Git hates UTF-16
-
@Zenith said in Git hates UTF-16:
The real WTF is variable size characters. They should've left western languages alone and forced hieroglyphics into 24-bit or something.
TRTRWTF is emoji: without them, we could just ignore non-BMP characters and lose nothing our users care about.
-
@Zenith In Unicode, Greek characters (which are definitely part of "Western languages") go up to U+03FF. That takes 10 bits. And even if you only meant Latin characters, those take up more than 8 bits.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
But...how?!
By defining "is" to mean "is syntactically and semantically identical to, under all conditions and transforms". Sometimes. (Sequence of bytes)
Sometimes "is described by" is also "is". (blue)
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
I believe I know why you're so fixated on this. It's because you've already assumed right from the start that since characters are always implemented with bytes, it means that characters are bytes.
It's not exactly an assumption. It was a hypothesis based on experience and knowledge of what's going on. Aside from exotic shit like @Gribnit's trits or @dkf's weirdo tree thing, no one has an example of anything else. And certainly garden variety strings are exactly this, which is what we were talking about, no matter what @ixvedeusi wants to tell us.
Not quite. The experience and knowledge is that characters are always implemented with bytes. The rest of the statement - specifically the implication there: "since..., then..." - is just an assumption, plain and simple. An unproven assumption, by that (circular reasoning isn't proof).
Show how the proof is deficient then. Which step is wrong and why?
I just did. But I'm feeling generous today, let me copy-paste the relevant part.
"You've already assumed right from the start that since characters are always implemented with bytes, it means that characters are bytes. With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes. And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning."
So you're confusing a definition for a proof and saying therefore the definition is invalid. Do you really think I'm dumb enough to believe any of that? I love the part how you said it's true and then concluded that it's false. Fucking genious.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
Let me ask you this: are you able to prove in some other way that sequences of characters are sequences of bytes, without relying on the assumption that if A is always implemented with B, it means A is B?
This is getting
retarded now. Seriously.It's just a standard process of reconsidering your assumptions. If you can't prove your assumptions without circular reasoning, there's only two options - they're axioms and therefore don't need a proof just like God doesn't need a proof of His existence, or they just aren't true.
You've given no reason to think any assumptions (or any of the reasoning) are wrong. The ball is in your court here.
Closing your eyes doesn't make the world disappear. I've already explained several times what's wrong with your reasoning. But okay, I'll repeat one more time: you're using circular reasoning, and that's a logical fallacy - and that makes your argument invalid.
No, you've posted contradictions and claimed that you're doing some sort of proof. You've agreed that my assumption is correct. How can you then say that it's false? I've said all along that it's a trivial statement that is trivially and obviously true.
You are the one treating this simple and obvious fact as thought it's some kind of deep or clever theorem. The proof follows from the nature of our computers and the way we represent characters in memory. It's really that simple.
Except it doesn't. The only thing that follows from nature of computers is that all characters must be represented as bits. Nothing about nature of computers says anything about what characters are. And what characters are is a different question from what characters are represented with.
And once again you're confusing yourself by limiting your thinking to a particular abstraction. And even then you're wrong. What they're represented with is what they are. They are those things.
Is this relation transitive? If there are two representations of the same thing, are those two representations the same thing? If two different things have the same representation (for example, number 150 and number -106, when represented with 8 bits each), do they become the same thing?
What's the "thing" here? Is it the representation or the number? The answers would be no and yes, respectively.
This is a stupid and obviously wrong assumption you're making here and there is simply no way to get around that. The way you try is to say, "Yeah, they are made from those things, but in a particular way."
...I never said anything like that. I never said anything about "particular ways" the things are made. I just said that what they are made of doesn't imply anything about what they are.
Now you're just gaslighting.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@PleegWat said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Kian said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
If you can't set a chair on fire, it's not wood. If you can't XOR characters, then they're not bytes.
