f



2 + 2 =

2 + 2 = 4.  Period.































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The above was posted as a test.

I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.

This has only been a test.

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 12:11:13 AM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

22 Replies
1792 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 35

Snit wrote:

> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.

Looks like Snit passed kindergarten. Good job, Snit.

-- 
Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03

0
1/19/2004 12:46:10 AM
In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above was posted as a test.
> 
> I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
> claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
> come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
> I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> This has only been a test.

So yo're practicing, eh?

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
that he will get nothing in return!"

0
jpolaski2 (4002)
1/19/2004 2:09:22 AM
In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit  <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>2 + 2 = 4.  Period.

[Snip 863 blank lines]

>The above was posted as a test.
>
>I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
>claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
>come up with ways to show I am wrong.

Well, if we start by allowing large values of 2 and small values of 5...

More reasonably, we can look at the ring of integers mod 3, where 2+2=1.
This is of course the same value as 4, but a sufficiently pedantic
mathematician (of which there is no shortage) would insist that the
correct statement is "2+2 is congruent to 4 (mod 3)"[1].

Or, if you have access to a C compiler, you can try this:
--------
#include <stdio.h>
#define TWO 1u<<1u
int main(void)
{
	printf("%u + %u = %u\n",TWO,TWO,TWO+TWO);
	return 0;
}
--------

Then we can get into things like defining the symbol "2" to represent the
number seventeen and the symbol "4" to represent the number fourty-two,
or defining the symbol "+" to mean "divided by", or "=" to mean "is
strictly greater than", or...


>     Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
>is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,

Looking forward to it.

>I will be told that I am changing my claim.

Nope, just that it was poorly stated and you should try a more precise
statement of what you were trying to say.


>      Someone will even go so far as
>to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
>been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.

Hmm, does that apply to any of mine?  Maybe the one about redefining
the meanings of the symbols...


dave
(bored today, can you tell?)

[1] Of course, a casual inspection of the canonical way of writing
    this could very well miss the third line in what would have been
    '=' without it.  But the "is congruent to" symbol doesn't seem to
    exist in ASCII.

-- 
Dave Vandervies                             dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
I've never driven at all!  In the Usenet tradition that must make me the
ultimate expert.
                                             --David Evans in uw.general
0
dj3vande (669)
1/19/2004 3:22:32 AM
"Dave Vandervies" <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote on 1/18/04 8:22 PM:

> In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit  <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
> [Snip 863 blank lines]
> 
>> The above was posted as a test.
>> 
>> I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
>> claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
>> come up with ways to show I am wrong.
> 
> Well, if we start by allowing large values of 2 and small values of 5...
> 
> More reasonably, we can look at the ring of integers mod 3, where 2+2=1.
> This is of course the same value as 4, but a sufficiently pedantic
> mathematician (of which there is no shortage) would insist that the
> correct statement is "2+2 is congruent to 4 (mod 3)"[1].
> 
> Or, if you have access to a C compiler, you can try this:
> --------
> #include <stdio.h>
> #define TWO 1u<<1u
> int main(void)
> {
> printf("%u + %u = %u\n",TWO,TWO,TWO+TWO);
> return 0;
> }
> --------
> 
> Then we can get into things like defining the symbol "2" to represent the
> number seventeen and the symbol "4" to represent the number fourty-two,
> or defining the symbol "+" to mean "divided by", or "=" to mean "is
> strictly greater than", or...
> 
> 
>>     Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
>> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
> 
> Looking forward to it.
> 
>> I will be told that I am changing my claim.
> 
> Nope, just that it was poorly stated and you should try a more precise
> statement of what you were trying to say.
> 
> 
>>      Someone will even go so far as
>> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
>> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Hmm, does that apply to any of mine?  Maybe the one about redefining
> the meanings of the symbols...
> 
> 
> dave
> (bored today, can you tell?)
> 
> [1] Of course, a casual inspection of the canonical way of writing
>   this could very well miss the third line in what would have been
>   '=' without it.  But the "is congruent to" symbol doesn't seem to
>   exist in ASCII.


This is the csma that I know and love.  Thanks.

