1200 year old math problem solved by a computer scientist

becomingagodo · 5th December 2007, 11:25 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/conte..._feature.shtml

Quote:

Dr James Anderson, from the University of Reading's computer science department, says his new theorem solves an extremely important problem - the problem of nothing.

I used to think that computer scientist had no understanding of mathematics at all, that to pass computer science you don't even need to know basic arithmatic. However, I was wrong as Dr Anderson has solved a really improtant problem.

Quote:

But Dr Anderson has come up with a theory that proposes a new number - 'nullity' - which sits outside the conventional number line (stretching from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity).

Genius, if only I thought of that.

Quote:

The theory of nullity is set to make all kinds of sums possible that, previously, scientists and computers couldn't work around.

"We've just solved a problem that hasn't been solved for twelve hundred years - and it's that easy," proclaims Dr Anderson having demonstrated his solution on a whiteboard at Highdown School, in Emmer Green.

The mathematical revolution is about to begin. I guess it takes a computer scienctist to produce the next big step in mathematics, now the problem of diving by zero is gotten solved mathematician can become more relaxed.

Quote:

Computers simply cannot divide by zero. Try it on your calculator and you'll get an error message.

I wonder what happens now, does nullity come up instead of the error message.

By the way I was being sarcastic, how can someone this dumb get a degree in computer science? he even teaches at a university.
The sad thing is that I believed this for about two minautes, then I realized that this must be a joke or something. However, the person really believes he has done something improtant.

Normal Dude · 5th December 2007, 11:30 AM

I agree. I mean, who the heck does improtant things anyways? Sounds like a bunch of nothing.

robinson · 5th December 2007, 11:41 AM

This story is a year old. He is either genius or a lunatic.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/200...superturin.php

Quote:

Of course, just overturning the theory of computer science isn't grandiose enough. He also claims that this solves the mind body problem, explains how free will works, and provides a potential grand unified theory of physics. From Anderson's own introduction on his website:

The Book of Paragon is a web site that offers one solution to the centuries old philosophical conundrum of how minds relate to bodies. This site shows that the perspective simplex, or perspex, is a simple physical thing that is both a mind and a body.

The perspex can be understood in many ways. Mathematically, the perspex is a particular kind of matrix; concretely, it is simultaneously a physical shape, a physical motion, an artificial neuron, and an instruction for a machine that is more powerful than the Turing machine. In other words, a perspex is an instruction for a perspex machine that is more powerful than any theoretically possible digital computer.

Henners · 5th December 2007, 11:44 AM

Does this mean that we're goingto need three-way logic?

Yllanes · 5th December 2007, 11:50 AM

We already had a thread on this a year ago.

robinson · 5th December 2007, 12:00 PM

Did I mention this story was a year old?

Complexity · 5th December 2007, 04:00 PM

He's silly, you're silly.

Go see a doctor.

Unalienable · 5th December 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

He's silly, you're silly.
Go see a doctor.

Agreed, Mr. Turing.

But I do believe that computer scientists and mathematicians need to cooperate to pave the way for future revolutions in our understanding of math (and hence, Nature.)

As one of my college professors explained brilliantly to a class full of freshman computer nerds: "Computer science is not the study of computers. The computer itself is secondary; the computer is to computer science what the telescope is to astronomy."

T-Diddy · 5th December 2007, 04:35 PM

Gee, now when I write computer code I won't have to write a line saying that if the quotient is zero it should vary a parameter and try again...

Oh, wait, for any machine programmed after 1970 this isn't really a problem, since every program that could get stuck (like an auto-pilot) has such a step in it alreay.

Zygar · 5th December 2007, 09:16 PM

Bago, if you were a mathematician, you would understand that he didn't solve anything at all. Just came up with a name for something we already knew about.

LostAngeles · 5th December 2007, 10:47 PM

I wonder if BAGO has ever had to play in the extended complex plane?

Gravy · 5th December 2007, 11:08 PM

I was intrigued by the thread title, but it turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Professor Yaffle · 6th December 2007, 01:43 AM

BAGO - there, there, you could proberly be really improtant one day too.

ingoa · 6th December 2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:
But Dr Anderson has come up with a theory that proposes a new number - 'nullity' - which sits outside the conventional number line (stretching from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity).

That's sooo last millenium....

In the Eighties we got as result from an IBM 3090 when dividing by 0:

1/0 ----> Result: NAN

Which translates to "NOT A NUMBER".

JonnyFive · 6th December 2007, 07:07 AM

I remember this story. It's worth noting that the stories in the news grossly misrepresented what Anderson did or was even trying to do. He was attempting to formalize the division by zero problem (in a different way than was already done), not find a solution to it. The problem was already formalized, and CAS systems already exist that account for it... also, the issue is well known in computer science, as several other posters have pointed out.

