Yes, you can start making more correct statements Hans, go ahead. You just trading water and wasting our time.

> > 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.

It's fun to see it drive you mad not to see them, and it's obvious how badly you are doing.
> Hans Bezemer

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:56:40 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:04:40 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Please.
> Shall we call it a draw?

Why, you are not winning. You haven't figured out I was planning to run through some of your posts eventually. But, keep convincing someone.

>
> Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:02:51 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> It's fun to see it drive you mad not to see them, and it's obvious how badly you are doing.
No, it simply means whatever you're writing does not comply to generally
accepted standards. Logic follows rules. Arguments follow logic. It can't be any
simpler than that.

Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:41:49 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> 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 :)
I get it very well. It's basic mathematics.

> It's just too sensibly unconventional to understand, even though a 3 year old might get it.
It's not unconventional. It's the way primitive people count, like "one", "two", "many". The
point of all these number systems is they break down when algorithms are applied or when
numbers get very big. Take the Roman system. Not a good choice for a world based on
technology and science. It's like "hillbilly units" - when the going gets tough errors are made
and rockets fall out of the sky.
> Good to see the level of rationality here hasn't improved in my absence.
Not really. He proposed "base 1" - which implies the use within the current system of number
representation. And there it breaks down for all the reasons I listed.

Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:37:57 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Shall we call it a draw?
> Why, you are not winning. You haven't figured out I was planning to run through
> some of your posts eventually. But, keep convincing someone.
I was not whining "Please stop".. I did the nice thing and offered you an honorable
way out. But then again: the game is ON!

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 8:52:57 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:37:57 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > Shall we call it a draw?
> > Why, you are not winning. You haven't figured out I was planning to run through
> > some of your posts eventually. But, keep convincing someone.
> I was not whining "Please stop".. I did the nice thing and offered you an honorable
> way out. But then again: the game is ON!
>
> Hans Bezemer

Again. Hans what do you want? The hubris.

I thought you had done the honourable thing too and disappeared.

I am sorry you are hurt, because you can not look right through your mechanisms you have studied to appear so. Your emotional satisfaction and ego are not the most important things here. I've got enough to deal with here, with serious problemed people trying to imagine things that never were, lie about it ti others, and exploit me and steal my time here, without you robbing me of time and energy to deal with them.

I don't come following you around your threads, consistently trying to harrass you, and side lining the discussion to not what was meant, and talking about wrong things at odds with the thread. Because I'm right and emotionally secure enough not to have to come back repeatedly trying to score points in other people's places, even though most of those people are dreadful and deserve it.

If you want to, I can spend the next 18 months coming to wherever you hang out on the open net, developing your language, picking it apart and doing wrong comparisons that are not being discussed, like how bad it is because it's not 'C'. But I don't. I could help you learn, but I am not interested in sabotaging good work, or good discussion about work. You see. I have no desire to interfere in something in a way which is not going benefit people. I suggest you do the same.

And do some project to keep you busy, like FC the Fo(U)rth C. To expose stack based primitives that can be used for mixed misc instruction sets. For use on low energy computing modes on x86 laptops. Simple. Dream up functional practical stuff with structure, and develop answers.

PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:23:04 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> In article <4d03cde0-4a77-42f6...@googlegroups.com>,
> Marcel Hendrix <m...@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 ?

Is that deliberate for some reason? You really don't know it's miles 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.

Yeah?

--

Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

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

On 23/09/2022 12:36 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
> PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.

