Uhhh....where IS everyeone?

[Timballisto]

No one's online anymore.  What gives?

[Mr. K]

I come by just to check around mostly, but WHERE IS EVERYONE? Is Lemmings....finally......dying?   :-(

I mean, some sections haven't had posts in a week or two. Sounds like my message board. No one's posted there in over a week.

Remember those times when everyone came here and everything was being posted? I miss that.

[Andi]

After every hill is a tale. And after every tale is a hill again. Busy times come and go. Don't worry.

[Shvegait]

People are busy playing the new games they got for Christmas. They'll be back when they get bored of them

[Liebatron]

hmm.i guess your right i never thought of that. Lemmings dying? :-/are you guys all nuts?! :: X_X

[?QuErY?]

Despite almost everyone I know claiming that lemmings is dead, I didn't believe a word of it. Lemmings is not dead, never has been and never will be. Not while I'm alive. :-/

[Adam]

I have to admit I did think it has been very quiet as of late but I feel like someone said that it's due to Christmas. It's like a lot of Gaming message boards. I'd say that by May posts should be back to normal

[Timballisto]

Mkay...um, There have only been about three posts other than my own for three days...why? &#A0;What is everyone doing???

[Mr. K]

Well, it was spring break for me, so maybe everyone went on vacation?

[DragonsLover]

I come here often! Everyday I try to be here!

[?QuErY?]

I try my best as well.

[Timballisto]

Well, now everyone's here...but no one's at LU &#A0; :mikeX:


EDIT: &#A0;Wow...is it just me...or are Ice Eagle and Steaver gone!?

:mikehuh2:

[dark_phoenix]

Sorry. Well here I am now.

[Timballisto]

Uh, LU is completely deserted...what happen? Xp

[Shvegait]

There's no point in having two message boards for the same community, that's all, unless you want to divide it further, though I don't think that's necessary! (I realize LU existed first, but mass migrations get to be a pain after a while.)

[Liebatron]

whoa... you're right...steaver and Ice Eagle are missing...
... ... ... ... ... ... ......... I miss the lack of corrections. I have better grammar than all of my friends most of the time and Ice eagle corrects me alot.(I don't type grammatically corect on Lem universe most of the time.) wierd... maybe they're back in the original LUBD which I hear is up again. is it?
::

[Shvegait]

LUDB is back, but you won't see many posts there...
And a guest named Steaver370 made a post here a couple days ago so... yeah...

[Timballisto]

What was up with that poll he made anyhow?

[Shvegait]

The answer is always 42. I forget why, or what it's from...

[Timballisto]

...Huh?  It can't be forty two.  That sounds just like that stupid .9 repeating = 1 stuff...well, in practical manner, .9 repeating is 1, but in pure math form, they aren't equal...anyhow, I just did the math myself and it equals 54.  If you can find a counter example or something show me and I will see what I can get out of it.  Maybe I'm wrong or something...

[chaos_defrost]

It's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference. In the book, the earth was created just to solve a certain question. The question was forgotten, but the answer was eventually discovered: 42.

And then the Earth is blown up to make an intergalactic super-highway. Or something. Never read it.

[Timballisto]

...strange.............heh, that would be funny if it were true...kind of ... Xp.

[Mr. K]

They blew up Earth to make a hyperspace bypass not a highway.

[Proxima]

Actually, .9 recurring IS 1. "Recurring" just means a limit: the limit as n goes to infinity of 0.9 followed by n nines. Which, mathematically, is exactly 1.

[Isu]

0.9 recurring is NOT 1. 0.9 recurring is the closest you can get to 1. IF 0.9 recurring is 1, everything I know and ws taught about maths is wrong.

Example:
0.9 = 9/10
0.99 = 99/100
0.999 = 999/1000

Where as:
1 = 10/10
1 = 100/100
1 = 1000/1000

You could do this forever, but the pattern is clear

0.9 recurring = infinite9's/(infinite9's+1)
1 = infinite9's/infinite9's

0.9 recurring is very close to 1 but it isn't 1. 0.9 recurring is in fact, so close to one that many people consider it as a 1, as something so small usually doesn't count.