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 4:24:51 AM
"Elizabot" <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote on 1/18/04 5:46 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
> Looks like Snit passed kindergarten. Good job, Snit.
> 
> -- 
> Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
> 
I left side issues and insults out of my comments about my test.  My
mistake.  Well, you reminded me of both in one post.  Good job, Elizabot.
:)

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 4:25:58 AM
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot" <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote on 1/18/04 5:46 PM:
> 
> 
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
>>
>>Looks like Snit passed kindergarten. Good job, Snit.
>>
>>-- 
>>Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
>>
> 
> I left side issues and insults out of my comments about my test.  My
> mistake.  Well, you reminded me of both in one post.  Good job, Elizabot.
> :)

What sort of responses were you hoping to get with your post, Snit? It seems to 
me as though you were trying to stir the pot, so to speak.

-- 
Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03

0
1/19/2004 5:03:39 AM
In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit
<snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.

Wait a minute. I just tried to confirm this on a Pentium-based machine
and it came up with 2+2 = 3.99999999999998.

What gives?
0
zurg (1519)
1/19/2004 6:18:10 AM
Snit wrote:
> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above was posted as a test.
> 
> I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
> claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
> come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
> I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> This has only been a test.
> 

Slow day?

-zolo

0
zolo (265)
1/19/2004 7:46:37 AM

----------
In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit 
<snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:


> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.

>
> The above was posted as a test.
>
> I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
> claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
> come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
> I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.
>
> This has only been a test.
>

Wow...damaged ego! or what?   
0
wally (39)
1/19/2004 10:12:32 AM
"Wally" <wally@his.own pace> wrote on 1/19/04 3:12 AM:

> 
> 
> ----------
> In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit
> <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
>> 
>> The above was posted as a test.
>> 
>> I am seeing if people in csma will start to debate the accuracy of my
>> claims.  After all, in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
>> come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
>> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
>> I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
>> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
>> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.
>> 
>> This has only been a test.
>> 
> 
> Wow...damaged ego! or what?

what.

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 3:42:37 PM
"Elizabot" <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote on 1/18/04 10:03 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot" <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote on 1/18/04 5:46 PM:
>> 
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
>>> 
>>> Looks like Snit passed kindergarten. Good job, Snit.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Snit: "In your case, well, I was just childishly overreacting." 12/12/03
>>> 
>> 
>> I left side issues and insults out of my comments about my test.  My
>> mistake.  Well, you reminded me of both in one post.  Good job, Elizabot.
>> :)
> 
> What sort of responses were you hoping to get with your post, Snit? It seems
> to me as though you were trying to stir the pot, so to speak.

You may see it as you wish.  Seems to me, though, that this pot is pretty
stirred up already.  

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 3:44:11 PM
In article <BC30AA23.3A9D0%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit  <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>"Dave Vandervies" <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote on 1/18/04 8:22 PM:
>
>> In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
>> Snit  <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.

[minor snippage]

>> Well, if we start by allowing large values of 2 and small values of 5...

[major snippage]

>This is the csma that I know and love.  Thanks.

Nope, just some guy with a wierd sense of humor who stuck his head in
to get opinions on the iBook and didn't want to leave you as the only
reasonable person here.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of why my silliness doesn't
invalidate your claim, though.


dave

-- 
Dave Vandervies                                  dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
> Actually, anything false posted here tends to get corrected pretty quickly.
Actually, anything posted here tends to get corrected pretty quickly.
                                    --Ben Pfaff and Joe Wright in comp.lang.c
0
dj3vande (669)
1/19/2004 6:20:21 PM
In article <BC30AA23.3A9D0%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit wrote:
> This is the csma that I know and love.  Thanks.

But no one has asked for proof yet, so I will: prove that 2+2=4.  I don't
just want to accept your word for it.

A proof at the level of detail of Russell and Whitehead's proof that 1+1=2
from "Principia Mathematica" will do. :-)

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
1/19/2004 6:39:42 PM
"Dave Vandervies" <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote on 1/19/04 11:20 AM:

> In article <BC30AA23.3A9D0%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit  <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>> "Dave Vandervies" <dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote on 1/18/04 8:22 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BC306EB1.3A9A7%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
>>> Snit  <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
> [minor snippage]
> 
>>> Well, if we start by allowing large values of 2 and small values of 5...
> 
> [major snippage]
> 
>> This is the csma that I know and love.  Thanks.
> 
> Nope, just some guy with a wierd sense of humor who stuck his head in
> to get opinions on the iBook and didn't want to leave you as the only
> reasonable person here.