It's not about how it's written - rather how it fails as a positional (radix-based)
numeral system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems#Base_one_(unary_numeral_system)

That nobody talks of "base 1" ought to have been warning enough it doesn't exist in
any meaningful way. Not existing, the need for base-1 to denote a non-zero also
vanishes.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 1:56:34 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:23:04 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> > In article <4d03cde0-4a77-42f6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Marcel Hendrix <m...@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 ?
> Is that deliberate for some reason? You really don't know it's miles 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.
> Yeah?
> --
>
> Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)
> -++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> -++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I presume the answer is known. I was thinking between side edge, self leveling, which side and the different dynamics. There was that you could seriously do damage by dropping a penny from a tall building . But it is surplus to the discussion to get into it. Here was originally only project reputation and fluency. That were the morale objectives, and protecting that.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:48:03 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 12:36 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >
> > PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.
> It's not about how it's written - rather how it fails as a positional (radix-based)
> numeral system:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems#Base_one_(unary_numeral_system)
>
> That nobody talks of "base 1" ought to have been warning enough it doesn't exist in
> any meaningful way. Not existing, the need for base-1 to denote a non-zero also
> vanishes.

A bit overly convoluted that section of article but the following is arguably definitely wrong;

"The value 0 cannot be represented (or is implicitly represented by an empty digit string)."

It can, a string with count zero, is zero maybe you are better to put a type of string indicator there (text, numbers, etc, urinary, empty). The writer might have been trying to support a theory of a more perfect system where unary is not a perfect solution, but that is not right logic, what is is, what works works, within some perfect correctness. The issue is not the usefulness as to wherever it can be used perfectly, it is wherever it can be used perfectly. I don't know if anybody here wants to have a unary system, though I think I might have had use for it in extendable data structures in my is design, to set the number of powers of magnitude infinitely (structures to represent all variability in the universe and all time. But I'm unsure now, as it has no termination, except an empty 0. I think I might have gone to magnitude of magnitude counts, but can't remember. It's just that sometimes I think, in some small way safe case, in another use, it's better than a small restricted count. Not good I can't even remember concept structure of my own design, which was one thing I could remember, and by passed the areas affected, before the brain damage got to bad. It's bad enough what they are doing, and continue to here, without that. They trying to make life pointless. And I lived in hope things would work out and people would grow up and act right. I could have been immensely rich a.dvtrrsted in the, except for people discriminatorily and maliciously trying to game the system, because their morality is they should get the most of the most.. Hurts me to hear about what happened to Chuck in business multiple times from such things too, just because of true internal sense of morality. Up here, I had a guy saying that people should be out protesting in the streets sort of thing, on what happens with crime here, instead they just immorally go along with government policies and inaction which led to it.

On 23/09/2022 9:05 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:48:03 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 23/09/2022 12:36 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>
>>> PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.
>> It's not about how it's written - rather how it fails as a positional (radix-based)
>> numeral system:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems#Base_one_(unary_numeral_system)
>>
>> That nobody talks of "base 1" ought to have been warning enough it doesn't exist in
>> any meaningful way. Not existing, the need for base-1 to denote a non-zero also
>> vanishes.
>
> A bit overly convoluted that section of article but the following is arguably definitely wrong;

It listed four concise points as to why the unary system cannot be considered a radix-based notation.

>
> "The value 0 cannot be represented (or is implicitly represented by an empty digit string)."

This was one of them - namely 0 is not implicit in the notation and must be represented externally.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 11:52:38 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 9:05 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:48:03 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 23/09/2022 12:36 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>>
> >>> PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.
> >> It's not about how it's written - rather how it fails as a positional (radix-based)
> >> numeral system:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems#Base_one_(unary_numeral_system)
> >>
> >> That nobody talks of "base 1" ought to have been warning enough it doesn't exist in
> >> any meaningful way. Not existing, the need for base-1 to denote a non-zero also
> >> vanishes.
> >
> > A bit overly convoluted that section of article but the following is arguably definitely wrong;
> It listed four concise points as to why the unary system cannot be considered a radix-based notation.

And why does that matter? It might be incredible, but it's a credible incredible notation (while not so useful it still practically can work).
> >
> > "The value 0 cannot be represented (or is implicitly represented by an empty digit string)."
> This was one of them - namely 0 is not implicit in the notation and must be represented externally.

