Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1503 »

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

IEEE floating point numbers can be used to represent real or imaginary values.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 13:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 11:44

Ranzear: Jul 25, 2013

Reminder that all "non-complex" numbers just have a zeroed i coefficient and the statement wasn't about representation anyway.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 13:27

leper khan: Dec 28, 2010; Honest to god thinks Half Life 2 is a bad game. But at least he likes Monster Hunter.

Hammerite posted:

if by "number" you mean real or complex numbers then -0 is just another way of writing 0 so that is not "some other number"

if by "number" you mean some flavour of IEEE floating point then -0.0 and 0.0 are indeed different on some level but then QuarkJets's original claim, that "every number is the square of some other number" is false, because -1.0 is not the square of any number!

But to provide slightly less pedantic content for the thread:
code:
Python 3.9.5 (tags/v3.9.5:0a7dcbd, May  3 2021, 17:27:52) [MSC v.1928 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 1.0 / 0.0
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ZeroDivisionError: float division by zero
>>>
what's with this? Shouldn't I get infinity as a result and not an exception? I thought Python floats were IEEE double-precision. Aren't they breaking the rules here?

i * i = -1

# ? Jul 31, 2022 15:16

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

Bongo Bill posted:

IEEE floating point numbers can be used to represent real or imaginary values.

What's the IEEE floating point number (single or double precision, your choice) that represents the imaginary unit? What is its bit pattern?

What's the IEEE floating point number (single or double precision, your choice) that represents the number 1 + i (where i is the imaginary unit)? What is its bit pattern?

Ranzear posted:

Reminder that all "non-complex" numbers just have a zeroed i coefficient and the statement wasn't about representation anyway.

could you clarify who you are addressing here, as I have no idea whether this post is directed at me or at someone else.

leper khan posted:

i * i = -1

Another person who is either trolling me or cannot read

The post you quoted alludes to the existence of complex numbers (in the first paragraph), so you cannot possibly have read and understood the post and come away from it with the sincere belief that I am unaware of the concept of complex numbers.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 15:36

CPColin: Sep 9, 2003; Big ol' smile.

Shut up, nerd

# ? Jul 31, 2022 15:43

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

Hammerite posted:

What's the IEEE floating point number (single or double precision, your choice) that represents the imaginary unit? What is its bit pattern?

What's the IEEE floating point number (single or double precision, your choice) that represents the number 1 + i (where i is the imaginary unit)? What is its bit pattern?

Any bit pattern that can be used to represent the coefficient of the real component can also be used to represent the coefficient of the imaginary component, but I admit you'd need two of them to represent a complex number.

Nobody thinks you don't know about imaginary numbers, since it was obviously a simple communication error whose correct meaning is easily determined, but the more you double down on it, the more fun it is to push back.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 15:58

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

https://twitter.com/dasharez0ne/status/917420823639498752

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:00

Jabor: Jul 16, 2010; #1 Loser at SpaceChem

Bongo Bill posted:

Any bit pattern that can be used to represent the coefficient of the real component can also be used to represent the coefficient of the imaginary component, but I admit you'd need two of them to represent a complex number.

Nobody thinks you don't know about imaginary numbers, since it was obviously a simple communication error whose correct meaning is easily determined, but the more you double down on it, the more fun it is to push back.

So you would agree that the IEEE floating point number "-1.0" is not the square of any other IEEE floating point number?

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:04

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

Jabor posted:

So you would agree that the IEEE floating point number "-1.0" is not the square of any other IEEE floating point number?

You've got me there. You can use an IEEE floating point number to represent the number that the IEEE floating point number "-1.0" but you shouldn't.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:08

ultrafilter: Aug 23, 2007; It's okay if you have any questions.

Some floating point numbers are not the square of any other floating point number. Why is that important again?

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:09

Jabor: Jul 16, 2010; #1 Loser at SpaceChem

ultrafilter posted:

Some floating point numbers are not the square of any other floating point number. Why is that important again?

I have no idea, but when Hammerite said it a couple of people tried to jump in with some inane (and irrelevant) complex numbers sidetrack for some reason.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:15

CPColin: Sep 9, 2003; Big ol' smile.

Perhaps the real numbers were the squares inside us all along

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:20

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

I can't believe that someone would call me, a person who posts too much in the "complain about other people's programming" thread in the computer programming forum on noted non-nerdy website Something Awful, a nerd and tell me to shut up

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:39

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Jigsaw posted:

It is if you use the power of imagination!

This post owns fyi

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:45

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Jabor posted:

I have no idea, but when Hammerite said it a couple of people tried to jump in with some inane (and irrelevant) complex numbers sidetrack for some reason.

The original post was implicitly referring to complex numbers and wasn't about IEEE floating point at all

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:48

Jabor: Jul 16, 2010; #1 Loser at SpaceChem

QuarkJets posted:

The original post was implicitly referring to complex numbers and wasn't about IEEE floating point at all

Hammerite posted:

if by "number" you mean some flavour of IEEE floating point then -0.0 and 0.0 are indeed different on some level but then QuarkJets's original claim, that "every number is the square of some other number" is false, because -1.0 is not the square of any number!

