Re: Fundamental Data Types?

"Dave Ulmer" <daveulmer_at_ccwebster.net> wrote in message news:bg9nhe$lo9k0$1_at_ID-186663.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
> news:VWZVa.1476$Z_.266267793_at_mantis.golden.net...
> >
> > Mikito has demonstrated to this newsgroup on many occasions that he is
> > anything but a dimwit. You have yet to do anything comparable.
>
> So why must he stoop to personal attacks on an author when he obviously
> doesn't understand the question?

It was clear to me that he very much understood what you said. He ridiculed what you said because what you said was ridiculous.

> > By your definition above, a pseudorandom number generator is an
> > understanding because it is a process that creates new data, an
> > electromagnetic pulse is an understanding because it affects data, and
the
> > moment of Archimedes' sudden bathing insight was not an understanding
> > because the information was not yet suitable for machine processing.
>
> Yes my definition of an understanding is exceedingly broad.

Your definition of understanding is incorrect. It is a question of accuracy and not of precision. Your definition embraces artifacts that have nothing to do with understanding, and it excludes the very essence of understanding.

> You need to look
> at the bigger picture of the Universe as a whole before you can judge

You need to comprehend simple english as well as the most fundamental concepts of a topic before you can engage in a credible discussion in that topic.

I am now going to follow Mikito's lead, cite Date's Principle of Incoherence and add you to my twit filter. Toodles. Received on Thu Jul 31 2003 - 03:28:48 CEST