Basically, he developed a not-exactly-new way of looking at a problem that was already formalized in order to do something that has already been done in a slightly different way.

Bago, that you thought this was some amazing revolution in mathematics or computing (and didn't bother to actually check the details out) only shows how out of touch with both topics you are.

MRC_Hans · 6th December 2007, 07:31 AM

Deleted. Unfriendly content.

Hans

skoob · 6th December 2007, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Unalienable

As one of my college professors explained brilliantly to a class full of freshman computer nerds: "Computer science is not the study of computers. The computer itself is secondary; the computer is to computer science what the telescope is to astronomy."

Your professor should have credited Edsger Dijkstra.

becomingagodo · 6th December 2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Bago, that you thought this was some amazing revolution in mathematics or computing (and didn't bother to actually check the details out) only shows how out of touch with both topics you are.

I was being sarcastic, read the bottom of my original post.

I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics. However, saying that I do now realized the person is not a good representative of computer scientist, due to the fact he is crazy.

JonnyFive · 6th December 2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

I was being sarcastic, read the bottom of my original post.

That's good, I didn't see.

But then you go and say something even sillier:

Quote:

I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics.

So, like I said, you are out of touch with both topics.

INRM · 6th December 2007, 12:24 PM

So that Perspex / SupraTuring concept he created would prove that consciousness is part of the brain irrefutably? How?

And does the proof of nullity make the Perspex machine right by default, or just potentially?

drkitten · 6th December 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics. .

Yes, you've been trying to say that for some time and on a variety of threads. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know enough about either subject to have an informed or credible opinion.

Normal Dude · 6th December 2007, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics.

That's funny, because I could have sworn that ALL of the upper-division computer sciences here require calculus experience.

lenny · 6th December 2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Unalienable

As one of my college professors explained brilliantly to a class full of freshman computer nerds: "Computer science is not the study of computers. The computer itself is secondary; the computer is to computer science what the telescope is to astronomy."

telescopes make visible what is really out there (even if imperfectly).
digital computers create more than they magnify (even if clarifying a few questions of counting)

Unalienable · 6th December 2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by lenny

digital computers create

And what exactly do they create?

If you compute the trillionth digit of pi, did you create something? Or merely make something visible?

Put another way, if your telescope perceives a distant star which was hitherto unknown, did you just create a new star?

Originally Posted by skoob

Your professor should have credited Edsger Dijkstra.

That detail is saved for the sophomores.

BenBurch · 6th December 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Yes, you've been trying to say that for some time and on a variety of threads. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know enough about either subject to have an informed or credible opinion.

Sometimes we physics people become better software engineers than the CS folks.

LostAngeles · 6th December 2007, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

That's funny, because I could have sworn that ALL of the upper-division computer sciences here require calculus experience.

http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalo...ml#pgfId-83046

The mathematics classes in the, "Preparation for the major," are the same as mine (which is math).

The Upper Division courses are dependent upon the programming courses for the most part. Some require engineering classes and many of those are cross-posted with engineering classes.

I won't comment on engineers and math, however...

DoubtingStephen · 6th December 2007, 06:48 PM

Some say that Alan Turing (a homosexual) was a computer scientist, mostly people that have heard of him. There are even those who say that Alan Turing (a homosexual) was a mathematician.

Some might conclude that is is possible for a homosexual mathematician to be a homosexual computer scientist without necessarily being homosexual and stoopit at the same time. Really, saying all computer scientists are stoopit is really so gay.

LostAngeles · 6th December 2007, 06:55 PM

This might help BAGO.

Terry · 6th December 2007, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

I wonder if BAGO has ever had to play in the extended complex plane?

I dunno... was Reimann a homosexual?

LostAngeles · 6th December 2007, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Terry

I dunno... was Reimann a homosexual?

I'm not sure that's integral to the matter at hand. While the sum of BAGO's ambition is Reimann's hypothesis, we're really discussing division by zero. It's all trapezoidal, if you ask me. Simpson thinks so too. As far as BAGO goes, I believe Steven Tyler once sang something relevant...

Terry · 6th December 2007, 07:13 PM

well what goes around is probably isomorphic to what comes around...

Scott1972 · 6th December 2007, 08:30 PM

Why are those pesky computer scientists always causing so much trouble?

I may have to disregard the zombies and start preparing for the computer scientist apocalypse.

jmontecillo01 · 6th December 2007, 10:03 PM

In modern programming, there is a difference between zero and null. Zero means just that, zero. Null means the absence of a value.

