The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 10/04/18 17:53, Jim K wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 10/04/18 14:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 13:42:51 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , ARW
writes
On 08/04/2018 18:16, Jim K wrote:
Clive Arthur Wrote in message:
On 08/04/2018 14:02, Jim K wrote:
ARW Wrote in message:
On 08/04/2018 11:42, Jim K wrote:
If you're up above the clouds its no. 2...

It's still blue if you are below the clouds.


-- Adam


Not at night.

Do things lose their colour when there is no light?
Yes.


So what colour is a blue football in a dark room?

It has no colour - which we call black.
--
bert

There's no such thing as colour it's all a visual representation of the wavelenght of the light we see, and how we divide it up in order to describe it.
A bit like Bass, middle and treble in audio, colours are just a useful way of describing what we see.

There's no such thing as reality. Just a description.

Perception shurely?

Yes, perception is a description, if anything is perceived.

One can perceive things without describing them...
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 11/04/18 10:28, Jim K wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 10/04/18 17:53, Jim K wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 10/04/18 14:02, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 13:42:51 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , ARW
writes
On 08/04/2018 18:16, Jim K wrote:
Clive Arthur Wrote in message:
On 08/04/2018 14:02, Jim K wrote:
ARW Wrote in message:
On 08/04/2018 11:42, Jim K wrote:
If you're up above the clouds its no. 2...

It's still blue if you are below the clouds.


-- Adam


Not at night.

Do things lose their colour when there is no light?
Yes.


So what colour is a blue football in a dark room?

It has no colour - which we call black.
--
bert

There's no such thing as colour it's all a visual representation of the wavelenght of the light we see, and how we divide it up in order to describe it.
A bit like Bass, middle and treble in audio, colours are just a useful way of describing what we see.

There's no such thing as reality. Just a description.

Perception shurely?

Yes, perception is a description, if anything is perceived.

One can perceive things without describing them...

No, one cannot.

To even note that there are 'things' already has a description built in.

Without decsription there is just formless sensation.


You haven't taken enough acid, grasshopper.:-)



--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 08:29:44 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/04/18 21:36, wrote:
ARW wrote:
Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

For those interested in the relevant mathematical philosophy
behind such questions, you might try:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41654


crashed firefox , produced an unreadable file.

Opened in a new window for me running firefox quantum 59.0.2 (64-bit) on a Mac.

It's still blue if you are below the clouds.

Not at night.

Do things lose their colour when there is no light?

Yes.

So what colour is a blue football in a dark room?

Black. The colour of something is a function of what light it reflects.

No wonder you voted for Brexit. You're dumb enough.

No wonder you voted remain. You're dumb enough.


Isn't there something written about the time it takes to call someone
Hitler in an internet discussion? I think that could be replaced by
Brexit these days..

Richard Jones Wrote in message:
It's still blue if you are below the clouds.

Not at night.

Do things lose their colour when there is no light?

Yes.

So what colour is a blue football in a dark room?

Black. The colour of something is a function of what light it reflects.

No wonder you voted for Brexit. You're dumb enough.

No wonder you voted remain. You're dumb enough.


Isn't there something written about the time it takes to call someone
Hitler in an internet discussion? I think that could be replaced by
Brexit these days..


Lefty**** shurely?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 10/04/2018 21:36, wrote:
ARW wrote:
Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

For those interested in the relevant mathematical philosophy
behind such questions, you might try:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41654

Mind you, even the definition of 1 (one) is pretty hard going :-)

You will need to get a copy of his /Principia Mathematica/ for his
attempt to prove that 1+1=2, never mind 2+2.

--
Max Demian

On 11/04/18 13:58, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/04/2018 21:36, wrote:
ARW wrote:
Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

For those interested in the relevant mathematical philosophy
behind such questions, you might try:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41654

Mind you, even the definition of 1 (one) is pretty hard going :-)

You will need to get a copy of his /Principia Mathematica/ for his
attempt to prove that 1+1=2, never mind 2+2.

Can't be proven anyway. See Gödel et al.


1+1=2 is a definition. An axiom.



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

In article ,
says...

On 08/04/2018 18:16, Jim K wrote:

It shows no colour.
What colour is your football under an orange streetlight?


Depends if I am looking at or not.

Reminds me of when I was in the cubs and went to a local meet-
up with all the other local packs.