I have issues with how that article is written. There is an increasing problem in Wikipedia of writing to preferred knowledge rather than the set of (true) actual knowledge. The set is true, the preferred is often only part of the truth, or not true. The probiem comes with mistaken premise, that the preferred knowledge is the complete truth, or somehow the best truth, which is simplistic, and it maybe mistaken somehow, and then people who use it further might mistakenly use it. In sceptic circles this is a common thing, from what I see. I once contacted the head of the national sceptics association and proposed a documentary series which would test out things they were sceptical of, along with experts who believed those things, to contrast their opinions. Of course he didn't want to do that, safety in numbers, for deniability. The problem is, despite if it's even desperately mistaken, they may insist on the preferred truth being the only real truth, which is insane. What ever is the truth, is. You get the best adequate evidence and researched testimony of what the actual truth is, and you have to trust that to some extent, and about the larger set of truth.

Anyway, here we say, that zero being a blank is implicit, as it is in dealing with real life, as we similarly do when not declaring the base in use of decimal numbers. There is no need of a zero in an number (outside zero), so their point is a little mute. However, another example of mute point is non integer numbers. Simply, a decimal point and a series of unary numbers to the other side of it can represent any noninteger value as fraction of one 1.111 is 1/111, 1/3. Even though 1.999999, 1/999999 would be difficult to write in unary, it still has a representation. Anyway. That part of the article is a bit of a storm in a teacup. It's functional but neither of us are interested in using it.

On 23/09/2022 2:20 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 11:52:38 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>> On 23/09/2022 9:05 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:48:03 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>>>> On 23/09/2022 12:36 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.
>>>> It's not about how it's written - rather how it fails as a positional (radix-based)
>>>> numeral system:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems#Base_one_(unary_numeral_system)
>>>>
>>>> That nobody talks of "base 1" ought to have been warning enough it doesn't exist in
>>>> any meaningful way. Not existing, the need for base-1 to denote a non-zero also
>>>> vanishes.
>>>
>>> A bit overly convoluted that section of article but the following is arguably definitely wrong;
>> It listed four concise points as to why the unary system cannot be considered a radix-based notation.
>
> And why does that matter? It might be incredible, but it's a credible incredible notation (while not so useful it still practically can work).

It doesn't matter to me that "base 1" is excluded. But feel free to amend the Wikipedia
article or start a discussion there.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 6:20:31 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> I have issues with how that article is written. There is an increasing problem in Wikipedia
> of writing to preferred knowledge rather than the set of (true) actual knowledge.
The point you fail to acknowledge is that there is NO such thing as "preferred knowledge".
There is something like scientific consensus. And in the field of mathematics, that is
pretty solid. Especially where theorems are concerned. FYI: a theorem is a statement
which has been proved true by a special kind of logical argument called a rigorous proof.

> The probiem comes with mistaken premise, that the preferred knowledge is the complete
> truth, or somehow the best truth, which is simplistic, and it maybe mistaken somehow,
> and then people who use it further might mistakenly use it.
The application of this number representation is millennia old - so I think we're pretty safe.
You rambling about some "esoteric truth" doesn't really change it - unless you do the work,
come up with the (disproof) and make yourself a hero of mathematics for eternity.

Suggesting that there is some "mythical disproof" is not only ridiculous, but useless, because
it fails all criteria for a scientific statement.

You're simply too lazy to do ANY work. You don't write code, you don't write a compiler -
you're even too lazy to do ANY work and set up a proper argument. EVERYTHING you write
is lazy, incoherent and deliberately vague.

> I once contacted the head of the national sceptics association and proposed a documentary
> series which would test out things they were sceptical of, along with experts who believed
> those things, to contrast their opinions.
How foolhardy! Skeptics are a school of philosophy that reject all belief (positive attitude to
a proposition) and seek for proof of that belief (a justified positive attitude to a proposition).
They are me squared.

They don't have any problems with properly proven scientific principles, they investigate every
statement that does NOT fulfill those requirements. They are not there to go on a wild goose
chase to every half a**ed, wild hypothesis a random nutcase bring to them. That's just not what
skepticism is. So you really rang at the wrong door there.

> Of course he didn't want to do that, safety in numbers, for deniability.
You tell yourself stories, man. It's not healthy to hang on to those delusions.

> The problem is, despite if it's even desperately mistaken
You PROVE that they're mistaken - in a valid, scientific way - and they'll listen. I promise you.
Your problem is, you fail to do that over and over again.

> They may insist on the preferred truth being the only real truth, which is insane.
What is insane is that you claim to have the REAL truth, but you're unable to PROVE -
or even coherently describe - ANY of it.

> What ever is the truth, is. You get the best adequate evidence and researched testimony
> of what the actual truth is, and you have to trust that to some extent, and about the larger
> set of truth.
If it's properly (scientifically) researched, you have clear proof. Provide it. Instead of
hinting at it. Easy.

There are levels of abstraction, but there is no such thing as a higher truth. It's just the scale
you're operating on and the selection you apply (which elements you select for your study).

Hans Bezemer

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 1:05:38 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> It can, a string with count zero, is zero maybe you are better to put a type of string indicator there (text, numbers, etc, urinary, empty).

In a "base 1" system, what is the result of 1/11111111111111111111111111 - without counting the digits. Represent it as a number with a digital point.

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 4:36:05 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Again. Hans what do you want? The hubris.
Not quite. Rational discussions with people who know and apply the rules.

> I thought you had done the honourable thing too and disappeared.
I did - you brought me back ;-)

> I am sorry you are hurt, because you can not look right through your mechanisms
> you have studied to appear so. Your emotional satisfaction and ego are not the
> most important things here.
You are giving yourself too much credit. You are not the one to judge what happens
here. It's a public forum. There is no moderator, no rules.

> I've got enough to deal with here, with serious problemed people trying to imagine
> things that never were, lie about it ti others, and exploit me and steal my time here,
> without you robbing me of time and energy to deal with them.
You're not a victim. If I'm "stealing your time", it's because you enable me to steal it
from you.

> I don't come following you around your threads, consistently trying to harrass you,
> and side lining the discussion to not what was meant, and talking about wrong things
> at odds with the thread.
I've been there. And I'm occasionally visited by trolls here. I'm not impressed, though.

> Because I'm right and emotionally secure enough not to have to come back repeatedly
> trying to score points in other people's places, even though most of those people are
> dreadful and deserve it.
This is not your place. I already told you.

> If you want to, I can spend the next 18 months coming to wherever you hang out on
> the open net, developing your language, picking it apart and doing wrong comparisons
> that are not being discussed, like how bad it is because it's not 'C'.
My Forth IS written in C. And it was explicitly developed to interface with C easily. But
you didn't do the work, did you? As lazy as always. Assuming things rather than to do
the hard work and check the facts before you respond.

> But I don't. I could help you learn, but I am not interested in sabotaging good work,
> or good discussion about work. You see.
Actually - I don't see. Obviously, you can teach me things - were it not that you are not
a saboteur nor discuss anything work related.

> I have no desire to interfere in something in a way which is not going benefit people.
> I suggest you do the same.
"I have the desire to interfere in something that is going to benefit people". Simply remove
both negations, like "I have no intention not to go to the party". Remove one negation:
" I have the intention not to go to the party" and "I haven't the intention to go to the party"
reflects that one doesn't want to go to the party. The removal of both negations will reflect
the original meaning.

Hence - weird statement.

Hans Bezemer

On 23/09/2022 10:18 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 6:20:31 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
>> Of course he didn't want to do that, safety in numbers, for deniability.
>
> You tell yourself stories, man. It's not healthy to hang on to those delusions.

Science tends to leave a lot of corpses in its wake as pet theories falter
under the weight of evidence. I don't see philosophers dying in the same
numbers. Is evidence harder to come by?