That reads as pretty clearly being about IEEE floating point to me.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:56

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

Well, yes, but it was preceded by

QuarkJets posted:

Every number is the square of some other number

which was a joke to begin with.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 16:59

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

QuarkJets posted:

The original post was implicitly referring to complex numbers and wasn't about IEEE floating point at all

Yeah, your original post was implicitly about complex numbers. It was pokeyman's post that brought up negative zero (jokingly), and that's the post I chose to reply to pedantically

I thought I was being pretty clear and explicit about which of my uses of the word "number" were references to what might be termed the numbers of ordinary arithmetic (integers, real numbers and complex numbers) and which were references to IEEE floating-point numbers. Which is why I was so confused that what several people took away from my post was that I don't even know what complex numbers are.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 17:02

CPColin: Sep 9, 2003; Big ol' smile.

Hammerite posted:

I can't believe that someone would call me, a person who posts too much in the "complain about other people's programming" thread in the computer programming forum on noted non-nerdy website Something Awful, a nerd and tell me to shut up

We get it, you have difficulty imagining things

# ? Jul 31, 2022 17:23

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Hammerite posted:

Yeah, your original post was implicitly about complex numbers. It was pokeyman's post that brought up negative zero (jokingly), and that's the post I chose to reply to pedantically

I thought I was being pretty clear and explicit about which of my uses of the word "number" were references to what might be termed the numbers of ordinary arithmetic (integers, real numbers and complex numbers) and which were references to IEEE floating-point numbers. Which is why I was so confused that what several people took away from my post was that I don't even know what complex numbers are.

You've accomplished your goal of writing annoying pedantic posts, well done

# ? Jul 31, 2022 17:41

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

hammerite's post made perfect sense if you read what it was replying to, these attempted dunks are dumb as hell

# ? Jul 31, 2022 17:55

NtotheTC: Dec 31, 2007

all numbers are imaginary imo

# ? Jul 31, 2022 18:35

cheetah7071: Oct 20, 2010; honk honk; College Slice

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

hammerite's post made perfect sense if you read what it was replying to, these attempted dunks are dumb as hell

# ? Jul 31, 2022 19:00

Volte: Oct 4, 2004; woosh woosh

Complex numbers aren't real numbers.

# ? Jul 31, 2022 19:09

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

CPColin posted:

We get it, you have difficulty imagining things

Ok, this one was actually funny

# ? Jul 31, 2022 20:53

Doom Mathematic: Sep 2, 2008

0.0i * 0.0i = -0.0

# ? Jul 31, 2022 21:32

Karate Bastard: Jul 31, 2007; Soiled Meat

Which easy framework was it that I could gather all my technical debt into? Because it honestly seems like a p attractive idea at this point

# ? Aug 1, 2022 00:28

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

SonarQube has pretty reasonable rules for assessing Technical Debt

# ? Aug 1, 2022 05:31

Karate Bastard: Jul 31, 2007; Soiled Meat

I mean as in the thread title

# ? Aug 1, 2022 06:40

DoctorTristan: Mar 11, 2006; I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this. Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?

Run everything on containers, now everything�s a docker problem

# ? Aug 1, 2022 08:47

normal contact: Mar 19, 2010

Just had my first case of "who the gently caress wrote this garbage - oh it was me". Am I a real programmer now?

# ? Aug 1, 2022 13:16

Macichne Leainig: Jul 26, 2012; by VG

No. Real programmers are a myth perpetrated by Big Recruiter

# ? Aug 1, 2022 15:38

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

normal contact posted:

Just had my first case of "who the gently caress wrote this garbage - oh it was me". Am I a real programmer now?

You’re a complex programmer now

# ? Aug 1, 2022 16:06

Spatial: Nov 15, 2007

Computer programs consist of real part which is godawful, and an imaginary part which is awesome.

# ? Aug 1, 2022 18:41

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Spatial posted:

Computer programs consist of real part which is godawful, and an imaginary part which is nightmarish.

ftfy

# ? Aug 1, 2022 18:44

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

I'm gonna go and become a mathematician so I can create a whole new class of numbers and call them "pedantic" numbers, just so these conversations will be even more incomprehensible.

# ? Aug 2, 2022 17:15

Falcon2001: Oct 10, 2004; Eat your hamburgers, Apollo.; Pillbug

normal contact posted:

Just had my first case of "who the gently caress wrote this garbage - oh it was me". Am I a real programmer now?

I just had my first case of "Falcon2001 from four months ago wrote this and decided it didn't need test cases written, and now I want him tried for war crimes against the future" when I had a deadline move up suddenly and all of my code is suddenly not as inherently trustworthy as I felt it was four months ago.

# ? Aug 2, 2022 17:21

Ranzear: Jul 25, 2013

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I'm gonna go and become a mathematician so I can create a whole new class of numbers and call them "pedantic" numbers, just so these conversations will be even more incomprehensible.

And then you'll realize there is a Numberphile video about them from 2017.

# ? Aug 2, 2022 18:04

b0lt: Apr 29, 2005

Hammerite posted:

But to provide slightly less pedantic content for the thread:
code:
Python 3.9.5 (tags/v3.9.5:0a7dcbd, May  3 2021, 17:27:52) [MSC v.1928 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 1.0 / 0.0
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ZeroDivisionError: float division by zero
>>>
what's with this? Shouldn't I get infinity as a result and not an exception? I thought Python floats were IEEE double-precision. Aren't they breaking the rules here?

no, ieee754 defines that you get either infinity or an exception

# ? Aug 3, 2022 02:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 11:44

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

I hate this:

C++ code:

void blah(uint32_t x) {
  int y = static_cast<int>(x); //32-bit unsigned to 64-bit signed is fine right?
  if(0 < y) {
    //do something with y
  }
}

0 was the default value, no negative was expected since value was from unsigned, and most significant bit was set in x.
C++ is the horror here.

# ? Aug 6, 2022 04:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1503 »