19 Mar '14 22:07>1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is no 2 (two) in binary. Everything in binary has to be representd by 0 (zero) and 1 (one). Like this:
So it doesn't represent 2 in binary?
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Originally posted by RJHindsActually, I have used binary and hex for about 50 years. I know exactly what they are. I asked you if 10 represents the number 2. It represents 2. Period. Whether or not there is the character '2' it still refers to two things.
There is no 2 (two) in binary. Everything in binary has to be representd by 0 (zero) and 1 (one). Like this:
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you look back at my earlier answer to your question, you would have seen that I did say that the binary "1 0" would represent "2" in the decimal system. However, the point was to show that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. It all depends on the definition of terms.
Actually, I have used binary and hex for about 50 years. I know exactly what they are. I asked you if 10 represents the number 2. It represents 2. Period. Whether or not there is the character '2' it still refers to two things.
You are playing with semantics for your own sick humor.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are even a bigger moron than I thought before.
If you look back at my earlier answer to your question, you would have seen that I did say that the binary "1 0" would represent "2" in the decimal system. However, the point was to show that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. It all depends on the definition of terms.
Another example is adding one ball of dough to another ball of dough and you would have a bigger ball of dough.
Originally posted by humyWith my four finger with my right hand I can represent 16 values, using the binary system. Finger up, finger down. This can easily be converted by the hexadecimal system as half a byte. By using the left hand in a similar way I can represent any binary number with 16 digits. (What about the thumb? I use it as a carry in addition...)
I can just imagine an intelligent starfish counting; lifting the tip of each leg one at a time.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou can't add. So you are in need of...
With my four finger with my right hand I can represent 16 values, using the binary system. Finger up, finger down. This can easily be converted by the hexadecimal system as half a byte. By using the left hand in a similar way I can represent any binary number with 16 digits. (What about the thumb? I use it as a carry in addition...)
A starfish can represent 5 digit binary numbers, meaning that they can count to 32.
Originally posted by RJHindsI am in no need of any moron. Not even you.
You can't add. So you are in need of...
The Moron Instructor
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe starfish could not count to 32. The five points would be represented in binary as ...
I am in no need of any moron. Not even you.
Why do I think you are a moron? Because you have recently heard of the binary system, and suddenly you think you know all about it. And then you use it to prove some point in you twisted views.
That's why I think you are a moron.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd why, my dear moron, do you think the starfish starts with one? Why don't they start with zero? What does your creationist black bible tell you?
The starfish could not count to 32. The five points would be represented in binary as ...
1 1 1 1 1
that equals 31 in decimal, not 32.
Originally posted by wittywonkaAnd the same would apply to the theists using the same tactics which you have to agree also is happening with great frequency here.
I have no real intention to address the OP, for better or for worse.
Instead, I just wanted to offer my $0.02-opinion that those of you berating the theist posters in this thread are surely failing in your presumed goal of demonstrating the lack of validity of all religions (Christianity in particular).
And I don't mean "failing" in terms of "failin ...[text shortened]... ur side." But at best, your rhetorical tactics are ineffective, and at worst, pointlessly cruel.
Originally posted by wittywonka
I have no real intention to address the OP, for better or for worse.
Instead, I just wanted to offer my $0.02-opinion that those of you berating the theist posters in this thread are surely failing in your presumed goal of demonstrating the lack of validity of all religions (Christianity in particular).
And I don't mean "failing" in terms of "failin ...[text shortened]... ur side." But at best, your rhetorical tactics are ineffective, and at worst, pointlessly cruel.
"You stupid ignorant moron"; and using generally condescending language do not a mind-changing argument make.
Originally posted by humySee the problem with that logic is that as soon as you acknowledge that your posts have absolutely no chance of changing your opponent's mind, then your only remaining motive for posting at all must be selfish: either to make yourself feel good, or to make your opponent feel bad, which is just another (repulsive, I might add) way to make yourself feel good."You stupid ignorant moron"; and using generally condescending language do not a mind-changing argument make.
This is true. But it is also true that in is not possible to make a “mind-changing argument” to someone who just uses condescending language all the time and doesn't accept ANY rational argument, no matter HOW valid, esp from an ...[text shortened]... ing (excluding pure idiocy ) contrary to their own even if they still totally disagree with it.