[Proxima]

But "infinite 9s plus one" is meaningless; if you add one to an infinite number the answer is the same infinite number. Your sum then becomes:

0.9 recurring = infinite 9s / infinite 9s + 1 = infinity / infinity = 1

You just don't understand the concept of a limit. Shall I put it differently?

1 - 0.9 = 0.1
1 - 0.99 = 0.01
1 - 0.999 = 0.001
1 - 0.9999 = 0.0001

In the limit, as the number of 9s goes to infinity, the difference between 1 and 0.999999 tends to zero. In every term of the sequence, the difference is increasingly small but still slightly more than zero; but the limit itself is zero.

[Isu]

Oops X_X

I s'pose you're right about that zeroing out part and the concept of a limit. The limit is zero, so when the 9's go infinite, it reaches that limit it ends up as a 1, or something like that. Okay, I understand now.

*Gets back into box*

[Proxima]

That's ok    it is hard to understand when you're not used to it.........

[Shvegait]

Don't debate that .9 repeating = 1. It is. There are even at least 3 different ways to show/prove it...

Here are 2 other ways.

&#A0;1/9 = .1 repeating
+8/9 = .8 repeating
-------------------------
&#A0;9/9 = .9 repeating
&#A0; &#A0; 1 = .9 repeating

x = .9 repeating
10 x = 9.9 repeating

10x - x = 9.9 repeating - .9 repeating
9x = 9
x = 1 = .9 repeating


And if you still don't buy it, take a calculus class.

[Timballisto]

Sheesh...I already had this argument...in school...ag it was annoying.

I will take that class eventually.  So far I'm in geometry.

I think that both sides are correct in different manners.  Even with infinite nines, when you think about it in pure logic, you never get to one.  At the same time, .9 repeating is infinitely closer to one, so it becomes one.

My geometry teacher says that .9r <> 1.  I'll just have to see a calc teacher...of course,  Shvegait, having taken the class, can tell me.

In reality though, if you look around, is there anywhere that has a .9r in it anyway?  I mean physically speaking.  If you were to apply .9r to a thing, could it really exist since the nines would continue forever?  Maybe...

I had a thought once, and it led me to the conclusion that, no math is really being done when something happens.  For example, when you throw a ball.  Math is not done to determine where it goes.  It just is.  So math seems to be more a translation of the laws of the universe into something we can manipulate and understand.  In the reverse fashion, we can use math to predict how these laws apply also.  Another thing I figured is that there is no such thing as a line.  This is because a line is points.  Points have no spacial value.  The only reason we can see a line on a graph is because we give it width and height.  Also, I don't think a physical straight line exists.  The smallest existing unit of matter is round, as far as we know, and because of that is everything else not round also?

Math is wierd...

Note that everything above is simply past thoughts.  I'm not trying to claim that what I've said is correct, although I do hope it is...

Go ahead and criticize stuff now... X|

[Shvegait]

If you were to apply .9r to a thing, could it really exist since the nines would continue forever?  Maybe...

This is a good point. .9 repeating is a worthless concept.

Think about it. How do you generate a repeating sequence of digits? Division.

8 divided by 9 becomes .888888888 on forever in long division. However, how can you generate .9999999 on forever by division? You can't. 9 divided by 9 gives 1.

But .9 repeating IS equal to the infinite series: Sum of 9/10^n from n=1 to infinity (0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...). And you can prove that this series converges to 1. It's been a year since I took Calculus B but... maybe I'll look through my old notes and let you know

[Isu]

Ugh, now I know why Computer code keeps to 1's and 0's.  

[Timballisto]

Lol.  That's another thing completely.

What if a device used 0s, 1s, and 2s?  If there were three possible states for a bit, then, we could do 1/3 more with a computer than we could now...interesting...now just to find how to add the two.  If zero is no current and one is current is on, maybe two could be inbetween somehow.

We might as well just go into threes while we're at it...

[Proxima]

It wouldn't be just one-third more. Nowhere near.

2^8 = 256
3^8 = 6561

2^16 = 65,536
3^16 = 43,046,721

2^24 = 16,777,216
3^24 = 282,429,536,481

2^32 = 4,294,967,296
3^32 = 1,853,020,188,851,841

I think we can stop there...... you see that if a bit could have three states instead of two, 32 bits could encode more than a quarter of a million times as much information as they currently do. A little bit more than a one-third increase!  