I am not sure I am the only reasonable person here as:

1) there are others who often are reasonable.
2) I am not always reasonable.  :)
> 
> I'm still waiting for your explanation of why my silliness doesn't
> invalidate your claim, though.

You may have a very long wait.  :)

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 8:21:03 PM
"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote on 1/19/04 11:39 AM:

> In article <BC30AA23.3A9D0%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit wrote:
>> This is the csma that I know and love.  Thanks.
> 
> But no one has asked for proof yet, so I will: prove that 2+2=4.  I don't
> just want to accept your word for it.
> 
> A proof at the level of detail of Russell and Whitehead's proof that 1+1=2
> from "Principia Mathematica" will do. :-)

See: I *love* csma logic.  You are right.  I have not proven that 2+2=4.
When someone makes such an outrageous claim, they are often questioned
repeatedly and in very meaningful ways.

I could just see someone claiming that since I have not (and can not) prove
then 2+2=4, that means I have admitted I have no proof, which is the same
thing as saying I have 100% lack of proof, and since I have 100% lack of
proof, my argument that 2+2=4 has been fully refuted.  Therefore, 2+2�4!

No... nobody in this group would be that outrageous... would they?  :)

-----------

Then again: 
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22100%25+lack+of+proof%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&filter=0

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 8:39:50 PM
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote ...

> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.

> ... in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
> come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
> I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.

I think the problem is that you are mixing values and glyphs there.
You need to distinguish between when you mean value and when you mean
glyph, as otherwise your argument gets all screwed up. You are
basically comparing apples and bananas.

The symbol 4 is both a representation of the value 4, but it is also a
glyph. So when you say "there is no 4 in base 3" then that is only
correct as in "there is no glyph 4 in base 3" but it is incorrect if
you interpret it as "there is no value 4 in base 3".  There sure *is*
a *value* 4 in base three, just not a glyph 4, that's all.

In stead in base 3 the value of 4 is represented by the glyphs 1 and
0, or more precisely ...

2    +    2     =    10    =   4
  (3)        (3)            (3)        (10)

hope this helps your discussion

rgds
bk
0
bk_usenet (16)
1/19/2004 10:18:03 PM
Sorry that should have been 11 instead of 10:

2    +    2     =    11    =   4
  (3)        (3)            (3)        (10)
0
bk_usenet (16)
1/19/2004 10:21:23 PM
"BK" <bk_usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote on 1/19/04 3:18 PM:

> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote ...
> 
>> 2 + 2 = 4.  Period.
> 
>> ... in base 3, there is no symbol "4".  I am sure others can
>> come up with ways to show I am wrong.  Then, when I explain how 2 + 2 really
>> is equal to 4, even in other bases or whatever other silliness is presented,
>> I will be told that I am changing my claim.  Someone will even go so far as
>> to say that since I admit there is no "4" in base 3, that my argument has
>> been refuted, and I should no longer state that 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> I think the problem is that you are mixing values and glyphs there.
> You need to distinguish between when you mean value and when you mean
> glyph, as otherwise your argument gets all screwed up. You are
> basically comparing apples and bananas.
> 
> The symbol 4 is both a representation of the value 4, but it is also a
> glyph. So when you say "there is no 4 in base 3" then that is only
> correct as in "there is no glyph 4 in base 3" but it is incorrect if
> you interpret it as "there is no value 4 in base 3".  There sure *is*
> a *value* 4 in base three, just not a glyph 4, that's all.
> 
> In stead in base 3 the value of 4 is represented by the glyphs 1 and
> 0, or more precisely ...
> 
> 2    +    2     =    10    =   4
> (3)        (3)            (3)        (10)
> 
> hope this helps your discussion

Very much.  Thank you.

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 10:40:14 PM
"BK" <bk_usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote on 1/19/04 3:21 PM:

> Sorry that should have been 11 instead of 10:
> 
> 2    +    2     =    11    =   4
> (3)        (3)            (3)        (10)

Oh no.  Nooooo..... Damn.  That ruins everything.

Please disregard my last 11 posts

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 10:40:58 PM
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote

> A proof at the level of detail of Russell and Whitehead's proof that 1+1=2
> from "Principia Mathematica" will do. :-)

You cannot proof that 1+1=2 because this is one of the assumptions
(aka axioms) mathematics is based on.