In article <tglv5o$75i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 23/09/2022 10:18 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 6:20:31 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>>
>>> Of course he didn't want to do that, safety in numbers, for deniability.
>>
>> You tell yourself stories, man. It's not healthy to hang on to those delusions.
>
>Science tends to leave a lot of corpses in its wake as pet theories falter
>under the weight of evidence. I don't see philosophers dying in the same
>numbers. Is evidence harder to come by?
>

There is a thing as scientific consensus. The metaphysical folks tend to
forget that this consensus is shifting all the time, or they replace it
with their dogmas.
Wikipedia aspires to grab the consensus by requiring quotes from
reputable sources, and requiring articles to address notable issues.
Reputable, notable, consensus are in itself not absolute objective,
but it is a step up from e.g. discussing global warming with an illiterate.

Attacking the consensus is often done in the name of not accepting an
"argument from authority". But there is no escape from building on
others research.
These attacks come possibly from people with a stake in the
conclusion, and it is often not easy to tell them apart from genuine
researchers.

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 Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 5:56:46 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
> Science tends to leave a lot of corpses in its wake as pet theories falter
> under the weight of evidence.
Yeah, the number of casulties on string theory - or even evolution - was
Horrifying. Absolutely appalling. It should be banned from being taught
Anywhere in the world.

Not to mention God himself gave an address to the UN saying "i will NOT
be ignored anymore! It's all LIES!" That was pretty damning - not to say
convincing - evidence!

> I don't see philosophers dying in the same
> numbers. Is evidence harder to come by?
No. It's always has been hard. Throwing in philosophers just makes it
Harder. Some philosophers - the nihilists and extreme skeptics - even
make it IMPOSSIBLE! By design, that is.

Hans Bezemer

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:30:10 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 2:20 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 11:52:38 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 23/09/2022 9:05 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 3:48:03 AM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >>>> On 23/09/2022 12:36 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PS: The base 1 system doesn't have to be written just one way, which was shown by somebody else. That 0 or pebble can be used.
> >>>> It's not about how it's written - rather how it fails as a positional (radix-based)
> >>>> numeral system:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems#Base_one_(unary_numeral_system)
> >>>>
> >>>> That nobody talks of "base 1" ought to have been warning enough it doesn't exist in
> >>>> any meaningful way. Not existing, the need for base-1 to denote a non-zero also
> >>>> vanishes.
> >>>
> >>> A bit overly convoluted that section of article but the following is arguably definitely wrong;
> >> It listed four concise points as to why the unary system cannot be considered a radix-based notation.
> >
> > And why does that matter? It might be incredible, but it's a credible incredible notation (while not so useful it still practically can work).
> It doesn't matter to me that "base 1" is excluded. But feel free to amend the Wikipedia
> article or start a discussion there.

And is there a reason to be interested in your opinion either?

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:25:39 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 1:05:38 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > It can, a string with count zero, is zero maybe you are better to put a type of string indicator there (text, numbers, etc, urinary, empty).
> In a "base 1" system, what is the result of 1/11111111111111111111111111 - without counting the digits. Represent it as a number with a digital point.
>
> Hans Bezemer

What are you trying to say? There is nothing to object to. The point was you just count the items, whatever digit they are.

Ok I've got to bite. This here is mistaking what was said.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:18:12 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 6:20:31 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > I have issues with how that article is written. There is an increasing problem in Wikipedia
> > of writing to preferred knowledge rather than the set of (true) actual knowledge.
> The point you fail to acknowledge is that there is NO such thing as "preferred knowledge".
> There is something like scientific consensus. And in the field of mathematics, that is
> pretty solid. Especially where theorems are concerned. FYI: a theorem is a statement
> which has been proved true by a special kind of logical argument called a rigorous proof.

So, basically you agree with my point before that 1+1(decimal)=2 is something definite in our system.

What were you previously saying about truth? Consensus introduces unscientific bias, it is the domain of many biases and dubious individuals. Valid measurement outweighs it. A consensus in only a maybe unless it is based on valid measurement structure and interpretation of them.