For example, database. The column that contains null, does not contain anything at all. It is not equivalent to zero. In fact, in most modern languages, if you try to access a field containing null value, you get an exception, not zero.

Nancarrow · 6th December 2007, 10:08 PM

To be fair to BAGO he did say at the end of his OP that he was being sarcastic and did NOT in fact hold this story in high regard. However, most of us have missed the main point, which is to inquire,

BAGO, Have you seen a doctor yet?

SomeGuy · 6th December 2007, 11:22 PM

I may be really dense, but having seen this in so many threads:

Why should Becoming A God 0, see a doctor?

LostAngeles · 6th December 2007, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by SomeGuy

I may be really dense, but having seen this in so many threads:

Why should Becoming A God 0, see a doctor?

Non-stop painful headaches.

jsfisher · 7th December 2007, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

Non-stop painful headaches.

Are you referring to his or ours?

LostAngeles · 7th December 2007, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Are you referring to his or ours?

His. He seems to take them as a mark of genius or something. If that were true, I'd be Valedictorian.

Really, he needs to see a doctor.

JonnyFive · 7th December 2007, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

As far as BAGO goes, I believe Steven Tyler once sang something relevant...

"Dude looks like a lady?"

Complexity · 7th December 2007, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by SomeGuy

I may be really dense, but having seen this in so many threads:

Why should Becoming A God 0, see a doctor?

Unmanaged obsessive-compulsive disorder, evaluation for other psychiatric disorders, serious headaches.

5th December 2007, 11:25 AM	#1
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698	1200 year old math problem solved by a computer scientist http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/conte..._feature.shtml Quote: Dr James Anderson, from the University of Reading's computer science department, says his new theorem solves an extremely important problem - the problem of nothing. I used to think that computer scientist had no understanding of mathematics at all, that to pass computer science you don't even need to know basic arithmatic. However, I was wrong as Dr Anderson has solved a really improtant problem. Quote: But Dr Anderson has come up with a theory that proposes a new number - 'nullity' - which sits outside the conventional number line (stretching from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity). Genius, if only I thought of that. Quote: The theory of nullity is set to make all kinds of sums possible that, previously, scientists and computers couldn't work around. "We've just solved a problem that hasn't been solved for twelve hundred years - and it's that easy," proclaims Dr Anderson having demonstrated his solution on a whiteboard at Highdown School, in Emmer Green. The mathematical revolution is about to begin. I guess it takes a computer scienctist to produce the next big step in mathematics, now the problem of diving by zero is gotten solved mathematician can become more relaxed. Quote: Computers simply cannot divide by zero. Try it on your calculator and you'll get an error message. I wonder what happens now, does nullity come up instead of the error message. By the way I was being sarcastic, how can someone this dumb get a degree in computer science? he even teaches at a university. The sad thing is that I believed this for about two minautes, then I realized that this must be a joke or something. However, the person really believes he has done something improtant.
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698	Last edited by becomingagodo; 5th December 2007 at 11:29 AM.

5th December 2007, 11:30 AM	#2
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	I agree. I mean, who the heck does improtant things anyways? Sounds like a bunch of nothing.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh Last edited by Normal Dude; 5th December 2007 at 11:36 AM.

5th December 2007, 11:41 AM	#3
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	This story is a year old. He is either genius or a lunatic. http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/200...superturin.php Quote: Of course, just overturning the theory of computer science isn't grandiose enough. He also claims that this solves the mind body problem, explains how free will works, and provides a potential grand unified theory of physics. From Anderson's own introduction on his website: The Book of Paragon is a web site that offers one solution to the centuries old philosophical conundrum of how minds relate to bodies. This site shows that the perspective simplex, or perspex, is a simple physical thing that is both a mind and a body. The perspex can be understood in many ways. Mathematically, the perspex is a particular kind of matrix; concretely, it is simultaneously a physical shape, a physical motion, an artificial neuron, and an instruction for a machine that is more powerful than the Turing machine. In other words, a perspex is an instruction for a perspex machine that is more powerful than any theoretically possible digital computer.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

5th December 2007, 11:44 AM	#4
Henners Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 767	Does this mean that we're goingto need three-way logic?
Henners Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 767

5th December 2007, 12:00 PM	#6
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Did I mention this story was a year old?
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

5th December 2007, 11:50 AM	#5
Yllanes Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid Posts: 826	We already had a thread on this a year ago.