Those assumptions (axioms) are ...

- that there are whole numbers, inlcuding the number 1
- that those numbers are ordered meaning each number has a predecessor
and a successor
- that each number is exactly 1 greater than its predecessor

These cannot be proven. These are the ingredients used to create
mathematics, so to speak. Anything that can be proven in mathematics
is based on these assumptions, but the assumptions themselves cannot
be proven.

There are different number systems which have been invented to solve
certain problems. Not all of those number systems are based on the
same axioms we are so used to. For example, some number systems do not
have any ordered numbers, ie you cannot determine which of two numbers
are greater or smaller since the axioms used for that number system
don't give that property to those numbers. However, even with
different axioms you can still do math in those number systems.

For any given system, every mathematical proof can be traced back to
the axioms on which that system is based.

Thus, mathematics is not about "1+1=2" or "2+2=4"; mathematics is
about "If we assume that 1+1=2 and 2+1=3, or n+1 = m  etc etc, then we
can conlude that this and that is true or false".

rgds
bk
0
bk_usenet (16)
1/19/2004 10:50:36 PM
"BK" <bk_usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote on 1/19/04 3:50 PM:

> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> 
>> A proof at the level of detail of Russell and Whitehead's proof that 1+1=2
>> from "Principia Mathematica" will do. :-)
> 
> You cannot proof that 1+1=2 because this is one of the assumptions
> (aka axioms) mathematics is based on.

Strange you would say that, being that Tim directly comments on the proof
that 1+1=2.

I am sure this will help to clear things up:

http://www.idt.mdh.se/~icc/1+1=2.htm

If you look at line 3 and make the logical changes, and then follow the
changes appropriately through the text, you will also see that the proof for
2 + 2 being equal to 4 is really not that hard.
> 
> Those assumptions (axioms) are ...
> 
> - that there are whole numbers, inlcuding the number 1
> - that those numbers are ordered meaning each number has a predecessor
> and a successor
> - that each number is exactly 1 greater than its predecessor
> 
> These cannot be proven. These are the ingredients used to create
> mathematics, so to speak. Anything that can be proven in mathematics
> is based on these assumptions, but the assumptions themselves cannot
> be proven.
> 
> There are different number systems which have been invented to solve
> certain problems. Not all of those number systems are based on the
> same axioms we are so used to. For example, some number systems do not
> have any ordered numbers, ie you cannot determine which of two numbers
> are greater or smaller since the axioms used for that number system
> don't give that property to those numbers. However, even with
> different axioms you can still do math in those number systems.
> 
> For any given system, every mathematical proof can be traced back to
> the axioms on which that system is based.
> 
> Thus, mathematics is not about "1+1=2" or "2+2=4"; mathematics is
> about "If we assume that 1+1=2 and 2+1=3, or n+1 = m  etc etc, then we
> can conlude that this and that is true or false".
> 
> rgds
> bk

0
snit2 (2897)
1/19/2004 11:01:30 PM
In article <39d9c156.0401191450.4b2d8692@posting.google.com>, BK wrote:
> You cannot proof that 1+1=2 because this is one of the assumptions
> (aka axioms) mathematics is based on.
> 
> Those assumptions (axioms) are ...
> 
> - that there are whole numbers, inlcuding the number 1
> - that those numbers are ordered meaning each number has a predecessor
> and a successor
> - that each number is exactly 1 greater than its predecessor

I won't nit-pick your choice of axioms, although that isn't the usual
choice.  Note, however, you have not taken "1+1=2" as an axiom, and so,
starting with your axioms, a proof is still required.  First, though, you
would need to define 2 ("the successor of 1" will do), and define addition.
Then you could indeed prove that 1+1=2.

To be really thorough, you also need to axiomatize your rules of inference,
too.  Your axioms are lot higher-level than are needed.  One can start much
lower.

The classic work in that area is Russell and Whitehead's "Principia
Mathematica":

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052106791X/102-1096805-4733714?v=glance

I was going to buy this, but then noticed it is $625.  *Ouch!!!!*  I think
I'll wait for a Dover edition! :-)

Russell and Whitehead prove 1+1=2, after about a 100 pages of preliminaries.