[guest]

I think that both sides are correct in different manners. &#A0;Even with infinite nines, when you think about it in pure logic, you never get to one. &#A0;At the same time, .9 repeating is infinitely closer to one, so it becomes one.

The whole confusion really is that people are confusing the value

0.9999........

with this infinite sequence of numbers

0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...

It is true that all of the numbers in the sequence are less than 1.  However, this does not follow that the value 0.9999...... is less than 1, because the value 0.9999...... is itself not in the sequence.  Each number in the sequence above each only has a finite number of 9s, and so the number 0.9999...... would not be part of the sequence, but actually just outside of it.

So it is not a logical contradiction that 0.9999...... is equal to 1 even though every number in the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... are less than 1.  The sequence and the value are two separate entities, despite being closely related.

[guest]

Ugh, now I know why Computer code keeps to 1's and 0's. &#A0;

Well actually, you'd get the same sort of thing no matter what base you use for the number.  If we are in binary, then instead of 0.99999..... being 1, we get 0.11111.... being 1.

Of course, one nice thing about computers as opposed to math is that computers never deal with infinite quantities in the way you would in math.  There would be no 0.11111... in a computer since you don't have an infinite amount of memory to hold all those 1s.

[guest]

Speaking of bits...

You guys know that the word "bit" is originally a contraction of the phrase "binary digit", right?

Now imagine what you'd get if we do ternary (base 3) instead of binary......

[Isu]

Ugh, now I know why Computer code keeps to 1's and 0's.  

This was really some kind of joke. I wasn't expecting a conversation to sprout over it.

[Shvegait]

Actually, guest...

The nth element of the sequence, starting at n=1 is (1 - 1/10^n)

The limit of (1 - 1/10^n) as n approaches infinity equals 1 - 0 = 1.

It is not correct to say that .9 repeating isn't in the sequence... It is just one of those concepts that people will feel uncomfortable about until they learn calculus...


The confusion is kind of interesting. People will accept that .3 repeating is 1/3. Don't they? You never see people saying that no matter how many 3's you write, you will always be less than 1/3 (you will, except at infinity). This is, I guess, because the concept of 1/3 isn't as strong in people as the concept of 1, which "clearly" any DECIMAL must be less than. It isn't as clear for other repeating decimals, although the same concepts are at work.

The other thing is that .9 repeating is never the result of long division, so there aren't really any concrete examples where people get .9 repeating as a result and must interpret it.

[guest]

Actually, guest...

The nth element of the sequence, starting at n=1 is (1 - 1/10^n)

The limit of (1 - 1/10^n) as n approaches infinity equals 1 - 0 = 1.

It is not correct to say that .9 repeating isn't in the sequence... It is just one of those concepts that people will feel uncomfortable about until they learn calculus...

I'm sorry, but you are actually not correct.  Your statement about limits is true, but generally in mathematics, the limit of a sequence is not considered to be in the sequence itself.  This is why for example most texts are careful to say the limit of such-and-such as n approaches infinity (or notationally, n -> inf), rather than to say "as n = inf".

I'm sure your calculus textbook must have examples like the function f(x) = (x^2-1)/(x-1) when they talked about limits.  Because division by 0 is undefined, they would draw the graph of f(x) with an open circle at x = 1, so that f(1) is undefined.  Yet the limit as x approaches 1, if you look at the graph, is clearly the value 2.  So the limit can exist even though it is not considered to be in the function's range.

The other thing is that .9 repeating is never the result of long division, so there aren't really any concrete examples where people get .9 repeating as a result and must interpret it.

That's true.  Of course, you can get .9 repeating by a nonstandard way of doing the long division:

Code: [Select]

   0.999...
 ---------
1 )1.000...
    9
  --------
    10
                    9
  --------
                    10
                     9
  --------
                     1...

[Timballisto]

This was really some kind of joke. I wasn't expecting a conversation to sprout over it.

Yes, I know, but I decided to make it a conversation, becuase that is an interesting thought, using  0s 1s and 2s...

