On May 15, 11:46В pm, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> spinoza1111said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 11, 2:42 pm, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> spinoza1111said:
>
>>>> On May 11, 2:12 am, Qwertyioup
none.com> wrote:>
>>>
>
>>>>> You were "invited" by Lessig.
>>>>> How many thousand people did he "invite"?
>
>>>> Perhaps about 1000.0e-2<<1
>
>>>> (should be interesting to see this guy, who knows nothing about
>>>> programming and is abusing this forum thereby, figure that one out).
>
>>> If you knew anything about programming, you'd know that the above has no
>>> single meaning. For example, in C it is a constraint violation requiring
>>> a diagnostic message and probably halting compilation. In C++, its
>>> meaning depends on how you overload << within the context of the
>>> expression (which you must if you are to avoid the constraint
>>> violation).
>
>
>
>> ROTFLMFAO
>
>> I was writing English and not C.
>
> I just checked with four people, all of whom have at least a decade's
> experience in speaking English as their first language. None recognised
> 1000.0e-2<<1 as having any intelligible meaning in English. I looked it up
> in the dictionary, but no joy there, either.
>
> You get funnier and funnier. It *has* to be intentional, *surely*? I find
> it hard to believe that anyone could really be such a bozo as to think
> that 1000.0e-2<<1 is meaningful in English.
C, including left shift, is as I've said not a mathematical calculus,
nor as such is it definable by a "standard".
It's, as I've said, part of natural language. To use a suggestion of
Knuth's, it's that part of natural language in which one human being
makes predictions about what computers will do to another human being.
This is because computers don't speak or write natural languages and
as artifacts are dependent on the existence of human beings and a
certain stage of industrial development. Shortly after the oil runs
out, computer programming languages will come into their own because
they will be historical languages that describe what computers did
when we had spare electrical power.
Now, natural languages are open with respect to verbs, therefore I
merely used the shift operator as a neologistic verb to express
multiplication by two in such a way that pissed you off, dear
Richard, because despite the fact that you are a programmer, and a
competent one to boot, you struggle nonetheless with symbols as
evinced by your performance on the test with && and ||.
This is because, in all probability, you weren't challenged enough in
school with calculi unrelated to computers.
The shift operator was a poetic way of expressing multiplication by
two and it was meant to irritate you. As such, I was here, and only
here, guilty of mild, non-anonymous trolling. I was teasing you with a
knowledge more advanced than you of calculi in addition to English,
putting you into your place.
Where's your famous British sense of humor?
