[arigity]

Originally Posted by Cypher

0. Irony ftw.

1. Yes, yes you are.

2. /facepalm. Pedantic is one thing, thats just retarded. Good luck 'implying nothing' and commenting your code like this:
// X is an object of type T1. Y and Z are objects of type T2. T2 has operator overloads to allow multiplication. The overloads return a reference to const to stop expressions such as 'y + z = x'. T1 has a constructor to allow conversion from type T2 to T1. The result of this expression is the execution of the operator* overloads and assigning the return value to x. This is assigment not construction.
// And I could get even more verbose. etc.
x = y * z;

The point is, the great thing about object oriented languages is you CAN 'imply' things, one of the foundations of OO is ABSTRACTION. The users of your classes shouldn't need to know the internals to be able to use them. I suggest you acquaint yourself with a book on object oriented programming because that's one of the primary design goals.

Also, stop with the Straw Man argment bullshit. My position is that if you are told to solve an equation the expectation is that you attempt to do it correctly, not that the fact you got a question wrong implies you never attempted it. Furthermore, if you get it wrong you technically didn't 'do' it because it isn't solved (which was the aim to begin with).

Reference in case you're unfarmiliar with the terminology of what you're doing:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

3. The result of a/0 is not a sequence/series so the result obviously is not zero. Although given the expression 1/b as b approaches 0 the result approaches infinity the actual result of the expression 1/0 is undefined and as such is not a series/sequence and cannot be defined as infinity. Although it is sometimes convenient to think of it this way (a/0 = inf.) it is not correct.

1. it seems i need to be more specific, for someone talking about straw man arguments you sure use it alot. the implication (in this case) is not in understanding what your doing, but in ensuring that what your doing works the way it should.

it is never implied that the code wouldn't work, or even that the user has any clue what the hell it does, but it is implied the code might work other then it's intended if you only "imply" that it will be used a certain way.

yes, it can be assumed that you meant dividing by 0 and receiving a correct answer. however as it is never stated that doing so is necessary and only the act is required, only the act i did

and nowhere in "doing" does it say it HAS to do it right. but simply that its done. otherwise people who "do" things wrong never do anything at all.

2. straws everywhere!!! am i to understand that you are of the opinion that the answer to 10 / 0 does NOT increase without bound?


p.s.

Originally Posted by cypher

So [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = ∞.

i see what you did there

edit: by the way, are you grabbing half your arguments off of google or do you keep articles on zero around in case you might need to prove a zero related point?

[Cursed]

*grabs some popcorn and leans back...*

[Cypher]

Originally Posted by arigity

1. it seems i need to be more specific, for someone talking about straw man arguments you sure use it alot. the implication (in this case) is not in understanding what your doing, but in ensuring that what your doing works the way it should.

it is never implied that the code wouldn't work, or even that the user has any clue what the hell it does, but it is implied the code might work other then it's intended if you only "imply" that it will be used a certain way.

yes, it can be assumed that you meant dividing by 0 and receiving a correct answer. however as it is never stated that doing so is necessary and only the act is required, only the act i did

and nowhere in "doing" does it say it HAS to do it right. but simply that its done. otherwise people who "do" things wrong never do anything at all.

2. straws everywhere!!! am i to understand that you are of the opinion that the answer to 10 / 0 does NOT increase without bound?


p.s.



i see what you did there

edit: by the way, are you grabbing half your arguments off of google or do you keep articles on zero around in case you might need to prove a zero related point?

Ummm. Okay I'm lost, I feel like I'm getting dumber just by reading your posts.

1. "it is never implied that the code wouldn't work, or even that the user has any clue what the hell it does, but it is implied the code might work other then it's intended if you only "imply" that it will be used a certain way."

Rephrase that in a language other than 'stupid' (english would be nice) and I'll address it.

Also, if you attempt to solve an equation and get an incorrect answer you didn't really actually 'do' it then did you? Because the problem still remains unsolved.

Definition of 'solve':
To find an answer or solution to a problem or question.

So unless you actually do that you didn't really 'do' the question did you?

2. Now I'm REALLY lost. Have you ever picked up a maths book before? How can the answer to a static division change, you're saying the answer to 10/0 'increases without bound', what the hell are you talking about?

Also, I don't 'keep articles on hand' I'm linking them to support my arguments because otherwise you'd probably go 'omg stop making stuff up' but it seems you complain either way. I attend this thing called 'school' (do they have those for people with intellectual disabilities as severe as yours?) in which i go to classes which teach math. One of those classes was about division by zero, by paying attention during this class I learnt about division by zero and why it cannot be done.

I challenge you to find me a single respected mathematical paper/website/textbook/professor etc that backs up your argument that division by zero has a defined outcome and that outcome is infinity.

And before you cry "omg i didn't say division by zero equals infinity" heres a quote by you: (in reference to divison by zero)
"but if it makes you feel better anything is possible that doesn't involve mathematical equations with an infinite answer."

[Cypher]

Originally Posted by Cursed

*grabs some popcorn and leans back...*

Don't just get popcorn!! Join in, it's fun.