[Shvegait]

Oh yeah, guest, you are right. Sorry, it's been a while. &#A0;X_X

But I doubt that's the reason people are confused about this whole thing. They see a 0.# and assume it must be less than 1.0. Although it's true that when people talk about it they inevitably say "0.99999999999999999", referring to that sequence.

[AstralLemming]

Speaking of bits...

You guys know that the word "bit" is originally a contraction of the phrase "binary digit", right?

Now imagine what you'd get if we do ternary (base 3) instead of binary......

I know exactly you're talking about. Streetlight administrator, You have competion for rudeness.

[drumnbach]

But what function would the third option in a ternary serve? Surely the on and off workings of binary is enough? You would have to devise an entirely new system of logic. The only purpose I can see a ternary serving is that it would throw uncertain values into the mixture, which inevitabley leads us to quantum mechanics. Would quantum mechanics actually serve any purpose in the world of computing? I can see it working for security applications, but only in a very obscure way.

I don't care what people say; quantum mechanics applies only to the subatomic level. Unless they shrink down circuit boards to the size of atoms, a ternary would be inefficient. Binary works so well BECAUSE there are so few options.

[Proxima]

What function it would serve is clear enough; in fact I already answered that.

Suppose you have a picture that takes up 1KB of storage space (8192 binary digits). Since 2^8192 ~ 3^5168, to store the same information in a ternary system requires just 5168 digits.

Mathematically, the fraction of digits needed by a ternary system compared to a binary is given by log 2 / log 3 = 0.631. A saving of 37%; equivalently, you could fit 58% more information (games, pictures, music, whatever) into the same amount of space.

Less efficent? I think not.

[drumnbach]

What about the logic system? Flip-flap-flop. Sure it better represents human thinking, but do we really want our computers to be equipped with a more human logic? We should keep things in binary purely because I'd rather farm a meadow of high-towers than have a cluster of high-towers who have cooperatively manifested themselves as a giant humanoid farm a meadow of drumnbachs.

One particularly powerful ternary supercomputer would elect himself president of the new cyber-republic. A diabolical face would radiate from his giant VDU, and he would bellow the ternary manifesto from his three-thousand and thirty-three watt speakers. Beneath him would be the relics of the subordinate binary world. An archaic, Star Trek-esque control panel, complete with nixie tube lights to display anything quantafiable. A wall of MDF panels with 80Mb hard drives screwed on to them. 386 processors sticking out of plant pots.

And deep underground would be a giant converted 1980's nuclear power plant. This is where the farmed human brains are reconstituted as an energy source, and to feed the computer emperor's burgeoning intelligence. The conveyor belt trundles along, carting the brains off into the mouth of a converted JCB digger. The conveyor belt is just about the only binary driven technology in the entire place, and this is to our fortune, because it did not detect that Ahribar's brain had been thrown on the belt along with millions of others.

Ahribar's brain ends up in the mouth of the JCB digger. The needle of an analogue moving-coil meter pproaches the red end of the scale marked 'Overload' and it starts to quiver. The nuclear power plant explodes, and the ternary dynasty is overthrown.

And you know why? Because the relics of our subordinate digital world saved the day. Maybe ternary is more efficient, but there are other costs involved, including our LIVES!

Think about that.

[drumnbach]

'Setun 70' would be the Jesus / Muhammed of the new ternary-tyrany.

[Timballisto]

Okay...normally,  I NEVER, EVER, say this, but, now I believe I have found the perfect time to...


[size=20]WTF?[/size]

That entire rant up there is INSANE NONSENSE BASED ON NOTHING.  WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???

[Conway]

Drumnbach, you should write science fiction! That's incredible, literally!

 The idea of a three-way bit, or 'trit', as they may be called, has crossed my mind. I have no idea how a hard drive works, but I'm sure it would be possible to make one with three possible states to every bit, and then design a new breed of processor to go with it. Maybe it's just because such a system would be unnecessary, and would probably be completely incompatible with any hardware or software built on the binary system.

 In fact, if a bit works similarly to a lightbulb, or a magnetic field, it can be switched on or off, and also charged to different degrees, so we could have a virtually unlimited base unit for a bit; 3, 5, 10, 20, the options are countless. 10 would probably be the simplest, because it's used primarily in mathematics.

 It's an interesting thought though!

