If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

478 clicks; posted to STEM » on 30 Nov 2022 at 7:50 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

No

Computer.... Arch.

Hollow gramms?  Not as long as they can swing a cane at me, they're not!

I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

An interesting conjecture.

And what would a non-hologram universe look like? How would it differ from this one? What are we comparing this universe to?

johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Good luck

johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Show me the peer-reviewed journals you're published in and I'll consider it.

NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Show me the peer-reviewed journals you're published in and I'll consider it.

You are just jealous of me. Go away.

johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

[media.tenor.com image 400x206] [View Full Size image _x_]

Yeah, then what is your point in engaging me?

johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

[media.tenor.com image 400x206] [View Full Size image _x_]

Yeah, then what is your point in engaging me?

To show others that you are not to be believed unless you can show us some actual journals you are in. How many times have your works been referenced? Big claims require big proofs, son. A github page doesn't count.

NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

[media.tenor.com image 400x206] [View Full Size image _x_]

Yeah, then what is your point in engaging me?

To show others that you are not to be believed unless you can show us some actual journals you are in. How many times have your works been referenced? Big claims require big proofs, son. A github page doesn't count.

Look, I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand even the simplest things I've done with this.

johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

[media.tenor.com image 400x206] [View Full Size image _x_]

Yeah, then what is your point in engaging me?

To show others that you are not to be believed unless you can show us some actual journals you are in. How many times have your works been referenced? Big claims require big proofs, son. A github page doesn't count.

Look, I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand even the simplest things I've done with this.

I can't decide which dismissive gif to reply to this twaddle with, so I'll give you a choice:

or,

NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

[media.tenor.com image 400x206] [View Full Size image _x_]

Yeah, then what is your point in engaging me?

To show others that you are not to be believed unless you can show us some actual journals you are in. How many times have your works been referenced? Big claims require big proofs, son. A github page doesn't count.

Look, I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand even the simplest things I've done with this.

I can't decide which dismissive gif to reply to this twaddle with, so I'll give you a choice:

[media.tenor.com image 498x276] [View Full Size image _x_]

or,

[media.tenor.com image 498x280] [View Full Size image _x_]

Ishkur: An interesting conjecture.

And what would a non-hologram universe look like? How would it differ from this one? What are we comparing this universe to?

A non-hologrammtic universe runs on rules that can be described by scientific laws.
A hologrammatic universe runs on Space Corps Directives.

NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: You are just jealous of me

[media.tenor.com image 400x206] [View Full Size image _x_]

Yeah, then what is your point in engaging me?

To show others that you are not to be believed unless you can show us some actual journals you are in. How many times have your works been referenced? Big claims require big proofs, son. A github page doesn't count.

A lot of simulation religionists believe that quantum entanglement is this magic force that binds the galaxy together. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how quantum entanglement actually works.

Ok, presume the universe is one giant simulation.

Does it matter? Unless you can find cheat codes - whether the universe was created by nature, a deity, or a simulator doesn' really change the nature of the rules you have to play by.

johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Somaticasual: Ok, presume the universe is one giant simulation.

Does it matter? Unless you can find cheat codes - whether the universe was created by nature, a deity, or a simulator doesn' really change the nature of the rules you have to play by.

I mean, understanding how something works lets you investigate ways manipulating those rules might benefit you. An example might be relativity and GPS.

StatelyGreekAutomaton: Somaticasual: Ok, presume the universe is one giant simulation.

Does it matter? Unless you can find cheat codes - whether the universe was created by nature, a deity, or a simulator doesn' really change the nature of the rules you have to play by.

I mean, understanding how something works lets you investigate ways manipulating those rules might benefit you. An example might be relativity and GPS.

But, we already know the rules we're bound by. We live by them already.  I guess that's the base of my thought - unless it changes the rules, or you can find a way around them, does it matter to know it's a simulation?

Although I suppose nihilism would be vindicated...

I see the time cube emulator has shown up

iddqd

johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

I believe your research has been contradicted by the works of Dr Gene Ray. You might want to do some more reading and revise your calculations

Reality - No
Dimensional context - Perhaps

Meaning for an aspect such as Space,
which we experience and act within 3,
may have an encapsulating 4th.

Time/action may also have one too
Making it distinct yet still overlapping Space

Einstein once speculated that we could have up to 13 Dimensions for our universe and all points within

This is technically a holographic scenario
But we still would experience reality in 3D or 4 including Time, and so on.
This IS still reality, not anything artificial
Only a hologram by definition mathematically or human definition

Essentially, reality and the universe doesn't CARE what we think
Or how we define it...it keeps going.
Whether we exist or not
Or are aware or not.

Enjoy the ride.

johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

You're just jealous of him.

Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken. I didn't create that flow chart, someone else did. Look at the code that illustrates to see what is happening: https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer/blob/master/calculator_simple.cfg

Alias only lets you create or rewrite a created command to execute a string of commands. Other than Bind to link keys in to commands and Echo for output, that is all the code uses.

Somaticasual: StatelyGreekAutomaton: Somaticasual: Ok, presume the universe is one giant simulation.

Does it matter? Unless you can find cheat codes - whether the universe was created by nature, a deity, or a simulator doesn' really change the nature of the rules you have to play by.