5th December 2007, 04:00 PM	#7
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	He's silly, you're silly. Go see a doctor.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

5th December 2007, 04:34 PM	#8
Unalienable Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 296	Originally Posted by Complexity He's silly, you're silly. Go see a doctor. Agreed, Mr. Turing. But I do believe that computer scientists and mathematicians need to cooperate to pave the way for future revolutions in our understanding of math (and hence, Nature.) As one of my college professors explained brilliantly to a class full of freshman computer nerds: "Computer science is not the study of computers. The computer itself is secondary; the computer is to computer science what the telescope is to astronomy."
	__________________ What do you do when you know that you know, that you know that you're wrong? -- Sun Ra

5th December 2007, 04:35 PM	#9
T-Diddy Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 94	Gee, now when I write computer code I won't have to write a line saying that if the quotient is zero it should vary a parameter and try again... Oh, wait, for any machine programmed after 1970 this isn't really a problem, since every program that could get stuck (like an auto-pilot) has such a step in it alreay.
T-Diddy Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 94

5th December 2007, 09:16 PM	#10
Zygar Lex Luthor's Evil Twin Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 2,609	Bago, if you were a mathematician, you would understand that he didn't solve anything at all. Just came up with a name for something we already knew about.
	__________________ "Judge people. Judge them, Zygar. Pass judgment." -DrBuzz0 Visit my friends: http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/ http://www.spectrum-scientifics.com

5th December 2007, 10:47 PM	#11
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	I wonder if BAGO has ever had to play in the extended complex plane?
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

5th December 2007, 11:08 PM	#12
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	I was intrigued by the thread title, but it turned out to be much ado about nothing.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

6th December 2007, 01:43 AM	#13
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,337	BAGO - there, there, you could proberly be really improtant one day too.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

6th December 2007, 03:03 AM	#14
ingoa Surfing on the relativistic brain wave Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Old Europe Posts: 492	Quote: But Dr Anderson has come up with a theory that proposes a new number - 'nullity' - which sits outside the conventional number line (stretching from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity). That's sooo last millenium.... In the Eighties we got as result from an IBM 3090 when dividing by 0: 1/0 ----> Result: NAN Which translates to "NOT A NUMBER".
	__________________ Suum cuique I have no prejudices. I hate everbody!

6th December 2007, 07:07 AM	#15
JonnyFive Insurance Underwriter of Doom Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,473	I remember this story. It's worth noting that the stories in the news grossly misrepresented what Anderson did or was even trying to do. He was attempting to formalize the division by zero problem (in a different way than was already done), not find a solution to it. The problem was already formalized, and CAS systems already exist that account for it... also, the issue is well known in computer science, as several other posters have pointed out. Basically, he developed a not-exactly-new way of looking at a problem that was already formalized in order to do something that has already been done in a slightly different way. Bago, that you thought this was some amazing revolution in mathematics or computing (and didn't bother to actually check the details out) only shows how out of touch with both topics you are.
	__________________ "If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.

6th December 2007, 07:31 AM	#16
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Deleted. Unfriendly content. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't. Last edited by MRC_Hans; 6th December 2007 at 07:32 AM.

6th December 2007, 08:15 AM	#17
skoob Thinker Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by Unalienable As one of my college professors explained brilliantly to a class full of freshman computer nerds: "Computer science is not the study of computers. The computer itself is secondary; the computer is to computer science what the telescope is to astronomy." Your professor should have credited Edsger Dijkstra.
skoob Thinker Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 146

6th December 2007, 08:42 AM	#18
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698	Quote: Bago, that you thought this was some amazing revolution in mathematics or computing (and didn't bother to actually check the details out) only shows how out of touch with both topics you are. I was being sarcastic, read the bottom of my original post. I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics. However, saying that I do now realized the person is not a good representative of computer scientist, due to the fact he is crazy.
becomingagodo Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 698	Last edited by becomingagodo; 6th December 2007 at 08:42 AM.

6th December 2007, 08:50 AM	#19
JonnyFive Insurance Underwriter of Doom Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by becomingagodo I was being sarcastic, read the bottom of my original post. That's good, I didn't see. But then you go and say something even sillier: Quote: I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics. So, like I said, you are out of touch with both topics.
	__________________ "If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.

6th December 2007, 12:24 PM	#20
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	So that Perspex / SupraTuring concept he created would prove that consciousness is part of the brain irrefutably? How? And does the proof of nullity make the Perspex machine right by default, or just potentially?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Last edited by INRM; 6th December 2007 at 12:27 PM.

6th December 2007, 02:24 PM	#21
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by becomingagodo I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics. . Yes, you've been trying to say that for some time and on a variety of threads. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know enough about either subject to have an informed or credible opinion.