The aim of Russell and Whitehead was to produce an airtight foundation for
mathematics, free of annoying paradoxes, such as Russell's Paradox, that was
complete.  This was shown to be impossible by Kurt Godel, in his famous
paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and
Related Systems" in 1931.  That *is* available in a Dover edition for only
$6.95. :-)

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486669807/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-1096805-4733714?v=glance&s=books&st=*

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
1/19/2004 11:15:09 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
In Python 2.5 on intel, the statement 2**2**2**2**2 evaluates to >>> 2**2**2**2**2 20035299304068464649790723515602557504478254755697514192650169737108940595563114 53089506130880933348101038234342907263181822949382118812668869506364761547029165 04187191635158796634721944293092798208430910485599057015931895963952486337236720 30029169695921561087649488892540908059114570376752085002066715637023661263597471 44807111774815880914135742720967190151836282560618091458852699826141425030123391 10827360384376787644904320596037912449090570756031403507616256247603186379312648 4703743782954975613770...

linspace(2,2,2) returns [2 2] ??
May be the help for linspace should change? It says: "LINSPACE(X1, X2, N) generates N points between X1 and X2." Notice, it says BETWEEN. But when I ask for 2 points, between 2 and 2: ---------------- EDU>> linspace(2,2,2) ans = 2 2 --------------- May be mathematically this is ok? i.e. there are infinite points between the point and itself? (on the real line), but from programming point of view, it is confusing. no? --Nasser Maybe it should say "generates N points between X1 and X2, inclusive." What did you expect to...

2 * 2 * 2 * 2 or pow(2, 4)?
Hi , I hope this isn't too trivial to ask, but I'm evaluating a polynomial that involve lots of terms like x^2y^2z^3, and although I can use the power function pow(a, b), I wonder if just writing x*x*y*y*z*z*z for example wouldn't be more efficient than pow(x, 2)*pow(y, 2)*pow(z,3). Or is it all the same? Thanks, - Olumide Olumide wrote: > I hope this isn't too trivial to ask, but I'm evaluating a polynomial > that involve lots of terms like x^2y^2z^3, and although I can use the > power function pow(a, b), I wonder if just writing x*x*y*y*z*z*z for > exam...

OTM 2.2 #2
Hi all Just installed OTM on a cust pc (Win XP) Got a problem that when using the system terminal to access Meridian Mail, I am unable to exit from mail as the Cntrl ] function is not recognised. Now is this a problem with OTM or with the customers PC? Thanks Solved it. The term type was set to VT100 and not VT220 ...

VIBE 2.2 #2
About: Visual Information Broker Enterprise (VIBE) is an IDE that enables application developers to automate the design and development of infrastructure components for complex distributed cross-platform, cross-language systems applications. You can define messages and generate infrastructure support code for the IBM MQ information bus, Sybase, Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, and other JDBC compliant databases, XML with transformations that use tools like XSL, and J2EE. It also includes a fully functional Business Rules engine, along with a graphical programming environment. Changes: This relea...

2.2.2 Annoyance
Caveat: Python 2.2.2 (#37, Oct 14 2002, 17:02:34) Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "l >>> l = [1,2,3] >>> l[1] 2 >>> l.__getitem__(1) 2 >>> l.__getitem__(slice(1)) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? TypeError: an integer is required >>> According to the manuals of Python 2.2.2, passing a slice object to __getitem__ is all right and should work... Cost a few (grey) hairs of mine, while debugging a largish program, this is not so. Would someone care to pass on th...

what is 4.2.2.2
Hi I came to found from many websites when i had a problem in Internet explorer when if i browse any websites, its showing me "Page cannot be displayed" and in bottom of the page it shows "Cannot find server or DNS Error" Internet Explorer that they advised me to put 4.2.2.2 in my Primary DNS Server. I am in DHCP enabled Network and using windows xp sp2. My question is what is this ip address mean (4.2.2.2) ? Pl explain in detail. Can we give it in our Primary DNS server ? Thanks in advance Chandra -- chandra Message posted via HWKB.com http://www.hwkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/network/200708/1 I guess it would need to be explained on how you connect to the internet? Cable, DSL, Private company....... or worse dial-up.. "gchandrujs via HWKB.com" <u25485@uwe> wrote in message news:76e067266841f@uwe... > Hi > > I came to found from many websites when i had a problem in Internet > explorer > when if i browse any websites, its showing me "Page cannot be displayed" > and > in bottom of the page it shows "Cannot find server or DNS Error" Internet > Explorer that they advised me to put 4.2.2.2 in my Primary DNS Server. > > I am in DHCP enabled Network and using windows xp sp2. > > My question is what is this ip address mean (4.2.2.2) ? Pl explain in > detail. > > Can we give it in our Primary DNS server ? > > > Th...