Going home in the dark afterwards, I was horrified to notice -
when I was almost home - that I was wearing the wrong
neckerchief!

Our's were red and yellow but this was light and dark green!

I went all the way back and was just approaching the door of
the hall we had used when the white light flooding out of a
window revealed that I was weaqring a red & yellow
neckerchief!

We had mercury vapour streetlighting ...

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 11/04/18 18:28, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 08/04/2018 18:16, Jim K wrote:

It shows no colour.
What colour is your football under an orange streetlight?


Depends if I am looking at or not.

Reminds me of when I was in the cubs and went to a local meet-
up with all the other local packs.

Going home in the dark afterwards, I was horrified to notice -
when I was almost home - that I was wearing the wrong
neckerchief!

Our's were red and yellow but this was light and dark green!

I went all the way back and was just approaching the door of
the hall we had used when the white light flooding out of a
window revealed that I was weaqring a red & yellow
neckerchief!

We had mercury vapour streetlighting ...

Reminds me of a story told me by a ...gentleman not unkown to substance
abuse. I will call him 'Neill McDeal'

"we as in the car, right, in te West end, and this taxi pulls up
alongside, and I swear I woz tripped out because it was green, and then
it pulled away and so did we, and we both ended up in a street with
white lights, and **** me, it WAS green after all,...

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:29:41 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/04/18 21:36, wrote:
ARW wrote:
[...]

For those interested in the relevant mathematical philosophy
behind such questions, you might try:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41654


crashed firefox , produced an unreadable file.

Didn't crash Firefox, opened just fine in Foxit Reader.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 09:50:04 +0100
ARW wrote:

Four?

Nope it is 4.

Just had to prove that I was a human to send off a submission on a
website and that was their question and answer.

Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

If those are strings rather than numbers then + is the concatenation
operator and the result is twotwo

In article 20180411225333.1c2bfa57@Mars, Rob Morley
writes
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 09:50:04 +0100
ARW wrote:

Four?

Nope it is 4.

Just had to prove that I was a human to send off a submission on a
website and that was their question and answer.

Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

If those are strings rather than numbers then + is the concatenation
operator and the result is twotwo

That too.
--
bert

On 12/04/18 22:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , bert wrote:

In article 20180411225333.1c2bfa57@Mars, Rob Morley
writes
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 09:50:04 +0100
ARW wrote:

Four?

Nope it is 4.

Just had to prove that I was a human to send off a submission on a
website and that was their question and answer.

Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

If those are strings rather than numbers then + is the concatenation
operator and the result is twotwo

That too.

Not in PHP where the concatenation operator is a .

What about javascript?

That is the worst of the lot as I discovered...

2+2 = 4 if and only if they are *interpreted as numbers*.

2+2 could in fact be 22...

This is the nightmare of weakly typed computer languages designed so
that idiot programmers dont have to think...with two different
implementations which differ...in my case IE6 and Firefox gave different
results...

Or go the other way to e.g. Pascal that is SO inflexible that you cant
change e.g. a sector block of data into an array of bits so that you can
exmione its headers, a set of strings to look at its data...etc
etc..without predefining a union of every single possible arrangements
of bits that it might be.

Thank Clapton for C, where you can force the compiler to understand that
although you declared it as a string, you now want to access it as a
bitfield instead..

so

char *x="Hello world";

return x[4]&32;

is a valid syntax;









--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On Friday, 13 April 2018 09:50:29 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/04/18 22:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , bert wrote:

In article 20180411225333.1c2bfa57@Mars, Rob Morley
writes
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 09:50:04 +0100
ARW wrote:

Four?

Nope it is 4.

Just had to prove that I was a human to send off a submission on a
website and that was their question and answer.

Anyone else agree that the answer is four and not 4?

If those are strings rather than numbers then + is the concatenation
operator and the result is twotwo

That too.

Not in PHP where the concatenation operator is a .

What about javascript?

That is the worst of the lot as I discovered...

2+2 = 4 if and only if they are *interpreted as numbers*.

2+2 could in fact be 22...

That will confuse T i m he always thinks it must be 4 whenever 2+2 it must mean 2+2= as does two plus two.
When I see 2+2 in a car magazine they are usually refering to how the passengers are arranged in the vehicle, and 4x4 doesn't mean 16
But some have very simple minds I guess it;s difficult for them to think beyond their limited experince.