Here you're contradicting yourself. Setting the chair on fire is a property of the wood it's made of, not of it being a chair. Set it on fire, and once all you have left is ashes you no longer have a chair. Analogously, I can XOR the bytes that make up my string, just as I can set on fire the wood my chair is made of, and the resulting set of characters will probably no longer be a valid string, just as the ashes no longer are a chair.
You can't set on fire the "chairness" of a chair, just as you can't XOR ideal characters, but I can set on fire the wood and I can XOR the bytes.
In other words, characters aren't bytes. They're just made of bytes.
If I draw a character on a piece of paper, bytes don't come into it.
I know it might have been lost in the discussion, but we were talking about characters in programming languages. Those are always backed by bytes.
Oh, sure, now you agree with me.
I've always agreed with you on this point. I believe I wrote at least six times now that I agree with everything you said in this topic, except that sequences of characters are sequences of bytes. I agree they are made of bytes. I agree they are represented with bytes. I agree they are often thought of as bytes when the distinction doesn't matter (they're also thought of as numbers occasionally too, and Unicode code points are thought of as characters, even though none of these is strictly true - it's just that they behave the same most of the time). I just disagree about one teeny tiny detail.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
— Alice in Wonderland.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
I believe I know why you're so fixated on this. It's because you've already assumed right from the start that since characters are always implemented with bytes, it means that characters are bytes.
It's not exactly an assumption. It was a hypothesis based on experience and knowledge of what's going on. Aside from exotic shit like @Gribnit's trits or @dkf's weirdo tree thing, no one has an example of anything else. And certainly garden variety strings are exactly this, which is what we were talking about, no matter what @ixvedeusi wants to tell us.
Not quite. The experience and knowledge is that characters are always implemented with bytes. The rest of the statement - specifically the implication there: "since..., then..." - is just an assumption, plain and simple. An unproven assumption, by that (circular reasoning isn't proof).
Show how the proof is deficient then. Which step is wrong and why?
I just did. But I'm feeling generous today, let me copy-paste the relevant part.
"You've already assumed right from the start that since characters are always implemented with bytes, it means that characters are bytes. With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes. And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning."
So you're confusing a definition for a proof
Wait. You're saying that characters are bytes by definition? That there's no reasoning involved and it's true because you defined it as true? Well, that changes things. I don't want a proof from you anymore.
I want a citation that there's even one semi-reputable source that can confirm that it's indeed an accepted definition.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
You are the one treating this simple and obvious fact as thought it's some kind of deep or clever theorem. The proof follows from the nature of our computers and the way we represent characters in memory. It's really that simple.
Except it doesn't. The only thing that follows from nature of computers is that all characters must be represented as bits. Nothing about nature of computers says anything about what characters are. And what characters are is a different question from what characters are represented with.
And once again you're confusing yourself by limiting your thinking to a particular abstraction. And even then you're wrong. What they're represented with is what they are. They are those things.
Is this relation transitive? If there are two representations of the same thing, are those two representations the same thing? If two different things have the same representation (for example, number 150 and number -106, when represented with 8 bits each), do they become the same thing?
What's the "thing" here? Is it the representation or the number?
The number.
The answers would be no and yes, respectively.
TIL that 150 is -106.
This is a stupid and obviously wrong assumption you're making here and there is simply no way to get around that. The way you try is to say, "Yeah, they are made from those things, but in a particular way."
...I never said anything like that. I never said anything about "particular ways" the things are made. I just said that what they are made of doesn't imply anything about what they are.
Now you're just gaslighting.
Gaslighting: when you remind another person that their hallucinations aren't reality.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@PleegWat said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Kian said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
If you can't set a chair on fire, it's not wood. If you can't XOR characters, then they're not bytes.
Here you're contradicting yourself. Setting the chair on fire is a property of the wood it's made of, not of it being a chair. Set it on fire, and once all you have left is ashes you no longer have a chair. Analogously, I can XOR the bytes that make up my string, just as I can set on fire the wood my chair is made of, and the resulting set of characters will probably no longer be a valid string, just as the ashes no longer are a chair.