Does 4/2/2= (4/2)/2 =1 OR = 4/(2/2)=4
I don't have matlab and I am trying to translate some simple matlab code. Does 4/2/2 = (4/2)/2 = 1 or 4/2/2 = 4/(2/2) = 4 On 9/11/2012 9:43 AM, sarah.englander@gmail.com wrote: > I don't have matlab and I am trying to translate some simple matlab code. > > Does 4/2/2 = (4/2)/2 = 1 yes. At a given precedence level (and obviously two of the same operators are the same level) evaluation proceeds from LtoR. ....snip... <http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/matlab_prog/f0-40063.html#f0-38155> -- dpb <none@non.net> wrote in message <...

Printing 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^4 and 2^5
Hi, When I use a while loop, the output is: 2 4 8 16 32, as desired: <?php $c=1; while($c<=5) { $d = newpow(2, $c); print "$d "; $c++; } function newpow($base, $power) { // statements... } ?> The But when I use a for loop, the output is: 64: <?php for($c=1; $c<=5; $c++); { $d = newpow(2, $c); print "$d "; } function newpow($base, $power) { // statements... } ?> Why is this?? Many thanks, Michael mejpark wrote: > When I use a while loop, the output is: 2 4 8 16 32, as desired: [...] > The But when I use a for loop, the output is: 64...

using an iPod with Mac os 9.2.2 and iTunes 2.0.4 #2
Help! I have just purchased a (3rd gen) iPod as a gift for use with a G4. Unfortunately it turns out that the 'lucky' recipient is using OS 9.2.2 rather than OS X as I had assumed. I have read unsubstantiated reports that it is possible to get this working (despite Apple's recommendations that at least OS 10.1.5 is required) but I am unable to fathom it out (not a regular Mac user). Has anyone managed to get this combo working and if so can they give me any pointers? The iPod is recognised as a firewire HD device on the desktop but does not appear in or sync with iTunes. Please h...

2+2
4 -- ��Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros � Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family" � OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:35:36 -0700, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> chose to bless us with the following wisdom: >4 Way I love the little girl, you'll never know Come on, baby don't you wanna go? Back to the same old place, sweet home Chicago -- "We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser. Internet Explorer is my browser of choice." Steve Jobs ...

2 or not 2
is this a question! http://members.iinet.net.au/~moussa/Image029.jpg Should I? the in house auction is tomorrow :-/ Moussa -- The information contained in this post is copyright of the poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by http://www.jlaforums.com Il Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:13:08 +0800, Cheers ha scritto: > is this a question! > > http://members.iinet.net.au/~moussa/Image029.jpg > > Should I? the in house auction is tomorrow :-/ > > Moussa I don't know it but it's BIG ! Do you have free space ? How much, do you think, it will cost ? Could be a nice addiction, but let's listen to someone else... On Sep 9, 4:13 am, Cheers <moussa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~moussa/Image029.jpg Personally, I'm not that fond of Sun equipment, so I haven't paid that much attention to their offerings. My guess is that the rack is a storage array, and it appears to be on the old side, so it's likely that the total storage capacity in the array could be met or exceeded by one large SATA drive (both 1.5TB and 2.0TB 3.5-inch drives are currently available) -- at much lower noise and power levels. Of course, if you already had one of these bad boys and were just looking for an inexpensive source of spare parts, I'd say go for it. Rick Ekblaw Hi Moussa ! > is this a question! > > http://members.iinet.net.au/~moussa/Image029.jp...

how to do this? #2 #2
Hi, I am working on a program which can do numerical evaluations for integrations. The program I have is like this, double foo(p1, p2) double p1, p2; { double kk,step; int ii; step_sz=(p2-p1)/100.; kk=0.; for (ii=0;ii<100;ii++) kk+=sin(p1+ii*step_sz)*step_sz; return (kk); } This program used the basic Newton method. My question is here in my program foo, I can only calculate the integrations for a sine function. If I want to do an integration for a cosine function, I need to rewrite another function foo1 with cosine being inserted in. I am sure there is a neat way to do this wit...

