Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #27427 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-30 00:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-30 10:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript
Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 00:11 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 01:29 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 03:31 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 03:33 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-04-30 13:38 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 08:20 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-04-30 20:37 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 23:46 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 01:01 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 01:47 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-01 10:50 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 02:04 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-01 11:08 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 04:43 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 04:46 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-01 10:48 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-01 10:58 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-01 14:34 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-01 14:47 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-05-01 15:04 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 06:18 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 06:24 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 06:49 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 07:00 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 07:17 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 07:21 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 07:37 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 11:27 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 12:34 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-05-01 22:42 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-05-01 23:37 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-02 00:19 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-02 05:50 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-02 14:21 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-03 04:30 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-03 07:12 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-03 16:45 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-03 09:22 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 03:38 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-04 14:01 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 06:41 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-04 15:39 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 06:49 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 07:25 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 08:26 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 08:59 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-05 00:59 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-04 15:28 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 07:34 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-04 15:41 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 07:52 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 08:03 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 17:56 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 09:04 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 09:21 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 09:38 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 21:07 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 12:25 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 21:43 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 12:46 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 22:11 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 12:53 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 22:23 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 13:40 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 23:12 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 13:06 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 22:39 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 13:42 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 13:40 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 13:47 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 23:30 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-05-04 23:33 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 15:53 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 13:51 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 18:00 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 18:22 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 21:38 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 18:37 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 09:19 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 21:24 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings wolfgang zeidler <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-04 21:37 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 21:56 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 13:21 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings wolfgang zeidler <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-04 22:38 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 22:46 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-05-04 22:57 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 23:17 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-05 00:45 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-05-06 00:01 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-05-05 08:14 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-05-05 23:54 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings wolfgang zeidler <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-04 23:18 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-04 23:53 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 16:06 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-05 10:26 +0200
