Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20037

Re: !0 versus true

Show all headers | View raw

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> The point is that you continue to fail to differentiate between
>>>>
>>>> A) an expression
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> B) the string representation of the function that contains it.
>>>
>>> No, as I've demonstrated repeatedly, I understand the difference.
>>
>>> However, even though the two programs I supplied differ only in one
>>> equivalent expression, they have different behavior.
>>>
>>> Stipulating the definition of equivalent expressions as you've
>>> presented it, if we define Document A as the one residing at
>>>
>>> <http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27a/>
>>>
>>> and Document B as the one residing at
>>
>>> http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Demo/2013-05-27b/>
>>
>> [libel]

This was not libel.  *The record shows* that it *is* typical for you to fail 
to differentiate between the argument and the person making it.  One could 
consider your using my name in this context libel, but I do not intend to 
descend to your niveau of argumentation and let you beat me with experience 
there.

>>> The argument, in excruciating detail, proceeds as follows:
>>
>>> 1. Document A and Document B differ only on line 9.
>>> 2. The difference on line 9 starts at column 29.
>>> 3. That difference falls inside a client-side program spanning lines
>>> 7 - 18.  These two distinct programs we will label Program A
>>> and Program B, respectively.
>>> 4. The difference from Program A to Program B can be described as
>>> the deletion of the characters "+!1" and the insertion of the
>>> character "0".
>>> 5. At character 29 of line 9, an expression is allowable.
>>> 6. "+!1" is a legal expression.
>>> 7. "0" is a legal expression.
>>> 8. "+!1" and "0" are equivalent expressions.
>>> 9. Hence Program A and Program B differ only in the substitution of
>>> equivalent expressions.
>>> 10. Loading Document A and Document B into Chrome 27.0.1453.94 (*)
>>> yield differing output.
>>> 11. That differing output is the result of the differences between
>>> Program A and Program B.
>>> 12. Therefore, two programs that differ only in the substitution of
>>> equivalent expressions can yield differing output.
>>
>>> (*) Feel free to substitute another modern browser.
>>
>>> Can you accept this argument
>>
>> No (but that is not the reason why I also reject your later
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> interpretation).
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> If not, which is the first step you reject?
>>
>> 10.
> 
> In other words, you deny that "Loading Document A and Document B into
> Chrome 27.0.1453.94 yield differing output."

No.  And as long as you cannot see that even though I made it perfectly 
clear, there really is nothing else to discuss.  Apparently you are 
challenged by even the slightest deviation from the answer that you expect − 
calling those responses “irrelevant” even though they are not.

So the only chance to resolve this in a civilized manner (and save me 
precious free time no less) that I can see at this point is to take it step 
by step:

No, I do not deny that "Loading Document A and Document B into Chrome 
27.0.1453.94 yield differing output."

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

!0 versus true Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-05-23 23:31 +1000
  Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-23 07:58 -0700
  Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-23 17:53 +0200
    Re: !0 versus true Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-24 12:17 -0700
      Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-24 21:56 +0200
        Re: !0 versus true Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-05-24 13:13 -0700
          Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-24 22:23 +0200
      Re: !0 versus true Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-05-24 22:08 +0000
        Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-25 07:00 +0200
          Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-25 20:04 -0700
            Re: !0 versus true "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-05-26 11:07 +0200
            Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-26 13:11 +0200
              Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 13:28 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-27 12:07 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 11:27 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-27 23:30 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 17:12 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-28 02:40 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 20:29 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-28 15:38 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 08:32 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-28 21:14 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 15:38 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 13:20 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 06:37 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 16:28 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 13:32 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-29 23:34 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 06:30 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-29 17:33 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 11:34 -0700
                Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-05-31 10:22 +0100
                Re: !0 versus true Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2013-05-31 13:04 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 18:13 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 18:16 +0200
                Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:25 -0700
  Re: !0 versus true imma harper <immaterial_uk@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-31 09:46 -0700
    Re: !0 versus true Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-05-31 21:38 +0200
    Re: !0 versus true John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-01 17:37 +0100
  Re: !0 versus true Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-02 21:03 +0100
    Re: !0 versus true Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2013-06-03 04:45 -0700
      Re: !0 versus true Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-04 17:23 +0100

csiph-web