> > The problem comes with mistaken premise, that the preferred knowledge is the complete
> > truth, or somehow the best truth, which is simplistic, and it maybe mistaken somehow,
> > and then people who use it further might mistakenly use it.
> The application of this number representation is millennia old - so I think we're pretty safe.
> You rambling about some "esoteric truth" doesn't really change it - unless you do the work,
> come up with the (disproof) and make yourself a hero of mathematics for eternity.

I'm saying it's credible, others are acting like it's not. So, we agree. My point was that the wording of the article was slight of hand trying to make it look wrong, as others also quoted it. It is part of the set of actual truth (it world, as does the decimal system. Despite how practically inadequate it is compared to decimal, it is still in the functional set of systems, and that is the truth about what can work. No need to PRETEND, is not, that's not truth. When dealing with complete system this, there are actual truths, as they are designed to. E so, unlike string theory, which is yet to find a truth that works completely). In Wikipedia, we get people trying to rewrite history and data, trying to say only certain things are valid and acceptable, and other things that are valid, are neither. It's not valid, it's supposed to an encyclopaedia of greater knowledge not less. Bad intent in writing is bias. We have gone from the possibility that something could be true, to more and more only certain things that are true, being true, out of the set of things, viewed even in specific ways only. It's bad science. It's deception (I'm talking generally about the broader set of incidences of this).

>
> Suggesting that there is some "mythical disproof" is not only ridiculous, but useless, because
> it fails all criteria for a scientific statement.

What are you referring too? I was saying it was right.

...
> EVERYTHING you write is lazy, incoherent and deliberately vague.

Get the log out Hans, it's actually you who are lazy in thinking and writing. You mostly use some rule, or short cut in logic, too short cut to a pretend victory, convinced of something not there, I've caught you out in it many times, you want some the time to read to understand, but foolishly go on, and on, and on. I'm the one who puts in the effort correcting the record, while you fantasize mercilessly. The cult of you is irrelevant, and face it, that's why you are in my threads, and I couldn't be bothered about following you around in yours.

> > I once contacted the head of the national sceptics association and proposed a documentary
> > series which would test out things they were sceptical of, along with experts who believed
> > those things, to contrast their opinions.
> How foolhardy! Skeptics are a school of philosophy that reject all belief (positive attitude to
> a proposition) and seek for proof of that belief (a justified positive attitude to a proposition).
> They are me squared.
>
> They don't have any problems with properly proven scientific principles, they investigate every
> statement that does NOT fulfill those requirements. They are not there to go on a wild goose
> chase to every half a**ed, wild hypothesis a random nutcase bring to them.. That's just not what
> skepticism is. So you really rang at the wrong door there.

That's less than correct or dignified talk. But then again, blinkered to evidence is what happens. They have been tak.en over by people with a vested interest in denying what they don't want to be true. A scientific dead end. It got so bad the decade before last, they had a speaker in the natural convention saying how wrong scientists were, and that they would tell them how to do science. Crazy talk, from people who want to cut science down into dogma (and before you go and accuse me falsely of not knowing what dogma is again, it would be good if you looked up the definition yourself). If they say something true, I'm happy enough with that, but if somebody says so withing true against the preferred dogma, they are not happy, you have to convert them, instead of them converting themselves. You need to learn how to read properly Hans, that is why this insistence you are so right and I'm wrong, when it's not. You have these category boxes in your head (this is part of my mind/AI theory) which say you are right, capable and self assured significance because of it, but you put in no real effort to understand what is being said, the relational knowledge matrix of it. You hubriously even refuse to understand, as you said before, instead applying faux rules out of context. Again, why are you here, what do you want?

Now, who is too weak and lazy to prove themselves wrong then?

Leave us alone for the however many times you have been asked to stop.

> > They may insist on the preferred truth being the only real truth, which is insane.
> What is insane is that you claim to have the REAL truth, but you're unable to PROVE

1+1=2

Thanks for wasting our time again..