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-05-05 19:59 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 07:40 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-05 01:10 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 05:03 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-30 20:36 +0100
Re: Overflow, integers and strings jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Overflow, integers and strings Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 10:52 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 21:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA490DCF76FDA7eejj99@194.109.133.246> |
| In reply to | #27500 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > As i suspected you are a bit Clueless about arithmetics, Perhaps this could be true if your following assertment is. However, please don't concern your self with my "clueness" or cluelessnes, and let us discuss on the basis of facts and logic. > the > weight/magnitude of the digitplaces do matter. The more compact you > write it the less operations. You might very well say so, as you might say anything. However, it seems better to give facts and arguments why you assert this is true. It does not in the least seem true to me, but then, it is your assumption, not mine, so the task of giving argumentation is primarily yours. Numbers, integers or others, are values and don't depend on the way they are written or stored. There is a number written: e, that has only one character, the optimum of compactness, but that does not help in the speed of digital computation at all. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bceb12e-747d-4ff5-8a3a-d18ac632a656@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27498 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 21:08:20 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > > I wrote: > >> The whole exercise seems rather useless indeed, imho. > >> > >> Using different bases is only important for input and output. > > Integers are just whole numbers, the base in which they are written in, > in computer-slang their input and output string, has nothing to do with the > integer value. > > Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also > independent of the base. > > > You are a bit close minded Evertjan the base differ the representation > > of digit places matter. We could do the arithmeric using sums of squares > > or cubes. > > I am sorry you take the ad hominem approach, but I grant you you have no > other help, as your logical arguments fail. "Doing the arithmeric using sums > of squares or cubes" is just arithmetic on values and independent of the way > they are written. Sorry to say you are Close minded again, Square(6-5)=11 this is small Squares can you understand that the interpretation of digits do matter when i come to computational complexity otherwise i Think we leave it there. > So storing them in different bases is not effective > and so not at all sensible. ... > You could also input/output [and even store] integer values in human > language, and defining different languages, but you will get into endless > problems: Have no idea about your thoughts but, ... see above > twentyfive + dreißig = LV Well if this your idea of number formatiing your a moron. My example above is clear. > ... while true, I would suggest the the internal computation better be done > with values independent of their notation. Really i have no idea... > > The possiblities is endless. > This sentense certainly will give you an error, > as the operator used here accepts only a singular value on the left. Yes the choice howto format you numbersystem is endless. But the better ones have a working arithmetic coming with them. > > But the most important the weight and interpretation of the digiplaces > > do matter, > > No, not in computation, only in some forms of notation. You are really delusional a six in binary could mean anything dependent upon interpretation. I may come along as incoherent and a wildbrain, but that is not really the case... > In some number notation systems, like old Hebrew, the place of the number- > character has no influence on the final value at all, and the characters in > fact are just letters with a dot on top. This has it's merits, as integer > numbers can be written in readable text, that can be remembered much better > than most modern notations. You see i do not have to drop down to certain cases, i tell you right of that binary is the slowest one, cost most operation, well except for unary. But it is all built on unary and fractions. > Integers are just values, a subset of all possible numeric values. > > > There is endless arithmeric systems, > > This sentense certainly will give you an error in value. No there is you are an idiot *if* you assume they must be positional. > > and everyone i ever accounted is faster than binary. > Everyone? Not even my fastest neighbour. > Indeed binary is not everyone! No i say every elee i encountered, except unary is faster > Even if you mean "encountered" for "accounted", > the speed of humans has nothing to do with it. Sure i did Sorry i do not speak about humans i speak about interpretation of the digitplaces. > > It a bit naive to think that the interpretation of digit places matter > > when doing arithmeric. > It is rather silly, indeed it does not, > and you seem to admit that here, > so silly it must be naive. I am slopy not stupid, there is a difference. > "interpretation of digit places" does not matter when doing > arithmetic on values, and since integers are just values, > well we must agree it is naively silly to suppose that. You are naive... > > At least i feel that way. > > I am so glad you agree with me, Jonas. No i was just sloopy > Will you take the consequences and stop this silly task? Never. > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 22:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA490E1CC774DDeejj99@194.109.133.246> |