[Cursed]

I cant say more on this topic sorry... :/

[Shynd]

Cypher 1 arigity 0. That's binary for Win.

[arigity]

Originally Posted by Cypher

Ummm. Okay I'm lost, I feel like I'm getting dumber just by reading your posts.

1. "it is never implied that the code wouldn't work, or even that the user has any clue what the hell it does, but it is implied the code might work other then it's intended if you only "imply" that it will be used a certain way."

Rephrase that in a language other than 'stupid' (english would be nice) and I'll address it.

Also, if you attempt to solve an equation and get an incorrect answer you didn't really actually 'do' it then did you? Because the problem still remains unsolved.

Definition of 'solve':
To find an answer or solution to a problem or question.

So unless you actually do that you didn't really 'do' the question did you?

2. Now I'm REALLY lost. Have you ever picked up a maths book before? How can the answer to a static division change, you're saying the answer to 10/0 'increases without bound', what the hell are you talking about?

Also, I don't 'keep articles on hand' I'm linking them to support my arguments because otherwise you'd probably go 'omg stop making stuff up' but it seems you complain either way. I attend this thing called 'school' (do they have those for people with intellectual disabilities as severe as yours?) in which i go to classes which teach math. One of those classes was about division by zero, by paying attention during this class I learnt about division by zero and why it cannot be done.

I challenge you to find me a single respected mathematical paper/website/textbook/professor etc that backs up your argument that division by zero has a defined outcome and that outcome is infinity.

And before you cry "omg i didn't say division by zero equals infinity" heres a quote by you: (in reference to divison by zero)
"but if it makes you feel better anything is possible that doesn't involve mathematical equations with an infinite answer."

grasping at straws now? or is it, that you can come up with no better argument then "I'm lost"?

10 / 0 will never have a definite answer, because 0 can go into 10 x number of times, no matter how many times 0 goes into 10 it can still go in x more. it will forever increase, it is boundless.

infinity -- the assumed limit of a sequence, that increases without bound.

it is not that the defined outcome of 10 / 0 is infinity, but that the outcome which can only be expressed as never ending, has no definition. (ie it has a limit of infinity) kindly note the difference. if you can find any article that can refute this logic I would love to see it

you should not assume that whoever uses whatever you make will do so as you intended, sorry if you are not bright enough to catch this concept.

solving an equation and doing an equation are two different things, i assume they tell you the difference at your school right?
i only needed to do, not to solve. i said this three times already kindly pay attention, i dislike repeating myself.

this is why your arguments fail

[Clain]

Burnt... ;O

[Cypher]

Originally Posted by arigity

grasping at straws now? or is it, that you can come up with no better argument then "I'm lost"?

10 / 0 will never have a definite answer, because 0 can go into 10 x number of times, no matter how many times 0 goes into 10 it can still go in x more. it will forever increase, it is boundless.

infinity -- the assumed limit of a sequence, that increases without bound.

it is not that the defined outcome of 10 / 0 is infinity, but that the outcome which can only be expressed as never ending, has no definition. (ie it has a limit of infinity) kindly note the difference. if you can find any article that can refute this logic I would love to see it

you should not assume that whoever uses whatever you make will do so as you intended, sorry if you are not bright enough to catch this concept.

solving an equation and doing an equation are two different things, i assume they tell you the difference at your school right?
i only needed to do, not to solve. i said this three times already kindly pay attention, i dislike repeating myself.

this is why your arguments fail

Not grasping at straws I just don't have the required brain tumor to understand what you're attempting to say. With your new rephrasing I'm pretty sure you've just gone full circle. I was the one who said division by zero was undefined to begin with (which you insisted on arguing with). Now you're just repeating my original argument with a slight rephrasing?? Fail.

"you should not assume that whoever uses whatever you make will do so as you intended, sorry if you are not bright enough to catch this concept."

One aspect of a well designed class is that misuse of it is obvious (or even better, impossible) and that such misuse will be treated in a way that is obvious to the user. I never said the class user will use it as intended, I simply said they need not concern themselves with the internals. If your class is misued in an unavoidable way (for example the user passes an invalid file handle to a logging class constructor) it should throw an exception to alert the user of their mistake. Sorry your programming experience extends to that of "LULZ I CAN UZE A MEMOREE EDITAH!!!".

The fact you're trying to distinguish between 'doing' and 'solving' an equation show just how desperate you are, you're totally dodging my original pont and just making irrelevant pedandic arguments. Nevertheless if your maths teacher says "do this maths test" and you get everything wrong I doubt you'll get full marks. Know why? Because when someone asks you to do something they expect it to be done correctly, thats just the way the world works.

PS. I've proven I can program multiple times with multiple hack releases to the community. I've yet to see you release anything you've written and I'd be very interested to see an example.

[Sychotix]

I'm taking AP Calculus right now... anying divided by zero is DNE or Undefined or None in any situation. Cypher is right... you are wrong. Leave it alone =P

[arigity]

Originally Posted by Cypher

Not grasping at straws I just don't have the required brain tumor to understand what you're attempting to say. With your new rephrasing I'm pretty sure you've just gone full circle. I was the one who said division by zero was undefined to begin with (which you insisted on arguing with). Now you're just repeating my original argument with a slight rephrasing?? Fail.