You can't set on fire the "chairness" of a chair, just as you can't XOR ideal characters, but I can set on fire the wood and I can XOR the bytes.
In other words, characters aren't bytes. They're just made of bytes.
If I draw a character on a piece of paper, bytes don't come into it.
I know it might have been lost in the discussion, but we were talking about characters in programming languages. Those are always backed by bytes.
Oh, sure, now you agree with me.
I've always agreed with you on this point. I believe I wrote at least six times now that I agree with everything you said in this topic, except that sequences of characters are sequences of bytes. I agree they are made of bytes. I agree they are represented with bytes. I agree they are often thought of as bytes when the distinction doesn't matter (they're also thought of as numbers occasionally too, and Unicode code points are thought of as characters, even though none of these is strictly true - it's just that they behave the same most of the time). I just disagree about one teeny tiny detail.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
— Alice in Wonderland.It's funny how you try to hide your inability to read by shouting that everyone who doesn't agree with you is
Hitlernot making sense.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
I believe I know why you're so fixated on this. It's because you've already assumed right from the start that since characters are always implemented with bytes, it means that characters are bytes.
It's not exactly an assumption. It was a hypothesis based on experience and knowledge of what's going on. Aside from exotic shit like @Gribnit's trits or @dkf's weirdo tree thing, no one has an example of anything else. And certainly garden variety strings are exactly this, which is what we were talking about, no matter what @ixvedeusi wants to tell us.
Not quite. The experience and knowledge is that characters are always implemented with bytes. The rest of the statement - specifically the implication there: "since..., then..." - is just an assumption, plain and simple. An unproven assumption, by that (circular reasoning isn't proof).
Show how the proof is deficient then. Which step is wrong and why?
I just did. But I'm feeling generous today, let me copy-paste the relevant part.
"You've already assumed right from the start that since characters are always implemented with bytes, it means that characters are bytes. With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes. And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning."
So you're confusing a definition for a proof
Wait. You're saying that characters are bytes by definition? That there's no reasoning involved and it's true because you defined it as true? Well, that changes things. I don't want a proof from you anymore.
Where the fuck have you been?
I want a citation that there's even one semi-reputable source that can confirm that it's indeed an accepted definition.
I want a million dollars. But seriously, you've already accepted this definition. What other definition is there?
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@PleegWat said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@Kian said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
If you can't set a chair on fire, it's not wood. If you can't XOR characters, then they're not bytes.
Here you're contradicting yourself. Setting the chair on fire is a property of the wood it's made of, not of it being a chair. Set it on fire, and once all you have left is ashes you no longer have a chair. Analogously, I can XOR the bytes that make up my string, just as I can set on fire the wood my chair is made of, and the resulting set of characters will probably no longer be a valid string, just as the ashes no longer are a chair.
You can't set on fire the "chairness" of a chair, just as you can't XOR ideal characters, but I can set on fire the wood and I can XOR the bytes.
In other words, characters aren't bytes. They're just made of bytes.
If I draw a character on a piece of paper, bytes don't come into it.
I know it might have been lost in the discussion, but we were talking about characters in programming languages. Those are always backed by bytes.
Oh, sure, now you agree with me.
I've always agreed with you on this point. I believe I wrote at least six times now that I agree with everything you said in this topic, except that sequences of characters are sequences of bytes. I agree they are made of bytes. I agree they are represented with bytes. I agree they are often thought of as bytes when the distinction doesn't matter (they're also thought of as numbers occasionally too, and Unicode code points are thought of as characters, even though none of these is strictly true - it's just that they behave the same most of the time). I just disagree about one teeny tiny detail.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
— Alice in Wonderland.It's funny how you try to hide your inability to read by shouting that everyone who doesn't agree with you is
Hitlernot making sense.If you hadn't had many equally dumb arguments about the way you interpret words I would really think that I was being trolled here.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
I want a citation that there's even one semi-reputable source that can confirm that it's indeed an accepted definition.
I want a million dollars.
Sadly, neither of us will get what we want. I'm incapable of charity, and you're incapable of making actual arguments.
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
-
@boomzilla also - the Merriam-Webster definition you quoted also talks about identity. Considering how you reacted when I replaced "is" with "is the same as", I think you're not claiming there's identity between characters and bytes. Which makes that definition even less applicable here.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
I want a citation that there's even one semi-reputable source that can confirm that it's indeed an accepted definition.
I want a million dollars.
Sadly, neither of us will get what we want. I'm incapable of charity, and you're incapable of making actual arguments.
Not that you can find an instance of that, of course.
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong. You go hard on dictionary shit and then get it all wrong. Like here where you think "material object" has any bearing on the discussion.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition. Even you agreed that it's true. Your "disagreement" is just sophistry where you misuse terms and concepts that you don't really understand.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla also - the Merriam-Webster definition you quoted also talks about identity. Considering how you reacted when I replaced "is" with "is the same as", I think you're not claiming there's identity between characters and bytes. Which makes that definition even less applicable here.
I think you're relying on a particular definition to try to dickweed out of obvious truths by squinting and tilting your head in just the right way. The fact that you keep bringing up dictionaries is a sign that your argument is brain dead.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
I want a citation that there's even one semi-reputable source that can confirm that it's indeed an accepted definition.
I want a million dollars.
Sadly, neither of us will get what we want. I'm incapable of charity, and you're incapable of making actual arguments.
Not that you can find an instance of that, of course.
Exactly. You can't find an instance of a decent argument of yours.
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
Sky itself has no color, because it's just another name for the atmosphere and atmosphere is transparent.
Is the light that travels from the edge of what we consider the sky toward your eyes dominated by blue frequencies? Then the sky is blue. Regardless of why exactly it looks blue.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular. Do you run into closed doors and walls a lot?
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a sequence of characters, and the bytes that make the sequence of characters, are the same idea?
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
Definition of SAY
to express in words : state; to state as opinion or belief : declare; utter, pronounce… See the full definition
1a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief : declare3a : indicate, show
// the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to : communicate
// a glance that said all that was necessaryYou've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular.
I like how you once again seen something in my post that I never said.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a sequence of characters, and the bytes that make the sequence of characters, are the same idea?
No. Fucking hell. I'm saying that the thing that you are calling a sequence of characters can also be called a sequence of bytes.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
Definition of SAY
to express in words : state; to state as opinion or belief : declare; utter, pronounce… See the full definition
1a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief : declare3a : indicate, show
// the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to : communicate
// a glance that said all that was necessary
You stopped too soon:intransitive verb
: to express oneself : SPEAKYou've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular.
I like how you once again seen something in my post that I never said.
I like how you see the words but can't understand their meanings or implications.
-
@Kian said in Git hates UTF-16:
Aren't beanbags a kind of chair though?
Rather comfy. But really hard to get out of.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a sequence of characters, and the bytes that make the sequence of characters, are the same idea?
No. Fucking hell.
Don't blame me. You said that "aren't the same idea" is the wrong part. So I did the only logical thing I could and assumed you believe that the opposite is correct.
I'm saying that the thing that you are calling a sequence of characters can also be called a sequence of bytes.
Much like what we are calling European Union can also be called Europe. Which is just slightly wrong - so slightly that it's okay for nearly all casual conversations - but still wrong.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
Definition of SAY
to express in words : state; to state as opinion or belief : declare; utter, pronounce… See the full definition
1a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief : declare3a : indicate, show
// the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to : communicate
// a glance that said all that was necessary You stopped too soon:intransitive verb
: to express oneself : SPEAKDo you even know how dictionaries work? Do you even understand what it means when a dictionary lists more than one definition of a given word?
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular.
I like how you once again seen something in my post that I never said.
I like how you see the words but can't understand their meanings or implications.
I like how you make assumptions about my state of mind based on things I haven't said.
No, saying that something is a circular reasoning doesn't always imply it's not to be trusted. Believing your own eyes is a circular reasoning in a philosophical sense, but a perfectly normal and rational thing to do. I thought I wouldn't have to say such obviously obvious thing to you, the Master of Fully Understanding And Instantly Accepting Everything That's Obviously Obvious, but here we are.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a sequence of characters, and the bytes that make the sequence of characters, are the same idea?
No. Fucking hell.
Don't blame me. You said that "aren't the same idea" is the wrong part. So I did the only logical thing I could and assumed you believe that the opposite is correct.
I'm saying that the thing that you are calling a sequence of characters can also be called a sequence of bytes.
Much like what we are calling European Union can also be called Europe. Which is just slightly wrong - so slightly that it's okay for nearly all casual conversations - but still wrong.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
Definition of SAY
to express in words : state; to state as opinion or belief : declare; utter, pronounce… See the full definition
1a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief : declare3a : indicate, show
// the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to : communicate
// a glance that said all that was necessary You stopped too soon:intransitive verb
: to express oneself : SPEAKDo you even know how dictionaries work? Do you even understand what it means when a dictionary lists more than one definition of a given word?
Yes, obviously better than you do.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular.
I like how you once again seen something in my post that I never said.
I like how you see the words but can't understand their meanings or implications.
I like how you make assumptions about my state of mind based on things I haven't said.
It's true, I'm interpreting your state of mind by accepting that you mean the things you say here.
No, saying that something is a circular reasoning doesn't always imply it's not to be trusted. Believing your own eyes is a circular reasoning in a philosophical sense, but a perfectly normal and rational thing to do. I thought I wouldn't have to say such obviously obvious thing to you, the Master of Fully Understanding And Instantly Accepting Everything That's Obviously Obvious, but here we are.
LOL. I believe you have surpassed @fox at this point.
-
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a sequence of characters, and the bytes that make the sequence of characters, are the same idea?
No. Fucking hell.
Don't blame me. You said that "aren't the same idea" is the wrong part. So I did the only logical thing I could and assumed you believe that the opposite is correct.
I'm saying that the thing that you are calling a sequence of characters can also be called a sequence of bytes.
Much like what we are calling European Union can also be called Europe. Which is just slightly wrong - so slightly that it's okay for nearly all casual conversations - but still wrong.
I understand your lack of response means you're conceding that you were wrong and I was right all along. Let's see if you'll take this literally and miss the most obviously obvious sarcasm of all time.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
Definition of SAY
to express in words : state; to state as opinion or belief : declare; utter, pronounce… See the full definition
1a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief : declare3a : indicate, show
// the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to : communicate
// a glance that said all that was necessary You stopped too soon:intransitive verb
: to express oneself : SPEAKDo you even know how dictionaries work? Do you even understand what it means when a dictionary lists more than one definition of a given word?
Yes, obviously better than you do.
You understand it so well that you couldn't for the life of you figure out why I would skip over the definitions that aren't relevant to the point I'm making and picked only the ones that show that "saying" doesn't always involve speaking out loud.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular.
I like how you once again seen something in my post that I never said.
I like how you see the words but can't understand their meanings or implications.
I like how you make assumptions about my state of mind based on things I haven't said.
It's true, I'm interpreting your state of mind by accepting that you mean the things you say here.
More specifically, you're interpreting it based on things I haven't actually said but only implied. Even more specifically, not actually implied, but only that you think I implied because you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Also known as reading between lines, overinterpretation, hallucinations, and being retarded.
No, saying that something is a circular reasoning doesn't always imply it's not to be trusted. Believing your own eyes is a circular reasoning in a philosophical sense, but a perfectly normal and rational thing to do. I thought I wouldn't have to say such obviously obvious thing to you, the Master of Fully Understanding And Instantly Accepting Everything That's Obviously Obvious, but here we are.
LOL. I believe you have surpassed @fox at this point.
Is it my turn to rant how you cannot understand the simplest and most obviously true facts?
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But seriously, you've already accepted this definition.
Which one? The "is means the same as is made of"? No, I didn't. The "to constitute the same idea or object as"? If you don't remember, I've already explained that this definition doesn't help your case, as characters and bytes aren't the same idea, and neither is a material object.
Explain better. By which I mean don't be wrong.
Which part of what I said is wrong?
In this instance: "this definition doesn't help your case" "aren't the same idea"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that a sequence of characters, and the bytes that make the sequence of characters, are the same idea?
No. Fucking hell.
Don't blame me. You said that "aren't the same idea" is the wrong part. So I did the only logical thing I could and assumed you believe that the opposite is correct.
I'm saying that the thing that you are calling a sequence of characters can also be called a sequence of bytes.
Much like what we are calling European Union can also be called Europe. Which is just slightly wrong - so slightly that it's okay for nearly all casual conversations - but still wrong.
I understand your lack of response means you're conceding that you were wrong and I was right all along. Let's see if you'll take this literally and miss the most obviously obvious sarcasm of all time.
That's no worse than the rest of your sins against logic in this thread.
With that assumption, the only way you can see to disprove that statement is to show that characters aren't implemented with bytes. Which is impossible, because it just so happens in our world that characters are always implemented with bytes.
I know, right? And yet you've still found a way to deny this obvious truth even when you admit it.
And so you conclude that characters are bytes, because they're always implemented with bytes. The conclusion is identical to the assumption you've made at the beginning. This is a book example of circular reasoning.
Look, I've said from the beginning that it was trivially true. And you may recall that I'm not the one denying trivially true things.
The problem is, it's trivially true because you assumed it to be trivially true. It's tautology. It's true because it's assumed to be true, and it's only true as long as you keep assuming it's true. Once you stop assuming it's true (and it's always good to have as little assumptions as possible), it stops being true. Unless you can prove it otherwise, but it looks like you can't.
Can't satisfy your irrational demands?
What's irrational about them? That I'm asking you to prove a false statement? Well, guess what! It wouldn't be that hard if your statement wasn't false!
Wat? You already said it was true. And then you said it's false because it's true.
I know it might blow your mind, but did you know that changing the axioms - the things that you accept as unconditionally true in your system - also changes what other things are true? Something might be true in one set of axioms but false in another! And you can just put anything you want as your axioms, and then you can prove anything you want to be true! Like you did with this "characters are bytes" thing! The problem is, you shouldn't do that. Because when your axioms contain something that isn't necessarily true, then all reasoning you base on those axioms is either completely useless, or very limited in where it applies.
It may blow your mind but it's not been me who has been contradicting himself and saying lots of dumb things about axioms and proofs.
It may blow your mind but nothing I said contradicts anything else I said. If there is some contradiction, I'm 99% sure it's only your hallucination, because you've shown many times over you're very capable of making up stuff I never said and acting like I did.
I can accept this as true if you never read your posts aloud.
You do? Suddenly I have much more questions about your state of mind. I didn't think it's possible.
Because you haven't noticed the definition of "said" that means speaking instead of writing?
Definition of SAY
to express in words : state; to state as opinion or belief : declare; utter, pronounce… See the full definition
1a : to express in words : state
b : to state as opinion or belief : declare3a : indicate, show
// the clock says five minutes after twelve
b : to give expression to : communicate
// a glance that said all that was necessary You stopped too soon:intransitive verb
: to express oneself : SPEAKDo you even know how dictionaries work? Do you even understand what it means when a dictionary lists more than one definition of a given word?
Yes, obviously better than you do.
You understand it so well that you couldn't for the life of you figure out why I would skip over the definitions that aren't relevant to the point I'm making and picked only the ones that show that "saying" doesn't always involve speaking out loud.
So you actually knew what I was saying and were being deliberately wrong? Interesting.
You've agreed that my assumption is correct.
You're making up stuff again. I only said that your statement is only true to you because you assumed it to be true. Just another way to describe circular reasoning.
I believe that you believe this.
Do you not believe that was circular reasoning?
No. It's accepting a definition.
In essence, accepting definition is circular reasoning. It's a necessary kind of circular reasoning that is good, but it's still circular reasoning. As long as it doesn't lead to nonsensical results, that is. Like, for example, that 150 is -106 (whatever "is" means here).
I like the implication here that you don't trust any of your observations because that would be circular.
I like how you once again seen something in my post that I never said.
I like how you see the words but can't understand their meanings or implications.
I like how you make assumptions about my state of mind based on things I haven't said.
It's true, I'm interpreting your state of mind by accepting that you mean the things you say here.
More specifically, you're interpreting it based on things I haven't actually said but only implied. Even more specifically, not actually implied, but only that you think I implied because you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Also known as reading between lines, overinterpretation, hallucinations, and being retarded.
False. But since you can't even see the obvious contradictions that you've posted I guess it's to be expected.
No, saying that something is a circular reasoning doesn't always imply it's not to be trusted. Believing your own eyes is a circular reasoning in a philosophical sense, but a perfectly normal and rational thing to do. I thought I wouldn't have to say such obviously obvious thing to you, the Master of Fully Understanding And Instantly Accepting Everything That's Obviously Obvious, but here we are.
LOL. I believe you have surpassed @fox at this point.
Is it my turn to rant how you cannot understand the simplest and most obviously true facts?
Sure, why should you start being correct now?
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
Byte can have any value from 0 to 255. Character - not necessarily.
You're also assuming 8-bit bytes.
-
@CodeJunkie why, yes, I am. Good to know at least one other person here can read!
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@CodeJunkie why, yes, I am. Good to know at least one other person here can read!
Maybe you should join the rest of us and start doing that then.
-
@boomzilla joining you would lead to the opposite.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla joining you would lead to the opposite.
Says the guy who disbelieves things because they're true.
-
@boomzilla stop it. It was funny for a while but now it's just sad. You really can't tell a difference between what was actually said and your own guesswork. Which wouldn't be that bad normally, but your guesswork is horribly off target here.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
but your guesswork is horribly off target here
For which definition of 'is'?
-
@pie_flavor 1d
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla stop it. It was funny for a while but now it's just sad.
No, it was sad a looong time ago, dude.
You really can't tell a difference between what was actually said and your own guesswork. Which wouldn't be that bad normally, but your guesswork is horribly off target here.
Maybe you shouldn't post garbage if it doesn't represent what you're thinking.
-
Example of what I'm talking about:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
if it doesn't represent what you're thinking.
How exactly did you come to this conclusion? It's definitely not in anything I said.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
Example of what I'm talking about:
@boomzilla said in Git hates UTF-16:
if it doesn't represent what you're thinking.
How exactly did you come to this conclusion? It's definitely not in anything I said.
LOL, too funny:
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
. You really can't tell a difference between what was actually said and your own guesswork. Which wouldn't be that bad normally, but your guesswork is horribly off target here.
-
@boomzilla circle the words that talk about my posts not matching my thoughts.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
@boomzilla circle the words that talk about my posts not matching my thoughts.
What? Can you not see the quote I posted?
-
@boomzilla I can see the quote alright. But I can't find anything in there about my posts not matching my thoughts. Mostly because I haven't said anything about my posts not matching my thoughts.
-
@GÄ…ska said in Git hates UTF-16:
But I can't find anything in there about my posts not matching my thoughts.
Yeah, that's what I said. Sheesh, try to keep up man.
-
@boomzilla it's hard to keep up with all your hallucinations. I'm not inside your head (and when I think about it, I'm very thankful I'm not).
-
vs 
-
Now...
My day is complete.
-
-
@levicki said in Git hates UTF-16:
I skipped a few pages, who is winning?
Probably the people who ignored the thread.
