subroutine stack and C machine model

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

"Clearly wrong" means "the statement or text x that declares 'the
statement or text y is wrong' is true and it is clear". It does not
EVER mean that "the statement or text y is clear and wrong".

Your authority for this rule? The Word of Nilges?

In mathematics, clarity has only one meaning, and that is validity.

You can provide a citation for this interesting definition?
A work of French poetry, perhaps? A conversation you had with John
Nash?

A proof in mathematics cannot be clear and wrong. This is because at
the point of failure, it is unclear.

Rubbish.
When correcting a student's maths, if they have arrived a wrong
result, and have done so in a "clear" manner, it is easy to discover
and point out the error. Clarity helps one to arrive at truth, it also
make it easier to detect untruth, but it does not preclude untruth.

Anyway, you're just arguing from your own definition, again, The Word
of Nilges.

Whatever the meaning of clear in a mathematical context, it has no
relevance to the use when discussing a work of prose. Hint: that's
why the OED has over 30 meanings for the word. Different context,
different meaning.

But you (now) don't believe in dictionaries, right?

 

[spinoza1111]

Yes I am. And equally relevant, are you aware that Marilyn Monroe had
6 toes on her foot?


So after weeks of asserting that the OED supported your definition, on
my proving it did not, now "Real Men don't need no dictionaries".

That's not what I said. Your argument was completely based on a
dictionary which is too complicated and not for you, since when you
copied and pasted, you failed to even realize that "clear" means
different things depending on context and category.

Your entire case was based on the dictionary, a dictionary which you
don't understand.

Whereas *en passant* I supplied the only sensible dictionary
definition from a dictionary which you might be able to understand. My
main argument, however, showed that to say, of a text (not a statement
in a formal language, nor comprised of such isolatable statements),
that it is "clear" means that it corresponds in a clear way to reality
and is conducive to understanding.

And, understanding is knowledge and knowledge is justified belief in
the true.

Commodity fetishism obscures partially ordered relations. Brood on
that, oh chump of chumps, until you understand it.

 

[spinoza1111]

In <[email protected]>,

spinoza1111wrote:


On the contrary, each of those projects was successful.


Oh, everyone makes mistakes, but no, there weren't thousands of bugs
in what I did. When I did make mistakes, I normally found them myself
and fixed them myself. There were occasions when others found
mistakes that I'd made, either I fixed them or they fixed them - no
blame attached. Likewise, there were occasions when I found mistakes
that others had made, and either they fixed them or I fixed them -
again, no blame attached. You seem to think blame is important. I
think fixing the problem is important.



I'm tempted to answer "yes", but there's always the risk that you
might believe me for once.


I'm sure you're about to tell me.


News flash. That's part of it. If for a program P written in language
X there exists no X compiler (or cross-compiler) for platform Y, then
P is not portable to Y until such time as the program is translated
into a different language for which a Y implementation exists or
until an implementation of X is made available for Y.


Wrong. It's whether the code runs correctly on all targeted platforms
when written *correctly*, *once*. The measure of portability of a
program may be regarded as the proportion of the code that does not
need to be rewritten for each new platform, and a wise programmer
isolates non-portable parts of the code to make this rewrite easier.
100% portability is nice, but 90% is perfectly satisfactory, and 95%
is common.


It is you, not me, who is seeking to drive someone out of a public
discussion. It is not difficult for any independent third party to
see which of us is seeking to be the bully.


(a) Java wasn't even released until 1995!
(b) Typically, when a client hires a contractor to do on-site
programming, the client gets to choose the development language and

This shows that you are a subprofessional and not worth my time,
because as a consultant I got to choose the language and development
platform in almost all cases where the software had not been written.

For example, to write a ship stability program with a special purpose
graphical engine predating the availability of such tools, I was asked
if I wanted to use C or True Basic, and I chose True Basic. The
program was a success.

Prior to the banking deregulation which caused the Panic of 2008, in
fact, bankers were strongly advised by their auditors in fact to avoid
the "efficient" in favor of the safe (Tandem). Your choice or
acquiescence in C was probably malpractice in banking software even if
British bankers didn't care.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

That's not what I said.

Poetic license. Look it up.

Your argument was completely based on a
dictionary

... excuse me, asshole, you were the one who insisted his argument
was based on a dictionary definition. That same specific dictionary
which I showed did not in fact include the definition you made up.

which is too complicated and not for you, since when you
copied and pasted, you failed to even realize that "clear" means
different things depending on context and category.

That was exactly my point. As I said CLEARLY several times. So it must
be true.

Your entire case was based on the dictionary, a dictionary which you
don't understand.

Your case, asshole, was based on a dictionary, as you said several
times. Now it's my case?

Whereas *en passant* I supplied the only sensible dictionary
definition

One which did not support your assertion.

tedious crap ....

And, understanding is knowledge and knowledge is justified belief in
the true.

And your trademark "proof by repetition".

What a CLEARLY self-deluded fool.