| In reply to | #27503 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > Sorry to say you are Close minded again, Let us leave the state of my and your mind out of it, as it is not an argument and just impolite ad hominam. > Square(6-5)=11 this is small Squares can you understand I have no idea what notation you use, so what you are talking about. What is "small Squares"? Why should I understand that? > that the interpretation of digits do matter > when i come to computational complexity Perhaps you come to somewhere, but I don't see any argument by any combination of fact and logic. > otherwise i Think we leave it there. Otherwise than what? If you are right, why not give a logical argument? If you are wrong, you could still learn something. However, I have the feeling you are stuck in your internal beliefs, and just expect others to believe you, just because you think so. This feeling is augmented by the fact, that in this thread, most of the responses to your postings are your own, and this not once but repeatedly ove and over again. No wonder with so much responses agreeing with you, you must think you are right. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6756a921-67bb-4056-9ab5-1445ae5838d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27498 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 21:08:20 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > > I wrote: > >> The whole exercise seems rather useless indeed, imho. > >> > >> Using different bases is only important for input and output. > > Integers are just whole numbers, the base in which they are written in, > in computer-slang their input and output string, has nothing to do with the > integer value. > > Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also > independent of the base. > > > You are a bit close minded Evertjan the base differ the representation > > of digit places matter. We could do the arithmeric using sums of squares > > or cubes. > > I am sorry you take the ad hominem approach, but I grant you you have no > other help, as your logical arguments fail. "Doing the arithmeric using sums > of squares or cubes" is just arithmetic on values and independent of the way > they are written. As i suspected you are Clueless the weight of the digitplaces do matter when you do arithmeric. > > So storing them in different bases is not effective > and so not at all sensible. > > You could also input/output [and even store] integer values in human > language, and defining different languages, but you will get into endless > problems: > > twentyfive + dreißig = LV > > ... while true, I would suggest the the internal computation better be done > with values independent of their notation. > > > The possiblities is endless. > > This sentense certainly will give you an error, > as the operator used here accepts only a singular value on the left. > > > But the most important the weight and interpretation of the digiplaces > > do matter, > > No, not in computation, only in some forms of notation. > > In some number notation systems, like old Hebrew, the place of the number- > character has no influence on the final value at all, and the characters in > fact are just letters with a dot on top. This has it's merits, as integer > numbers can be written in readable text, that can be remembered much better > than most modern notations. > > Integers are just values, a subset of all possible numeric values. > > > There is endless arithmeric systems, > > This sentense certainly will give you an error in value. > > > and everyone i ever accounted is faster than binary. > > Everyone? Not even my fastest neighbour. > Indeed binary is not everyone! > Even if you mean "encountered" for "accounted", > the speed of humans has nothing to do with it. > > > It a bit naive to think that the interpretation of digit places matter > > when doing arithmeric. > > It is rather silly, indeed it does not, > and you seem to admit that here, > so silly it must be naive. > > "interpretation of digit places" does not matter when doing > arithmetic on values, and since integers are just values, > well we must agree it is naively silly to suppose that. > > > At least i feel that way. > > I am so glad you agree with me, Jonas. > > Will you take the consequences and stop this silly task? > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 22:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA490E3DA9AE8Beejj99@194.109.133.246> |
| In reply to | #27504 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > As i suspected you are Clueless the weight of the digitplaces do matter > when you do arithmeric. Again you are just stating something as a fact, which possibly is not true, and in my mind most probably is not. You don't even define what you mean by "weight" in the case of "digitplaces", as it seems you are using your own private vocabulary. Yes of cource if you use your own vocabulary, and don't even define your words, the whole world is clueless of your words. But if you mean, and of cource I must be just guessing, the larger the maximum value [=the base-value] of each individual member of an array of values that by their place number and according to a predefined base-number should be valued in the form of vaue times base-value to the position-value exponent, ... ... yes, even then I think you are wrong. And, I don't think I need to prove you are, you will have to prove/show you are not wrong, and that in a sensible language like English. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf3deba3-09cc-4c00-aeee-bee4bd0f9d3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27509 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 22:23:58 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > As i suspected you are Clueless the weight of the digitplaces do matter > > when you do arithmeric. Sometimes welleducatd peoples annoy me, espeically when things are very simple. Numbers are uniqly identified the base do not matter. If we take a big number like 1234567890 * 16 one do no have to be a brain surgeon to recognise it would be easier to multiply the big heap 16 times then multiply each digit by 16? This is not rocket science. > Again you are just stating something as a fact, > which possibly is not true, and in my mind most probably is not. It is true for anyone with a brain. > You don't even define what you mean by "weight" in the case of > "digitplaces", as it seems you are using your own private vocabulary. Tje magnitude of the base. > Yes of cource if you use your own vocabulary, and don't even define your > words, the whole world is clueless of your words. No it is common sense. > But if you mean, and of cource I must be just guessing, the larger the > maximum value [=the base-value] of each individual member of an array of > values that by their place number and according to a predefined base-number > should be valued in the form of vaue times base-value to the position-value > exponent, ... Here you go wondering into math and i am pretty Clueless without going into math myself and i am really not that interesed, but for common sense yes i am corret. > ... yes, even then I think you are wrong. > > And, I don't think I need to prove you are, > you will have to prove/show you are not wrong, > and that in a sensible language like English. > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 23:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA490EC00F966eejj99@194.109.133.246> |
| In reply to | #27512 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > Sometimes welleducatd peoples annoy me, espeically when things are very > simple. Well, it seems you cannot even explain simple things then, cann't you? And so you last resort is being impolite, isn't it? Dat does not prove you are right, or does it? Why you point your annoyance to other "peoples" excapes me, are you trying to be a racist? It might com handy in the long live you obviously still have lying ahead, to be both more polite in your discussions. > Numbers are uniqly identified the base do not matter. Numbers are not dependent on their being identified. Two different numbers can even have the same value. > If we take a big number like 1234567890 * 16 one do no have to be a > brain surgeon I vaguely suspect I know more about brain-surgeons than you, and your implicit assertion that they are mathemetical geniusses [perhaps because they use knives and vingers to damage the brains of others?] is just as ludicrous as your assertions about base-based numbers. > to recognise Perhaps if it were so logical you could explain your wrong assertion? > it would be easier to multiply the big heap > 16 times then multiply each digit by 16? That you can do completely independent of wether you use any place-defined notation of integers. But you were talking about integers in ANY base. I hold that in present day binary digital machines, called computers, the internal representation of integer values should be binary, and their computation should be done in tha internal representation, and not in a free base of an external notation. [Perhaps future quantum-computers will use three-state bits, so binary will give way to 3-based internal bits.] So you trying to make operator functions in a free base is ludicrous. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <956b2371-5162-49c6-a971-368193f1f483@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27498 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 21:08:20 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > > I wrote: > >> The whole exercise seems rather useless indeed, imho. > >> > >> Using different bases is only important for input and output. > > Integers are just whole numbers, the base in which they are written in, > in computer-slang their input and output string, has nothing to do with the > integer value. > > Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also > independent of the base. You are a moron if you Think they are independent to interpretation. > > You are a bit close minded Evertjan the base differ the representation > > of digit places matter. We could do the arithmeric using sums of squares > > or cubes. > > I am sorry you take the ad hominem approach, but I grant you you have no > other help, as your logical arguments fail. "Doing the arithmeric using sums > of squares or cubes" is just arithmetic on values and independent of the way > they are written. No the interpretation of digitvalues is what is important you are Clueless, about how it it effect the amount of operations needed. > So storing them in different bases is not effective > and so not at all sensible. You are really Clueless. > You could also input/output [and even store] integer values in human > language, and defining different languages, but you will get into endless > problems: --- > twentyfive + dreißig = LV If that is your idea of a number system you are in Deep trouble. > ... while true, I would suggest the the internal computation better be done > with values independent of their notation. > > > The possiblities is endless. > > This sentense certainly will give you an error, > as the operator used here accepts only a singular value on the left. No they are and you are Clueless, they are endless, number systems do not have to be positional. > > But the most important the weight and interpretation of the digiplaces > > do matter, > No, not in computation, only in some forms of notation. Sorry, you are not that Bright a 5 year old can understand that the weight(magnitude do matter to the amount of arithmetic operation needed. > In some number notation systems, like old Hebrew, the place of the number- > character has no influence on the final value at all, and the characters in > fact are just letters with a dot on top. This has it's merits, as integer > numbers can be written in readable text, that can be remembered much better > than most modern notations. Who cares i speak in general terms and what i say is true. > > Integers are just values, a subset of all possible numeric values. Now you drifting away into sadness, really i have no clue... > > There is endless arithmeric systems, > > This sentense certainly will give you an error in value. No there is endless of numbersystems only a minor is positional, get the clue... > > and everyone i ever accounted is faster than binary. > > Everyone? Not even my fastest neighbour. Well only unary is slower. > Indeed binary is not everyone! It is soooooooooooooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooooooow. > Even if you mean "encountered" for "accounted", > the speed of humans has nothing to do with it. Yes i did. > > It a bit naive to think that the interpretation of digit places matter > > when doing arithmeric. > > It is rather silly, indeed it does not, > and you seem to admit that here, > so silly it must be naive. No i did not and you are still Clueless. > "interpretation of digit places" does not matter when doing > arithmetic on values, and since integers are just values, > well we must agree it is naively silly to suppose that. Please you sound more stupid with every Word. > > At least i feel that way. > > I am so glad you agree with me, Jonas. > > Will you take the consequences and stop this silly task? Never. > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA490E680F50ECeejj99@194.109.133.246> |
| In reply to | #27506 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: >> Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also >> independent of the base. > > You are a moron if you Think they are independent to interpretation. "Moron"? You must be a vile person, or you don't even know the beginnings of polite discussion. In the latter case, what society are you living in? I would be perhaps inclined to accept your deepest apology. Discussion is done with arguments, not by throwing dirt at the opponent. Integers are just values, and as so THEY HAVE NO BASE. They can be written in a variety of ways, like words, like number systems, some of which have characters that not only have a value on it's own, but also a place-value, and some of the latter use a fixed base-value to define a formula that results in that place-value. That being said, integers do not change their value because of the way they are written. So they are independent on the way they are written. So they are independent of their possible base notation, and can also be written without such value. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b2efe99-f265-44c4-ace2-6af3de75570e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27511 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 22:39:36 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > > >> Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also > >> independent of the base. > > > > You are a moron if you Think they are independent to interpretation. I Think you missed the *if* Janevert, and i who was thinking you were fluid in the language of logic. > "Moron"? > > You must be a vile person, > or you don't even know the beginnings of polite discussion. > > In the latter case, what society are you living in? > > I would be perhaps inclined to accept your deepest apology. > > Discussion is done with arguments, > not by throwing dirt at the opponent. > > Integers are just values, and as so THEY HAVE NO BASE. > > They can be written in a variety of ways, like words, like number systems, > some of which have characters that not only have a value on it's own, but > also a place-value, and some of the latter use a fixed base-value to define > a formula that results in that place-value. > > That being said, integers do not change their value because of the way they > are written. > > So they are independent on the way they are written. > > So they are independent of their possible base notation, > and can also be written without such value. > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de11affb-b100-42f8-8562-f4cecdd44f3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27506 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > skrev Evertjan.: >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also >> independent of the base. > > You are a moron if you Think they are independent to interpretation. Evertjan is not a moron. And if you're not hearing what he's saying, then you're not listening well. That doesn't mean that he isn't being a bit abrasive as well. But you're going over the top here; he's not nearly as bad as you are. The representation of your data affects the speed of your computation. This is true, and I really doubt Evertjan disputes that. You have done nothing to demonstrate that you can save time by changing to a much higher base. Claiming that it has to be so is not enough, especially as you will then have to start using look-up tables stored in memory or in even slower storage, which will work against the savings you could gain by doing fewer calculations. So I'd really like to see your evidence. -- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04bc8bf2-6aed-4f05-8531-7cd1ed536e16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27513 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Scott Sauyet: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > > skrev Evertjan.: > >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also > >> independent of the base. > > > > You are a moron if you Think they are independent to interpretation. > > Evertjan is not a moron. And if you're not hearing what he's saying, > then you're not listening well. Well Scott i do know that the posters on topics in this forum are much better programmers than i ever could be. That does not mean they are right on every logical topic. And notice i used the conditional work *if*. i do know i am correct on this otherwise i could not have solved RSA challenges in hours using a DX-486 during 1987-1988 OK? > That doesn't mean that he isn't being a bit abrasive as well. But > you're going over the top here; he's not nearly as bad as you are. > > The representation of your data affects the speed of your computation. > This is true, and I really doubt Evertjan disputes that. > > You have done nothing to demonstrate that you can save time by changing > to a much higher base. Claiming that it has to be so is not enough, > especially as you will then have to start using look-up tables stored > in memory or in even slower storage, which will work against the savings > you could gain by doing fewer calculations. > > So I'd really like to see your evidence. > > -- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA490EF2AF4C70eejj99@194.109.133.246> |
| In reply to | #27516 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: >> Evertjan is not a moron. And if you're not hearing what he's saying, >> then you're not listening well. > > Well Scott i do know that the posters on topics in this forum are much > better programmers than i ever could be. That does not mean they are > right on every logical topic. That is not the point. If you want to discuss something, certainly something that depends on logic, like computer scripting and mathematics, you base your asssertions on a mixture of proof and logic. Making authoritative statements and so measuring the value of an assertion on the surmized quality of the poster is quite insystematic, unscientific an illogic. > That does not mean they are right on every logical topic. What nonsense. You are not right simply because someone else might be wrong. Arguments should not be based on authority and dogma, but on logic and evidence. Your claims are not even weak, they are not argumented at all. And remember, as Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 23:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mi8ok1$c4j$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #27523 |
Evertjan. wrote: > Arguments should not be based on authority and dogma, > but on logic and evidence. > > And remember, as Carl Sagan said: > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." SCNR. :) -- Christoph M. Becker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597ce3a0-b7eb-41b0-9534-d0e705ca7cc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27523 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 23:30:43 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 04 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript: > > >> Evertjan is not a moron. And if you're not hearing what he's saying, > >> then you're not listening well. > > > > Well Scott i do know that the posters on topics in this forum are much > > better programmers than i ever could be. That does not mean they are > > right on every logical topic. > > That is not the point. > > If you want to discuss something, certainly something that depends on logic, > like computer scripting and mathematics, you base your asssertions on a > mixture of proof and logic. > > Making authoritative statements and so measuring the value of an assertion > on the surmized quality of the poster is quite insystematic, unscientific an > illogic. > > > That does not mean they are right on every logical topic. > > What nonsense. > > You are not right simply because someone else might be wrong. > > Arguments should not be based on authority and dogma, > but on logic and evidence. Well we could base them on comparissons and timings of my functions in bases from 2-8192 but i feel you would claim the result more a matter of my programming structure than number structure and magnitudes of the digit weights. > > Your claims are not even weak, > they are not argumented at all. > > And remember, as Carl Sagan said: > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9fc19f6-bf7d-4570-8194-e4804b1a594c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27513 |
Den måndag 4 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Scott Sauyet: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > > skrev Evertjan.: > >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> Computations done on them are done on the integer value, and are also > >> independent of the base. > > > > You are a moron if you Think they are independent to interpretation. > > Evertjan is not a moron. And if you're not hearing what he's saying, > then you're not listening well. > > That doesn't mean that he isn't being a bit abrasive as well. But > you're going over the top here; he's not nearly as bad as you are. > > The representation of your data affects the speed of your computation. > This is true, and I really doubt Evertjan disputes that. > > You have done nothing to demonstrate that you can save time by changing > to a much higher base. Claiming that it has to be so is not enough, > especially as you will then have to start using look-up tables stored > in memory or in even slower storage, which will work against the savings > you could gain by doing fewer calculations. > > So I'd really like to see your evidence. > > -- Scott Let us reverse the question/challenge, would it be possible to solve RSA challenges in a matter of hours on a DX-486 during 1987-1988 without arithmetic shortcuts?