Did Jesus practice what he preached?

[Baruch]

No, the F is just for you...

Which is why ... you seem to be violating our truce.

[josephpalazzo]

Which is why ... you seem to be violating our truce.

That truce is not worth the paper it's written on... oh wait, it's the internet, so it's worthless...

[Cavebear]

Which is your only reason for returning, right?  Because as Professor ... you get to F anyone you disagree with?

The F was just a grade suggestion, right?  We wouldn't want you to be "F"ing around with a retired Professor who gets things slightly wrong sometimes.

[aileron]

Haha ... good one.  Oh shit .. you weren't kidding?

Not at all. It is an is-ought fallacy you're stating. I am not a reductionist because I want to "talk down" humanity. Humanity ought to be possessed of an immaterial, immortal soul... And Santa Clause ought to be real. That's the "ought". The "is" is that the best working conclusion leaves no room for the supernatural or the jolly old fat guy.

[josephpalazzo]

Yes, materialists are expected to "talk down" humanity.

Down from what?... oh wait, I get it, from spirituality, which exists only in your head. You should join Arik's debunked theory. The two of you would be a great match, like the Thompson twins, not the band, but in Tintin...Dupont et Dupont...

[Baruch]

Not at all. It is an is-ought fallacy you're stating. I am not a reductionist because I want to "talk down" humanity. Humanity ought to be possessed of an immaterial, immortal soul... And Santa Clause ought to be real. That's the "ought". The "is" is that the best working conclusion leaves no room for the supernatural or the jolly old fat guy.

OK.  Please don't turn into Joe.  And you might explore number systems with more digits than binary.

[Baruch]

Down from what?... oh wait, I get it, from spirituality, which exists only in your head. You should join Arik's debunked theory. The two of you would be a great match, like the Thompson twins, not the band, but in Tintin...Dupont et Dupont...

Everyone here is a misanthropist.  But you didn't realize that.  Actually I disagree with Arik on several things.  But I at least respect him.

[aileron]

OK.  Please don't turn into Joe.  And you might explore number systems with more digits than binary.

I use decimal and hexadecimal all the time.

[josephpalazzo]

Everyone here is a misanthropist

. 
Aren't you fed up of looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?

Actually I disagree with Arik on several things.  But I at least respect him.

The two of you should get a motel room.

[Baruch]

I use decimal and hexadecimal all the time.

No wonder you are confused ;-)  Please use just one at a time.  Or go Babylonian (base 60).

[Baruch]

. 
Aren't you fed up of looking in the mirror and talking about yourself? The two of you should get a motel room.

That was funny.  Did you find where you put your humor?

[aileron]

No wonder you are confused ;-)  Please use just one at a time.  Or go Babylonian (base 60).

Fun fact... You can calculate any digit of pi in hexadecimal without having to compute the digits that precede it. I wish I could say I've read the proof, but I haven't. I'll take their word for it. It works when I programmed it.

[josephpalazzo]

That was funny.  Did you find where you put your humor?

One doesn't need to find what one never lost. But anywhere there is compost, I find yours.

[Cavebear]

Wow, you leave a topic for an hour and then none of it makes any sense!

[Baruch]

Fun fact... You can calculate any digit of pi in hexadecimal without having to compute the digits that precede it. I wish I could say I've read the proof, but I haven't. I'll take their word for it. It works when I programmed it.

There is a mention of this in Wiki in the section covering the calculation of Pi.  I believe this is true for all number bases.  It is a very strange property.  There are many transcendental numbers, and the digits are pseudorandom, but not all pseudorandom number sequences are equal.  Some have properties not possessed by others.  In particular, the idea that you don't have to pre-calculate prior digits is ... counterintuitive.  I am pretty sure, that there is no equivalent property for "e".  On the other hand, calculating a particular property for a particular number can be "hard" ... such as arithmetical combinations of even known transcendental numbers, we can't prove yet if the result is also transcendental.

And some number theory properties of a given number, only apply in certain number bases ;-(  So basically the scope for exceptions is unlimited, since general rules are increasingly of limited scope.