[drumnbach]

There have been at least two ternary computers built (and several more of the same were produced). They were designed at a Moscow university in the '50s, '60s and [70s and they were named 'Setun' and 'Setun 70'.

Apparently they were more practical and efficient than binary computers. Unfortunately, the Russian government couldn\t be arsed to fund the Moscow University and instead propagated the idea that ternary was bad. Eventually production of ternary computers stopped, despite them being in high demand.

[Shvegait]

It all boils down to simplicity. Simplicity works best.

A ternary system can be built with a binary system using 2 bits for each "trit". (This doesn't address memory or processing concerns, just logic.)

1 1 : State 1
1 0 : State 2
0 1 : State 2
0 0 : State 3

If (A and B) then 1,
else if (A or B) then 2,
else 3.

drumnbach, how could a purely ternary system be more practical (I won't ask about efficient, because in certain specific cases a ternary system could probably be more efficient) than a binary system... especially considering the advances in technology we've made over the past decades? Examples would be nice...

And does ternary really fit human thinking patterns? I'm not so certain. Everything gets boiled down to two main categories (black vs. white, cold vs. hot, etc.). Now, you could say there exist concepts of "gray" and "warm", but is it a unique state? No, it is a mixture of two other states.

Logic flows much much easier from a binary system than a ternary system anyway.

I'm not going to say human thinking can be modeled by a binary system, but really it wouldn't be easier to model with a ternary system. The only potential difference between a binary and ternary system deals with efficiency (since a ternary system can be modeled by a binary system).

[drumnbach]

especially considering the advances in technology we've made over the past decades?

It wasn't called the Setun 70 because it was built in the 1990's ya know.

[Andi]

How should the 3rd bit work? A bit isn't a lightbulb you can charge to different degrees. It's ON or OFF. If it get's different degrees it's analog. Why don't change to analog? You'll have infinite values to use. Nah! Trits? To quote Timballisto: WTF?

[drumnbach]

But there's your three values: W, T and F.

W and T are your orthodox [on\ and [off\, or 0 and 1, and [F\ serves as the wildcard. [W\ asks the questions, [T\ measures either the position or disposition of an electron (or a proton if it starts to get jealous), and [F\ tires of the whole irksome charade and retires to the countryside.

[Shvegait]

especially considering the advances in technology we've made over the past decades?
 
It wasn't called the Setun 70 because it was built in the 1990's ya know.

My point is that we've made considerable advances in technology over the past decades using a binary system. If the ternary system were superior, why would it all but die out in the 70s?

[Andi]

That's the point, Shvegait.
Wildcards? Nonesense! There is no MAYBE in the digital world! Not even in the anolog world! I can't say there's MAYBE light. There IS light or there IS NO light. Maybe is a human thing. We use it for things we are not sure about. But a computer can't be "not sure". And what do you mean by question and answer? Since when can a bunch of silicium ask questions?

[guest]

I believe if you look at computing history in general, the best technology doesn't always win.

You can Google to get some more information on ternary computing, ternary logic, and Setun.  Though not quite as much as I hope.

I'll leave it for the websites to explain what the real advantages of ternary are.  I should point out though that the misconception here that ternary are more efficient for data storage.  That's an illusion, because although it takes less trits than bits to encode a number, each trit will be more complex to make and takes up more silicon space, so in the end, in terms of cost it probably doesn't buy you anything.

I should also note that one thing I wasn't able to find out was how they would store trits in nonvolatile storage such as hard disks.  I'm sure it can be done, but as you can see, going from binary to ternary does require you to do things differently in multiple areas of technology (memory, CPU, hard disks, programming, ...), which might explain why it becomes less practical to convert from binary to ternary, when everything that already exists and are up and running are all binary.

[guest]

Wildcards? Nonesense! There is no MAYBE in the digital world! Not even in the anolog world! I can't say there's MAYBE light. There IS light or there IS NO light. Maybe is a human thing. We use it for things we are not sure about. But a computer can't be "not sure".

That's just silly, the computer can be programmed to say whatever the programmer wants it to say, including "Maybe" if that's what's needed.

It's best not to confuse ternary computation with formal ternary logic.  No doubt a ternary-based system of computation will be more efficient for implementing ternary logic, but the two are not dependent.

Multivalue logics are real research topics, you can probably Google either "ternary logic" or "multivalue logic", or even "fuzzy logic" to get more information on it.  I believe they had been considered in the course of artificial intelligence research.

And if you think having "maybe" in computer logic is weird, considered another current cutting edge research in computer science:  quantum computing.  There, your "qubit" not only can represent 0 or 1, they can also represent (theoretically) "everything in between".  You heard me right, you can get your qubit to hold values like "75% probability of 0, 25% probability of 1" and the like.  Try to wrap your head around that.  

[drumnbach]

My point is that we've made considerable advances in technology over the past decades using a binary system. If the ternary system were superior, why would it all but die out in the 70s?

Like I said, the Russian government did not want to fund it. You have to take into account the sociological climate of Russia in them days. Just about everything was under state control, and if the government didn't like ternary computers then ternary computers would never see the digital light of day.

As for wildcards being nonsense, I think the real thing to consider here is how nonsensical it is for 'trit' values to grow weary of their lives as trit values and relocate to a scenic villa in Greece.

Thanks Guest for clearing up my points (the ones that weren't bulls*** at least!)

[Andi]

Whatever... Maybe somewhere in Area 51 they are working with quatrobits or even more. Who knows?

This whole discussion is off-topic.

[guest]

Thanks Guest for clearing up my points (the ones that weren't bulls*** at least!)

Hmph, my BS beats your mouthload of monkey feces any day!  

[drumnbach]

I meant my own BS, but you're right, my monkey feces IS pretty lame

[Special_Gunpowder]

I'm more of a fan of Ben's flamingo excrement, personally.

[Isu]

This whole discussion is off-topic.

and it's been off topic since reply #17

[Conway]

Well, what could we reply on-topic other than 'Here I am!'?

[Isu]

We couldn't really, I was just stating....

[drumnbach]

The whole discussion forum is off-topic

[AstralLemming]

Very true!

[Lemika]

I am in an extremely well-protected vehicle, tunneling straight towards the core of the Earth. This is the first time I've managed to get power; it's strange how that works.

... No, actually, I'm right here in front of my computer. And the reasons I haven't been here for a while are several. The main one is that I wasn't here at all for a week... and before that it was tech week.

[drumnbach]

Perhaps the earth's molten core generates some kind of electric field. Its radius would be small, so you must be getting close to your destination. Please bring me back some chocolate nickles and a bottle of Irn Bru.

[Liebatron]

I'm here, you asked I answered..I'm here.


Were overdue for a change in polarity L.K. Check up on that when you get to the center of the Earth please.

Seriously, we are. I saw a Documentary on it once. When Egypt was Young, a compass would point (I forget which one it is) east or west. Scientists figured it out by smashing egyptian pottery.
When Clay is fired in a kiln, it records the state of the earths magnetic field at the time it hardened. were due for another polarity change.

[Dashwarts]

This is all pointless but i like it...sort of, but i'm here too! the forums on my site are dead empty...whatever good they'll do

[Isu]

The traffic on this forum has been kind of slow lately. Where is everyone? What are they doing that is so more important than lemmings?

...Apart from School/Work and other stuff...

[Mindless]

I'm trying to figure out why my bitmaps are corrupted... it's getting boring...

[tumble_weed]

well today I'm back at uni...so yeah...and other than that ive been trying to play as many adventure games as possible!

[JM]

I am here. In my room in my house.

[Isu]

 This forum needs LIFE!

[drumnbach]

I saw an amino acid crawl across the General Forum the other day, if that counts.

[Isu]

Not the kind of life I'm talking about, but, yeah...

[Shvegait]

I'm gone for a week (shore trip). Not that it really matters... I've done my contribution to the group level, but if we're doing another, though, could someone plug me into a slot (I guess for the middle to end of it) please?

Since it's not really relevant, I posted it here in the most off-topic thread in Off Topic
(It seems to be a thread about location, so it works hehe.)

[Argai]

Hello everybody  

[Conway]

Welcome to the site, Argai!

 

[AstralLemming]

Hope you like this place as much as I do!

[Argai]

Welcome to the site, Argai!

 &#A0;

Thanks  

Hope you like this place as much as I do!

Thanks again