 Feature Articles
 CodeSOD
 Error'd
 Forums

Other Articles
 Random Article
 Other Series
 Alex's Soapbox
 Announcements
 Best of…
 Best of Email
 Best of the Sidebar
 Bring Your Own Code
 Coded Smorgasbord
 Mandatory Fun Day
 Off Topic
 Representative Line
 News Roundup
 Editor's Soapbox
 Software on the Rocks
 Souvenir Potpourri
 Sponsor Post
 Tales from the Interview
 The Daily WTF: Live
 Virtudyne
Admin
Admin
divisible by itself, 1, 5, and 43, you mean.
Admin
In some sense, the usual definitions are arbitrary, but they're not that arbitrary. If we require that the real numbers must in some reasonable sense generalize the properties of the rationals, and that whatever rules we adopt for them must not immediately lead to a contradiction, there is not much wiggle room left.
Nonstandard analysis gets you only so far; in particular the nonstandard reals come bundled with nonstandard integers (which are the usual ones plus a steaming heap of different infinities). The decimal expansion of a nonstandard real then requires a digit for each nonstandardintegral index, and if you set all of these decimals to 9, you still get 0.999...=1 exactly. The best you can do is to make the first aleph0 decimals 9's and the rest 0's. Then 0.999...9900... is infinitesimally close to, but distinct from, 1.
Admin
That ISelfAware if truly precious. Not only does it have a blindingly arrogant name, but it is also utterly useless. Such combinations of arrogance and ignorance are amusing from afar, but enraging when it's happening right next to you at work.
Admin
"At least one called 0.333... an "infinite number". It isn't; it's finite and has a well defined value."
This is all wrong, my post clearly states that we ARE talking about infinite numbers... the nature of the representation of the number is up for debate sure... but as i said we need to clear on what we personally MEAN, which is why i defined it as infinite number... repeatedly!
If you choose we can write it like this from now on 0.999(inf) to save all the confusion if you are getting lost.
It's impossible to actually calculate a result using a real infinite number, you can make up some rules (but they ARE in fact made up rules) you can approximate and assume... but it won't be true results.
There is no possible way to finish performing a calculation like 10 * 0.999(inf) you simply can never in "real terms" finish as its infinite and the process of a multiplication itself requires the testing of all units of the formula which are... infinite.
We humans like to make up lots of fun rules to fix issues like this... doesn't take away from the original problem however that 1 != 0.999(inf) as the values are simply plain different
One is a standard number, 1 with no infinite definition and 0.999(inf) is a infinite number.. this makes them different
They both represent different values and this is the part most of you are brain washed into thinking is wrong via made up rules to solve the issue in the first place.
I would agree that if the difference between the 2 numbers is absolutely nothing and null they are the same... in that the difference between 5 and 5 is absolute truth of 0, so they are the same. 5 = 5
However! There is no way to calculate the difference between 1 and 0.999(inf).
1  0.999(inf) = (Undefinable Infinity Shred Value)
As there is no way to find out the difference between them you cannot just assume that there is none to make people happy, that's called being a lazy bastard... so they are simply not equal.
==============================================
I could use more help! someone else join the losers side and help me out damn it, we can do it! we can change the rules of the universe!
Admin
As an added note the same logic applies to disproving the idea that the past is infinite.
The 'past' by its very definition and what it is.. is what has actually occurred, the history of the universe as a whole must then have actually happened up to the point we are now.
And an infinite past could never occur or happen as its ... infinite, so its impossible for the past to be infinite.
This means the universe had a starting point, a creation point as it were... or maybe an injection point.
A starting point for the universe being the only real possibility brings a lot of ideas more closely into play like religion and the idea that time itself was created via the big bang
A fun thought for a rainy day!
Admin
Admin
Glad I don't work there.
Admin
De Morgans fail.
Captha: genitus... huh.
Admin
Just out of curiosity, Robert, have you considered the possibility that the methods you're using for computing products or sums are not any less "made up" than any other methods?
Admin
Admin
You are mixing getSelf() with playWithSelf().
Admin
Oh, I know. I'm just curious to see what he comes up with.
Admin
I have actually worked with a third party ActiveX control where I really did have to call a certain procedure exactly three times in a row to make it work properly. The thing was fairly buggy and it was hard enough to get the authors to fix the more important bugs due to the language barrier, and we needed the thing working asap. Calling it once almost worked, but not quite. Calling it twice was worse. But calling it three times worked a charm.
Yes it's a WTF, but the WTF is the bug inside that function, not the fact that we found out how to beat it into submission.
Admin
Admin
Cynosureks.com is top USA online training services based on California, sotware online tarining leading US IT tech jobs portal,careers,employement,consultancies,USA jobs. www.cynosureks.com
IT online jobs,Salesforce, Hyperion, Pega, Maximo, SAP  SD, SAP  PP, SAP  Netweaver, SAP  HR, SAP  CRM, Microstrategy, Teradata DBA, Teradata Dev, Oracle BPEL SOA, SAP  ABAP, SAP  FICO, QTP 10.0, Project Management Program, Testing Tools, Business Analyst, Veritas Netbackup, Obiee, Cognos tm1, PL  SQL , Load Runner (Advance), JavaJ2EE,.Net.
Admin
exit(17)?
Ah, the infamous ERR_INCORRECT_UNIVERSE code.
Admin
Random or not, it doesn't look very prime. So this line is a WTF on two separate levels.
Admin
Uh no. 1 is not a prime number. There is nothing to discuss.
Admin
Admin
Admin
That's easy: .999...85 is the 15th largest number less than 1, and smaller than .999...8, of course.
You probably meant .999...8.5, but this number doesn't exist, as any kid knows a number can't have two decimal points.
(How' that, Robert?)
Admin
Well, there is no largest number less than 1. Take any number x. Either x >= 1, or x < 1.
If x >= 1, then x is not the largest number less than 1, because it isn't less than 1 in the first place.
If x < 1, then x < (1 + x) / 2 < 1, so we found another number that is less than 1 but greater than x, so again, x is not the largest number less than 1.
So if we take any number x, then it is not the largest number less than 1. So there is no largest number less than 1.
Admin
Hey, it's a good thing you pointed that out, because otherwise no one in this thread would have known about the density of real numbers.
Admin
Admin
public static int RANDOM_PRIME_NUMBER = 215;
How many primes are divisible by 5?
Admin
public static boolean isAlphaNumeric(char c) { return !( !isLetter(c) && !isDigit(c) ); }
Admin
it made me remember something like "shoot first, ask later"
Admin
What about 43?
Admin
I bet that ififelseelse and javascript/html examples are no wtf at all when their history is considered.
They look like last minute requirement changes to me. The developer then took the little time he had left before release to make changes as small as possible to prevent introducing new bugs.
Admin
At least it is a number... I guess someone will have to do some refactoring until you can read
public static string PRIVATE_RANDOM_PRIME_NUMBER = "wtf!?";
Admin
Being the author of the ISelfAware interface, I would point out that the key is the comment about its use in an MBean. Normally the MBean mechanism does not allow you to get a reference to the actual underlying object which is acting to supply the MBean data. Admittedly this is a bit weird, but I needed the raw access to the object and I couldn't resist the name.
Admin
I actually wondered why "thankfully" doesn't have a type specification, and why "gone" cannot be simplified to an int.