What does this do? #2 #2
Im trying to fix two libraries to be compatible with Ruby 1.9 - gruff and pdf-writer, and I came accross this: SyntaxError: /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/gems/gruff-0.3.4/lib/gruff/mini/legend.rb:72: invalid multibyte char (US-ASCII) /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/gems/gruff-0.3.4/lib/gruff/mini/legend.rb:72: invalid multibyte char (US-ASCII) /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/gems/gruff-0.3.4/lib/gruff/mini/legend.rb:72: syntax error, unexpected $end, expecting ':' ...ength < label.to_s.length ? "â¦" : '') This is the gruff code: truncated_label + (truncated_...

Building for Mac with 2.5.2 or 2.5.3
What's the educated opinion on porting an application to Mac? We've used 2.4 from CVS for both Windows and Linux but found that there were too many problems with 2.4 when trying to compile on Mac ... now we're not sure if 2.5.3 is a moving target on Mac or should we try staying with 2.5.2? Any expert opinions out in the wild? ....Landon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: wx-users-unsubscribe@lists.wxwidgets.org For additional commands, e-mail: wx-users-help@lists.wxwidgets.org Hi Please use CVS HEAD...

OSK 2.0, 2.2 and 2.3
Does anyone here have any of the versions named in the subject? I am unravelling 68K Basic I-Code, and I need to compare 2.0, 2.2 and 2.3 modules with 2.1 and 2.4 modules. There are differences between 2.1 and 2.4, and I want to know how many other differences there are between versions. Thanks in advance. Wayne Campbell ...

from python1.5.2 to python2.2.2 #2
Hi, I have a lot of scripts written in python1.5.2 that I want to bring in python2.2.2. Someone could give me some informations about the sintax difference between this 2 version? Where can I get documents about it? Are there some available tools to do this automatically? thanks Alberto In article <3ef166ac.3608218@news.marelli.it>, Alberto Mantovani <alberto.mantovaniNOSPAM@bologna.marelli.it> wrote: > >I have a lot of scripts written in python1.5.2 that I want to bring in >python2.2.2. Someone could give me some informations about the sintax >difference between th...

Cursor in Mac OS X 10.5.6 w/X11 2.2.3 and 2.3.2
Hi, I know this problem has come up before, but I was unable to find a solution that worked in the group. The problem: cursor,x,y,/down or any variation results in a dead terminal and X-window. Using ctrl- c at the terminal and then clicking on the terminal works: IDL> cursor,x,y,/down,/device % Interrupted at: $MAIN$ IDL> print,x,y 522 105 Using "defaults write com.apple.x11 wm_click_through -bool true" has no effect. Installing the latest version of IDL (7.0.6) also had no effect. The error occurs both with IDL run remotely and locally. I've tried bo...

problems with in 2.3.2 developed modules used with 2.2.2
Sorry for the long header of this mail ;-) Has anyone experienced modules developed in 2.3.2 (using IDLE and = PythonWin as IDE) don't work under 2.2.2.... I mean basic stuff like it = can not see classes from your .py file, so an import fails? It almost likes that in my case 2.2.2 doesn't like the file format = generated by IDLE or PythonWin in 2.3.2. Does someone know if this is a known problem? Vincent Try deleting the .pyc version of the file... maybe 2.2.2 doesn't realize that the magic number is wrong and that it should recompile from the .py source. Kevin. "Raa...

Blender 2.34 and Python 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
If you can run python scripts in blender 2.3x, I'll be glad to know which versions did you install. Checking at blender.org, I found that blender 2.34 is built with python 2.3. However, I don't want to perform an installation of python 2.3 if I'm not sure that it fixes my problem (I found some people saying that this problem is fixed by downgrading from python 2.3 to 2.2, and also the freeware.sgi.com python is still at 2.1.1, so I've no idea on the best option). Before playing with a custom installation of python, I'm posting the problem here with the hope that somebody experienced it and knows the solution). Here it goes: After installing Python 2.1.1 from freeware.sgi.com, setting PYTHONHOME to /usr/freeware, and installing the officially precompiled Blender 2.34, I still get this warning at Blender startup: 'import site' failed; use -v for traceback sys_init:warning - no sitedirs added from site module. Then, when I try to run the python script, I get an error stating "ImportError: No module named os". And, btw, it always dumps core with segmentation fault when I quit Blender (it doesn't matter if I tried to run the python script or not, it still dumps core if I just start blender and quit it immediatly without doing anything). cesar wrote: > If you can run python scripts in blender 2.3x, I'll be glad to know > which versions did you install. > > Checking at blender.org, I f...