6th December 2007, 02:38 PM	#22
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by becomingagodo I was trying to say all computer scientist don't know basic mathematics. That's funny, because I could have sworn that ALL of the upper-division computer sciences here require calculus experience.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh Last edited by Normal Dude; 6th December 2007 at 02:39 PM.

6th December 2007, 03:40 PM	#23
lenny Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Oxford Posts: 755	Originally Posted by Unalienable As one of my college professors explained brilliantly to a class full of freshman computer nerds: "Computer science is not the study of computers. The computer itself is secondary; the computer is to computer science what the telescope is to astronomy." telescopes make visible what is really out there (even if imperfectly). digital computers create more than they magnify (even if clarifying a few questions of counting)
	__________________ All theorems are true. All models are wrong. All data are inaccurate. What are we to do? Dubito Ergo Sum "And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray'us in deepest consequence." Banquo

6th December 2007, 05:02 PM	#24
Unalienable Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 296	Originally Posted by lenny digital computers create And what exactly do they create? If you compute the trillionth digit of pi, did you create something? Or merely make something visible? Put another way, if your telescope perceives a distant star which was hitherto unknown, did you just create a new star? Originally Posted by skoob Your professor should have credited Edsger Dijkstra. That detail is saved for the sophomores.
	__________________ What do you do when you know that you know, that you know that you're wrong? -- Sun Ra Last edited by Unalienable; 6th December 2007 at 05:05 PM.

6th December 2007, 05:42 PM	#25
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by drkitten Yes, you've been trying to say that for some time and on a variety of threads. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know enough about either subject to have an informed or credible opinion. Sometimes we physics people become better software engineers than the CS folks.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

6th December 2007, 06:46 PM	#26
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Originally Posted by Normal Dude That's funny, because I could have sworn that ALL of the upper-division computer sciences here require calculus experience. http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalo...ml#pgfId-83046 The mathematics classes in the, "Preparation for the major," are the same as mine (which is math). The Upper Division courses are dependent upon the programming courses for the most part. Some require engineering classes and many of those are cross-posted with engineering classes. I won't comment on engineers and math, however...
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

6th December 2007, 06:48 PM	#27
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,548	Some say that Alan Turing (a homosexual) was a computer scientist, mostly people that have heard of him. There are even those who say that Alan Turing (a homosexual) was a mathematician. Some might conclude that is is possible for a homosexual mathematician to be a homosexual computer scientist without necessarily being homosexual and stoopit at the same time. Really, saying all computer scientists are stoopit is really so gay.
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans

6th December 2007, 06:55 PM	#28
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	This might help BAGO.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

6th December 2007, 07:01 PM	#29
Terry Zeitgeist-impaired Technical Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: logged in to the server Posts: 6,450	Originally Posted by LostAngeles I wonder if BAGO has ever had to play in the extended complex plane? I dunno... was Reimann a homosexual?

6th December 2007, 07:10 PM	#30
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Originally Posted by Terry I dunno... was Reimann a homosexual? I'm not sure that's integral to the matter at hand. While the sum of BAGO's ambition is Reimann's hypothesis, we're really discussing division by zero. It's all trapezoidal, if you ask me. Simpson thinks so too. As far as BAGO goes, I believe Steven Tyler once sang something relevant...
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik Last edited by LostAngeles; 6th December 2007 at 07:11 PM.

6th December 2007, 07:13 PM	#31
Terry Zeitgeist-impaired Technical Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: logged in to the server Posts: 6,450	well what goes around is probably isomorphic to what comes around...

6th December 2007, 08:30 PM	#32
Scott1972 Student Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 48	Why are those pesky computer scientists always causing so much trouble? I may have to disregard the zombies and start preparing for the computer scientist apocalypse.
Scott1972 Student Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 48

6th December 2007, 10:03 PM	#33
jmontecillo01 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 192	Null and zero In modern programming, there is a difference between zero and null. Zero means just that, zero. Null means the absence of a value. For example, database. The column that contains null, does not contain anything at all. It is not equivalent to zero. In fact, in most modern languages, if you try to access a field containing null value, you get an exception, not zero.
jmontecillo01 Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 192

6th December 2007, 10:08 PM	#34
Nancarrow Chelonian Overlord Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 468	To be fair to BAGO he did say at the end of his OP that he was being sarcastic and did NOT in fact hold this story in high regard. However, most of us have missed the main point, which is to inquire, BAGO, Have you seen a doctor yet?
	__________________ A mosquito was heard to complain That a chemist had poisoned his brain The cause of his sorrow Was paradichloro Diphenyltrichloroethane.

6th December 2007, 11:22 PM	#35
SomeGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 497	I may be really dense, but having seen this in so many threads: Why should Becoming A God 0, see a doctor?
SomeGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 497