I mean, understanding how something works lets you investigate ways manipulating those rules might benefit you. An example might be relativity and GPS.

But, we already know the rules we're bound by. We live by them already.  I guess that's the base of my thought - unless it changes the rules, or you can find a way around them, does it matter to know it's a simulation?

Although I suppose nihilism would be vindicated...

Knowing why the rules are what they are allows you to advance. For an extreme example, it doesn't matter if you think that the apparent movement of the sun is because of orbital mechanics or because it's a god's chariot running laps, the days go by either way. But one of those beliefs lead to space flight and the other doesn't.

johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken.

You mean like a mechanical computer? Because again you're just using different terminology for things that already exist. The Enigma Machine is an example of what you're talking about. It even uses corotating wheels like you mention in your 'paper'.

Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken.

You mean like a mechanical computer? Because again you're just using different terminology for things that already exist. The Enigma Machine is an example of what you're talking about. It even uses corotating wheels like you mention in your 'paper'.

I think it is similar to a mechanical computer but reduced in complexity to just one thing. What is this form of logic called?

johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken.

You mean like a mechanical computer? Because again you're just using different terminology for things that already exist. The Enigma Machine is an example of what you're talking about. It even uses corotating wheels like you mention in your 'paper'.

I think it is similar to a mechanical computer but reduced in complexity to just one thing. What is this form of logic called?

That's two things, and it's called binary.

Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken.

You mean like a mechanical computer? Because again you're just using different terminology for things that already exist. The Enigma Machine is an example of what you're talking about. It even uses corotating wheels like you mention in your 'paper'.

I think it is similar to a mechanical computer but reduced in complexity to just one thing. What is this form of logic called?

That's two things, and it's called binary.

This is not digital.

johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken.

You mean like a mechanical computer? Because again you're just using different terminology for things that already exist. The Enigma Machine is an example of what you're talking about. It even uses corotating wheels like you mention in your 'paper'.

I think it is similar to a mechanical computer but reduced in complexity to just one thing. What is this form of logic called?

That's ...

And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

Protip: If you don't understand that "binary" is a counting system, you absolutely didn't invent a new method of computing.

Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

Do you know what the word "binary" means?

johnphantom: Rage Against the Thorazine: johnphantom: NuclearPenguins: johnphantom: I have proven this: A computable logic that arises from how connections are made and/or broken over time. That is everything about its functionality, and it is not math - it is much simpler than math in concept, but very difficult to implement in complex functions. I believe this may be implemented only using quantum entanglement, making it one dimensional computable logic that only requires constant input over time to operate.

https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer

Oh, you've proven this, have you? Please share where you are published.

lol.

Look at the examples I give and see for yourself.

Ok I tried reading it and checking out the examples. I can't run any of your 'code' because I don't have Counter Strike but you're pretty much describing a simple read-only variation of a Turing Machine here. The rest of it where you go into Pascal's Triangle and stuff becomes moot at this point. You're just using those equations as instructions on your Turing Machine to jump to a different position on the tape or in your case number line. And I still can't figure out how any of this is 'stateless'. Like in the example when you move to a different position on your number line and read the result that's the current state. I can't make any farking sense of this.

[raw.githubusercontent.com image 695x478]

I'm not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. The logic is purely performed through how connections are made and or broken. I didn't create that flow chart, someone else did. Look at the code that illustrates to see what is happening: https://github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer/blob/master/calculator_simple.cfg

Alias only lets you create or rewrite a created command to execute a string of commands. Other than Bind to link keys in to commands and Echo for output, that is all the code uses.

A keybind script for a video game...
That works on a digital computer...
By parsing strings from digital input...

Isn't a binary system because Words.

Cool story, bro.

Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

Do you know what the word "binary" means?

LOL! Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#Basic_operations

johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

Do you know what the word "binary" means?

LOL! Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#Basic_operations

I did. I learned that "binary" doesn't mean "digital". Did you learn that?

Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

Do you know what the word "binary" means?

LOL! Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#Basic_operations

I did. I learned that "binary" doesn't mean "digital". Did you learn that?

They are two separate definitions. You don't even understand how digital computers work, so you are not worth talking to.

johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

Do you know what the word "binary" means?

LOL! Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#Basic_operations

I did. I learned that "binary" doesn't mean "digital". Did you learn that?

They are two separate definitions. You don't even understand how digital computers work, so you are not worth talking to.

johnny_vegas: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: johnphantom: Noticeably F.A.T.: And?

| bi·na·ry
| /ˈbīnərē,ˈbīˌnərē/
| 1.
| relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
| 2.
|relating to, using, or expressed in a system of numerical notation that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.

If your system is using on/off, heads/tails, yea/nay, connected/unconnected it's using a binary system.

It is not using Boolean algebra operating on binary bits. This is not math.

Do you know what the basis of all digital computers is?

Do you know what the word "binary" means?

LOL! Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#Basic_operations

I did. I learned that "binary" doesn't mean "digital". Did you learn that?

They are two separate definitions. You don't even understand how digital computers work, so you are not worth talking to.

[i.kym-cdn.com image 702x475]

I see we have another person that is ignorant of what he uses every day.

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest