Originally posted by demonseedsorry, but i think it is funny someone reads the entire subject on binary to spot where i made it up and where i havent; you must have been on a mission to prove me wrong.... you should work in law
You seem to have blatantly misquoted this wiki article in vindicate a fallacious argument, which is based on a confusion (on your part) between Boolean algebra and binary (which is no more that a base 2 number system regardless of the attributes you attach to it.)
Your quote:"Since the binary numeral "10 + 10" is equal to the decimal value four, it woul ...[text shortened]... mbers, to avoid confusion. This is completely different from what you were suggesting.
Originally posted by eatmybishophow about they work in "sorting the facts from the trash, on behalf of the lay-observer"?
sorry, but i think it is funny someone reads the entire subject on binary to spot where i made it up and where i havent; you must have been on a mission to prove me wrong.... you should work in law
Much better.
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopWell i never read the thread, i'm just bandwagonning....you're stoopid 😛
sorry, but i think it is funny someone reads the entire subject on binary to spot where i made it up and where i havent; you must have been on a mission to prove me wrong.... you should work in law
Is that better ?
1 edit
Originally posted by eatmybishopNot really. You made a silly quote and related it to a wiki article. It sounded bogus to me since wiki, though not ideal, is normally close enough.
sorry, but i think it is funny someone reads the entire subject on binary to spot where i made it up and where i havent; you must have been on a mission to prove me wrong.... you should work in law
All I did was copy and paste the link from your post.
Next, to search for your quoted text I did an edit and find. Got a quote that resembled yours but has a totally different meaning. This took a minute ... tops.
Quick conclusion: eatmybishop is a tard.