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe5861a6-4dff-48d5-9bb0-f4c0bdbd5a31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27517 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > skrev Scott Sauyet: >> You have done nothing to demonstrate that you can save time by changing >> to a much higher base. Claiming that it has to be so is not enough, >> especially as you will then have to start using look-up tables stored >> in memory or in even slower storage, which will work against the savings >> you could gain by doing fewer calculations. >> >> So I'd really like to see your evidence. > > Let us reverse the question/challenge, Why? You're making extraordinary claims, and seem to be saying, in essence, "If some smart programmer would help me improve my nasty code, I could really show you how well this works." I've seen absolutely no evidence that such is the case, and you've actually presented very little of either - evidence that this is true - sound arguments that imply that it _might_ be true. And now you want me to argue against some unrelated point that you think will demonstrate that you must be right because it shows how smart you are? > would it be possible to solve RSA challenges in a matter of hours on a > DX-486 during 1987-1988 without arithmetic shortcuts? As far as I recall, the RSA challenges began a decade later. The first ones were solved by teams using hundreds of workstations and/or Cray-style supercomputers. Moreover, assuming by "DX-486" you mean something about an Intel 486 chip, I would find it quite impressive if you were solving this problem with one of those in 1987-1988, since that chip wasn't released until 1989. As to doing this "without arithmetic shortcuts", there's no such thing. There are simply more and less efficient algorithms. There are heuristics such as certain primality tests that allow you to assign probabilistic results more efficiently than you could could assign definitive ones, but that is as close as arithmetic gets to having shortcuts. And those have huge possible failings -- see for instance Carmichael numbers demonstrating a failure of a Fermat primality test. So no, I don't think it would be possible. I find that your claims to have done so fairly fantastic. I had been thinking of putting together my own version of a little base-N arithmetic library. I really thought it would be an interesting puzzle to try to do it in a manner that was both efficient and readable. But I'm feeling less inclined to do so based on the recent posts in this thread, where you don't seem willing to expound on your reasons for believing that this will lead to efficient arithmetic, and have stooped instead to name-calling. It doesn't help that you continue to flout USENET conventions with your posting style. -- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <616547f1-70f7-4d3f-8fb4-fe8ed135721a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27531 |
Den tisdag 5 maj 2015 kl. 03:00:54 UTC+2 skrev Scott Sauyet: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > > skrev Scott Sauyet: > >> You have done nothing to demonstrate that you can save time by changing > >> to a much higher base. Claiming that it has to be so is not enough, > >> especially as you will then have to start using look-up tables stored > >> in memory or in even slower storage, which will work against the savings > >> you could gain by doing fewer calculations. > >> > >> So I'd really like to see your evidence. > > > > Let us reverse the question/challenge, > > Why? You're making extraordinary claims, and seem to be saying, in essence, > "If some smart programmer would help me improve my nasty code, I could > really show you how well this works." I've seen absolutely no evidence > that such is the case, and you've actually presented very little of either > > - evidence that this is true > - sound arguments that imply that it _might_ be true. > > And now you want me to argue against some unrelated point that you think > will demonstrate that you must be right because it shows how smart you are? > > > > would it be possible to solve RSA challenges in a matter of hours on a > > DX-486 during 1987-1988 without arithmetic shortcuts? > > As far as I recall, the RSA challenges began a decade later. The first ones > were solved by teams using hundreds of workstations and/or Cray-style > supercomputers. > > Moreover, assuming by "DX-486" you mean something about an Intel 486 chip, I > would find it quite impressive if you were solving this problem with one of > those in 1987-1988, since that chip wasn't released until 1989. > > As to doing this "without arithmetic shortcuts", there's no such thing. > There are simply more and less efficient algorithms. There are heuristics > such as certain primality tests that allow you to assign probabilistic > results more efficiently than you could could assign definitive ones, but > that is as close as arithmetic gets to having shortcuts. And those have > huge possible failings -- see for instance Carmichael numbers demonstrating > a failure of a Fermat primality test. > > So no, I don't think it would be possible. I find that your claims to have > done so fairly fantastic. > > I had been thinking of putting together my own version of a little base-N > arithmetic library. I really thought it would be an interesting puzzle to > try to do it in a manner that was both efficient and readable. > > But I'm feeling less inclined to do so based on the recent posts in this > thread, where you don't seem willing to expound on your reasons for believing > that this will lead to efficient arithmetic, and have stooped instead to > name-calling. > > It doesn't help that you continue to flout USENET conventions with your > posting style. > > -- Scott I have no intention to prove anything to anyone. If you do not think i did break RSA in 1997-1990 in hours on a 486-dx. There is no need for you to beleive my claims that the computational complexity is dependent upon the interpretation of the digits. I just go on do what i have done more than one time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeSW8jHBe0 Old machine... pre 80's? But i think the chinese version of it were better late 90s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10850878-960c-4787-8a3c-38fc095630b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27532 |
jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote:
> skrev Scott Sauyet:
>> [... some sharp questions regarding Jonas' extraordinary claims ... ]
>
> I have no intention to prove anything to anyone. If you do not think i did
> break RSA in 1997-1990 in hours on a 486-dx.
So 1987-1988 has turned into the (rather odd) 1997-1990?