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:44:50 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 4:36:05 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Again. Hans what do you want? The hubris.
> Not quite. Rational discussions with people who know and apply the rules.
> > I thought you had done the honourable thing too and disappeared.
> I did - you brought me back ;-)
> > I am sorry you are hurt, because you can not look right through your mechanisms
> > you have studied to appear so. Your emotional satisfaction and ego are not the
> > most important things here.
> You are giving yourself too much credit. You are not the one to judge what happens
> here. It's a public forum. There is no moderator, no rules.
> > I've got enough to deal with here, with serious problemed people trying to imagine
> > things that never were, lie about it ti others, and exploit me and steal my time here,
> > without you robbing me of time and energy to deal with them.
> You're not a victim. If I'm "stealing your time", it's because you enable me to steal it
> from you.
> > I don't come following you around your threads, consistently trying to harrass you,
> > and side lining the discussion to not what was meant, and talking about wrong things
> > at odds with the thread.
> I've been there. And I'm occasionally visited by trolls here. I'm not impressed, though.
> > Because I'm right and emotionally secure enough not to have to come back repeatedly
> > trying to score points in other people's places, even though most of those people are
> > dreadful and deserve it.
> This is not your place. I already told you.
> > If you want to, I can spend the next 18 months coming to wherever you hang out on
> > the open net, developing your language, picking it apart and doing wrong comparisons
> > that are not being discussed, like how bad it is because it's not 'C'.
> My Forth IS written in C. And it was explicitly developed to interface with C easily. But
> you didn't do the work, did you? As lazy as always. Assuming things rather than to do
> the hard work and check the facts before you respond.
> > But I don't. I could help you learn, but I am not interested in sabotaging good work,
> > or good discussion about work. You see.
> Actually - I don't see. Obviously, you can teach me things - were it not that you are not
> a saboteur nor discuss anything work related.
> > I have no desire to interfere in something in a way which is not going benefit people.
> > I suggest you do the same.
> "I have the desire to interfere in something that is going to benefit people". Simply remove
> both negations, like "I have no intention not to go to the party". Remove one negation:
> " I have the intention not to go to the party" and "I haven't the intention to go to the party"
> reflects that one doesn't want to go to the party. The removal of both negations will reflect
> the original meaning.
>
> Hence - weird statement.
>
> Hans Bezemer

He finally finds something and it's practically a typo, either my mind dropping words or the spell corrector dropping a word from an accidental combination of word.

"I don't have the desire to interfere in something that is going to benefit people".

I was going say about lacking sufficient effort. The obvious conflating of something merely written in C, and a combined C and forth language to bring fast forth like stack ability to C language, is an obvious one, and not understanding what was written. This happens too often. But, there are other things there. He'll have to figure it out himself.