Upgrade from VO 1 - 2 - 2..1 -2.2 - 2.3 -2.4 - 2.5 - 2.6 - 2.7
About upgrade 2.5 - 2.7 at $ 384.00 For most products I'm using - the updates (2.0 - 2.1 - 2.7) are free... 2.0 to 3.0 might be worth + 10-30% of the original price? VO is + full price again & again - Full program price for every minor upgrade/bug-fix? I dropped out of the money/bugs [VO] at 2.5 after starting at 1.0 more than 10 years ago. Certainly whoever is making VO have to make a living; earning moneys: - that is OK! A 10 years old VO site; - 10 years later, how much have changed? http://www.yi.com/prany/cavo/cavofront.htm Even MS is not ...

RE: [Mac, 2.8.2]
So what do you all think? Would it be OK to add combo-box awareness to the text validator? >=20 > The generic validator just does the transfer to/from windows, but does > NOT do validation. >=20 > I was specifically referring to combo-box as they are very similar to > text edit boxes. Essentially they are text edit boxes and a choice > control. So it seems natural they would share validators with the text > edit control. >=20 > The text edit validator has some nice validation (not transfer) options > which allow to enforce text of certain kind. I...

[ANN] gettext-2.0.2, gettext_activerecord-2.0.2, gettext_rails-2.0.2
Hi, Ruby-GetText-Package-2.0.2 and the families (gettext-2.0.2, gettext_activerecord-2.0.2 and gettext_rails-2.0.2) are now available. Ruby-GetText-Package is the library/tools for message localization. * gettext - Message localization libraries and tools for all kind of apps/libs. * gettext_activerecord - ActiveRecord Localization * gettext_rails - Rails support with gettext. Changes ------- == gettext-2.0.2 * Support ruby-1.9.1 style format string such as %<foo>d. * Apply new Locale.set_app_language_tags and Locale.candidates. [Suggested by Vladimir Dobriakov] * Enhance...

pegasus mac ? 2.2
Was there ever a small update to fix the date display in the mailbox? Regards- Richard ...

Web resources about - 2 + 2 = - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sharapova & 6 Other Pro Athletes Who Blew Big Endorsement Deals Overnight
All over the world, sports fans set their heroes up on high pedestals. So when scandals it, it’s a long way for professional athletes to fall, ...

Microsoft joins the Eclipse foundation, open sources some of its plugins
The Eclipse Foundation, the organization that oversees development of the Eclipse development environment, has a new member: Microsoft announced ...

VIDEO: Jay and Dan Unveiled Fake Courtroom Sketches from Hulk Hogan-Gawker Trial
If you are following reporters like Anna Phillips , Tom Kludt , and Keith Harris , and even if you’re not, you’ve realized that the Hulk Hogan ...

Did This Bruce and Kris Jenner Workout Video Haunt Robert Kardashian?
America is getting a fresh look at the relationship between Robert Kardashian and his former wife, Kris Jenner, in “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” ...

US airstrike kills 150 suspected militants in Somalia
Washington Post US airstrike kills 150 suspected militants in Somalia Politico With Louis Nelson, Austin Wright and Ellen Mitchell. WAR REPORT ...

Review: The Samsung S7's camera now rivals the iPhone
It's difficult to justify paying for a high-priced, top-end smartphone these days—unless, that is, you want to take good pictures.

Hum Writing First New Music In 18 Years
Although Illinois space-rock heroes Hum haven't released any new music since 1998's Downward Is Heavenward, they've continued to perform together ...

The Latest: Mudslide Blamed for California Train Derailment
A Union Pacific spokesman says a mudslide most likely caused a commuter train derailment in Northern California that sent its leading car plunging ...

Verizon gets tiny FCC fine for secretly tracking subscribers with no way to opt out
How much is your privacy worth to the Federal Communications Commission? Not quite as much as it is undoubtedly worth to you. Back in 2014, it ...

Happy International Women’s Day! Here Are 17 Things You Have Because Women Invented Them
Happy International Women’s Day! Since the early 1900s, International Women’s Day has been a worldwide event that celebrates women’s achievements ...

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 9:21:43 AM