"you should not assume that whoever uses whatever you make will do so as you intended, sorry if you are not bright enough to catch this concept."

One aspect of a well designed class is that misuse of it is obvious (or even better, impossible) and that such misuse will be treated in a way that is obvious to the user. I never said the class user will use it as intended, I simply said they need not concern themselves with the internals. If your class is misued in an unavoidable way (for example the user passes an invalid file handle to a logging class constructor) it should throw an exception to alert the user of their mistake. Sorry your programming experience extends to that of "LULZ I CAN UZE A MEMOREE EDITAH!!!".

The fact you're trying to distinguish between 'doing' and 'solving' an equation show just how desperate you are, you're totally dodging my original pont and just making irrelevant pedandic arguments. Nevertheless if your maths teacher says "do this maths test" and you get everything wrong I doubt you'll get full marks. Know why? Because when someone asks you to do something they expect it to be done correctly, thats just the way the world works.

PS. I've proven I can program multiple times with multiple hack releases to the community. I've yet to see you release anything you've written and I'd be very interested to see an example.

i am sorry, but i cannot help myself from laughing now. you are unwilling to admit you are wrong, so you resort to pointing out your own accomplishments while belittling me for having none. you have failed yourself, you have failed logic, and you have failed this thread.

go back and re-read the thread, you fail so much its depressing to see. here is a basic synopsis of your failure

you claim division by zero to be an impossibility (which has very little relation to my original post anyhow)

i divide by zero but reach the wrong conclusion and point out i still did it.

you tell me i'm wrong because i forgot a space (lol) as well as stating that it doesn't have an infinite answer

i explain how possibilities work (because apparently, you don't grasp the concept) and... also infinity (cuz you don't get that either)

you babble on about random code which has NO relation to the basic idea of what i was trying to say (straws!!!!) you then say it is undefined (what is infinity, if not a number which can never be defined? you basically proved me right FOR me lol)

once again i try to explain why your wrong in basic terms (although you still don't seem to grasp the very basic concepts.) explaining my views

you tell me your lost, and then proceed to explain how your in school (once again steering the conversation towards a place where you must feel more comfortable with)

i once again (in the simplest way imaginable) explain the very basic concepts of division (so much for school eh?) as well as kindly informing you of errors you have previously made.

you tell me how you've been helpful to others and a wonderful member of the communty (lawl, yeah. nice argument there)


sorry, but once again. you fail to grasp very basic concepts, an exception is in itself, a precaution against a probability that might or might not occur and is WHY i used programming as an analogy. people use exceptions to handle things that weren't intended for the original concept.

translated back into the original point, your "you can't divide by zero" impossibility was disproven because, while it is not meant to be done wrong, there is no exception that prevents this. check mate. you lose.


talk about dodging original points? what was yours again? to divide by zero? i did. you lose again. i am not the one who dragged this conversation onto the theories of zero but i am sure that i am not wrong on this.

your analogy about the math teacher is nice, but irrelevent. if my math teacher said "do this test and you get a 100" then all that i need to do, is do. however if my teacher simply said "do this test" then i can be sure i will not pass if i get it wrong you do not get the concept or correctly emphasizing the point so that both your meaning and what is required to be "right" are met.

once again moving this analogy back into the original reason for this argument, you only said doing it was impossible, not in solving it.

i never questioned your ability to program, nor even your ability to come up with wordy solutions for relatively simple problems. however since you bring it up this suggests you yourself are implying your own lack of skill which i find quite humorous.



as for my lack of work, here is my theory on lolhax.

step 1. copy pasta
step 2. cheat engine
step 3. google writeprocessmemory
step 4. ???
step 5. run around as if i know everything

p.s. re-read the concepts of infinity.

[Shynd]

You, sir, are the pinnacle of asshattery. Nothing more need be said. Arguments that are inherently retarded need not be refuted, so I think we should all just start calling arigity names.

[arigity]

/chuckle

because we KNOW cypher would never dream of insulting anyone now huh? no, a shining member like him is a prime example of an angel. in fact the very idea of cypher insulting anyone is a sin, you are a blasphemer for saying anything to such an effect.



i like the guy sure, he's brilliant, but he's got a huuuuuuge ego and likes to argue alot. just like me

[Cursed]

Originally Posted by arigity

/chuckle

because we KNOW cypher would never dream of insulting anyone now huh? no, a shining member like him is a prime example of an angel. in fact the very idea of cypher insulting anyone is a sin, you are a blasphemer for saying anything to such an effect.



i like the guy sure, he's brilliant, but he's got a huuuuuuge ego and likes to argue alot. just like me

I actually rofled...

[Xarg0]

omfg 10/0=3 is an expression you fool >.< it's not a calculation so you didn't divide by zero, acutally this expression is false, please take a math book to learn the differnece between an expression and a calculation...
I could go furter into details but I'm to lazy and I belive learning on your own is more efficient then people telling you what's wrong or right.