I do have to admit to suspicions about these claims, even with the adjusted
dates. Of course you don't actually say how _many_ hours your machine spent,
but it would seem very unlikely given the information RSA publishes about
the completion of the first of their challenges, in 1999:
<http://www.emc.com/emc-plus/rsa-labs/historical/rsa-140-factored.htm>
The times cited include 2000 hours for polynomial selection, 8.9 *years*
for sieving, and 100 (Cray) hours for the final matrix reduction (using
the blocked Lanczos algorithm.) That you could do the equivalent on a
486 is well... unbelievable.
Of course, maybe I have you wrong. Most people discussing the RSA
challenges are talking about the published challenges from RSA Labs, starting
with RSA-140. I suppose that if you had a bet with the guy down the street that you could solve RSA-10 with just your abacus, you could *claim* that it
was one of those famous RSA challenges.
So, how many bits in you target value?
What algorithm did you use? What language did you implement it in? Who
coded it? (It would be very surprising to hear that it was your work, given
the code that you've demonstrated here.) Where were the results published? Are there any online records?/
> There is no need for you to beleive my claims that the computational
> complexity is dependent upon the interpretation of the digits.
It's trivially obvious that one can reduce the number of steps involved
in calculating the product of two numbers by drastically increasing the
base of the numbers. But this does not take into account the cost of
base conversions nor the expensive switch from calculation to memory
search involved. Nor does it factor in the space considerations of a
large cache.
> I just go on do what i have done more than one time.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeSW8jHBe0
I took one semester of Russian in 1986.
That's not enough for me to be able to translate much of this video. But
from what I can tell, it has to do with simulating a ternary environment.
That's unrelated to the discussion at hand as far as I can tell.
-- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jonas.thornvall@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-04 18:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a222cd2-1ccc-4c3d-82c0-fcfa6a9ad464@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27531 |
Den tisdag 5 maj 2015 kl. 03:00:54 UTC+2 skrev Scott Sauyet: > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > > skrev Scott Sauyet: > >> You have done nothing to demonstrate that you can save time by changing > >> to a much higher base. Claiming that it has to be so is not enough, > >> especially as you will then have to start using look-up tables stored > >> in memory or in even slower storage, which will work against the savings > >> you could gain by doing fewer calculations. > >> > >> So I'd really like to see your evidence. > > > > Let us reverse the question/challenge, > > Why? You're making extraordinary claims, and seem to be saying, in essence, > "If some smart programmer would help me improve my nasty code, I could > really show you how well this works." I've seen absolutely no evidence > that such is the case, and you've actually presented very little of either > > - evidence that this is true > - sound arguments that imply that it _might_ be true. > > And now you want me to argue against some unrelated point that you think > will demonstrate that you must be right because it shows how smart you are? > > > > would it be possible to solve RSA challenges in a matter of hours on a > > DX-486 during 1987-1988 without arithmetic shortcuts? > > As far as I recall, the RSA challenges began a decade later. The first ones > were solved by teams using hundreds of workstations and/or Cray-style > supercomputers. > > Moreover, assuming by "DX-486" you mean something about an Intel 486 chip, I > would find it quite impressive if you were solving this problem with one of > those in 1987-1988, since that chip wasn't released until 1989. > > As to doing this "without arithmetic shortcuts", there's no such thing. > There are simply more and less efficient algorithms. There are heuristics > such as certain primality tests that allow you to assign probabilistic > results more efficiently than you could could assign definitive ones, but > that is as close as arithmetic gets to having shortcuts. And those have > huge possible failings -- see for instance Carmichael numbers demonstrating > a failure of a Fermat primality test. > > So no, I don't think it would be possible. I find that your claims to have > done so fairly fantastic. > > I had been thinking of putting together my own version of a little base-N > arithmetic library. I really thought it would be an interesting puzzle to > try to do it in a manner that was both efficient and readable. > > But I'm feeling less inclined to do so based on the recent posts in this > thread, where you don't seem willing to expound on your reasons for believing > that this will lead to efficient arithmetic, and have stooped instead to > name-calling. > > It doesn't help that you continue to flout USENET conventions with your > posting style. > > -- Scott Maybe you should ask the butt sniffer Alex Jones about the sampling to the tune they playing.........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript
csiph-web