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 10:13:06 AM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Ok I've got to bite. This here is mistaking what was said.
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:18:12 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 6:20:31 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > I have issues with how that article is written. There is an increasing problem in Wikipedia
> > > of writing to preferred knowledge rather than the set of (true) actual knowledge.
> > The point you fail to acknowledge is that there is NO such thing as "preferred knowledge".
> > There is something like scientific consensus. And in the field of mathematics, that is
> > pretty solid. Especially where theorems are concerned. FYI: a theorem is a statement
> > which has been proved true by a special kind of logical argument called a rigorous proof.
> So, basically you agree with my point before that 1+1(decimal)=2 is something definite in our system.
>
> What were you previously saying about truth? Consensus introduces unscientific bias, it is the domain of many biases and dubious individuals. Valid measurement outweighs it. A consensus in only a maybe unless it is based on valid measurement structure and interpretation of them.
>
> > > The problem comes with mistaken premise, that the preferred knowledge is the complete
> > > truth, or somehow the best truth, which is simplistic, and it maybe mistaken somehow,
> > > and then people who use it further might mistakenly use it.
> > The application of this number representation is millennia old - so I think we're pretty safe.
> > You rambling about some "esoteric truth" doesn't really change it - unless you do the work,
> > come up with the (disproof) and make yourself a hero of mathematics for eternity.
> I'm saying it's credible, others are acting like it's not. So, we agree. My point was that the wording of the article was slight of hand trying to make it look wrong, as others also quoted it. It is part of the set of actual truth (it world, as does the decimal system. Despite how practically inadequate it is compared to decimal, it is still in the functional set of systems, and that is the truth about what can work. No need to PRETEND, is not, that's not truth. When dealing with complete system this, there are actual truths, as they are designed to. E so, unlike string theory, which is yet to find a truth that works completely). In Wikipedia, we get people trying to rewrite history and data, trying to say only certain things are valid and acceptable, and other things that are valid, are neither. It's not valid, it's supposed to an encyclopaedia of greater knowledge not less. Bad intent in writing is bias. We have gone from the possibility that something could be true, to more and more only certain things that are true, being true, out of the set of things, viewed even in specific ways only. It's bad science. It's deception (I'm talking generally about the broader set of incidences of this).
> >
> > Suggesting that there is some "mythical disproof" is not only ridiculous, but useless, because
> > it fails all criteria for a scientific statement.
> What are you referring too? I was saying it was right.
>
> ..
> > EVERYTHING you write is lazy, incoherent and deliberately vague.
> Get the log out Hans, it's actually you who are lazy in thinking and writing. You mostly use some rule, or short cut in logic, too short cut to a pretend victory, convinced of something not there, I've caught you out in it many times, you want some the time to read to understand, but foolishly go on, and on, and on. I'm the one who puts in the effort correcting the record, while you fantasize mercilessly. The cult of you is irrelevant, and face it, that's why you are in my threads, and I couldn't be bothered about following you around in yours.
> > > I once contacted the head of the national sceptics association and proposed a documentary
> > > series which would test out things they were sceptical of, along with experts who believed
> > > those things, to contrast their opinions.
> > How foolhardy! Skeptics are a school of philosophy that reject all belief (positive attitude to
> > a proposition) and seek for proof of that belief (a justified positive attitude to a proposition).
> > They are me squared.
> >
> > They don't have any problems with properly proven scientific principles, they investigate every
> > statement that does NOT fulfill those requirements. They are not there to go on a wild goose
> > chase to every half a**ed, wild hypothesis a random nutcase bring to them. That's just not what
> > skepticism is. So you really rang at the wrong door there.
> That's less than correct or dignified talk. But then again, blinkered to evidence is what happens. They have been tak.en over by people with a vested interest in denying what they don't want to be true. A scientific dead end. It got so bad the decade before last, they had a speaker in the natural convention saying how wrong scientists were, and that they would tell them how to do science. Crazy talk, from people who want to cut science down into dogma (and before you go and accuse me falsely of not knowing what dogma is again, it would be good if you looked up the definition yourself). If they say something true, I'm happy enough with that, but if somebody says so withing true against the preferred dogma, they are not happy, you have to convert them, instead of them converting themselves. You need to learn how to read properly Hans, that is why this insistence you are so right and I'm wrong, when it's not. You have these category boxes in your head (this is part of my mind/AI theory) which say you are right, capable and self assured significance because of it, but you put in no real effort to understand what is being said, the relational knowledge matrix of it. You hubriously even refuse to understand, as you said before, instead applying faux rules out of context. Again, why are you here, what do you want?
>
> Now, who is too weak and lazy to prove themselves wrong then?
>
> Leave us alone for the however many times you have been asked to stop.
> > > They may insist on the preferred truth being the only real truth, which is insane.
> > What is insane is that you claim to have the REAL truth, but you're unable to PROVE
> 1+1=2
>
> Thanks for wasting our time again..

I guess Wayne's not here for the hunting.

--

Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

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

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 1:45:33 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
...
> I guess Wayne's not here for the hunting.
...

> Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

Apparently, some people are hunters and some are the hunted. Strange.