Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

mpimet.mpg.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

#101

Post by mturmon »

Maursault wrote: post #99
mturmon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, that’s 140 objects (the number of bits), not 2^140 objects. Rookie numbers.

No, they are 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 numbers. 1 is a number. 2 are two numbers (1 + 1). 3 are three numbers (1 + 1 + 1). ------------------------------> ∴2^140 are 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 numbers. quod erat demonstrandum

Oops, you forgot to count 1.5

Relatedly, last night I tried to think about sqrt(2), but I couldn't get up that high! I got stuck trying to remember the 43'd irrational number after zero.

Re: Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

#102

Post by Maursault »

mturmon wrote: post #101
Maursault wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 numbers. 1 is a number. 2 are two numbers (1 + 1). 3 are three numbers (1 + 1 + 1). ------------------------------> ∴2^140 are 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 numbers. quod erat demonstrandum

Oops, you forgot to count 1.5 Relatedly, last night I tried to think about sqrt(2), but I couldn't get up that high! I got stuck trying to remember the 43'd irrational number after zero.

It's an 8. Just remember 718-753-7694 is an actual Staten Island phone number.

Re: Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

#103

Post by adrianN »

Maursault wrote: post #98
adrianN wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You apparently didn't even skim the paper I linked.

Your comment here and suggestion before, and that entire comment, is ad hominem: "ur dum! Go read a book! LOL! Stop disagreeing with me, I don't know logic!"

Not everything that disagrees with you is ad hominem and not knowing something is not a shame. But it does not make for good discussion if you're not engaging with the arguments.

Re: Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

#104

Post by Maursault »

adrianN wrote: post #103
Maursault wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment here and suggestion before, and that entire comment, is ad hominem: "ur dum! Go read a book! LOL! Stop disagreeing with me, I don't know logic!"

Not everything that disagrees with you is ad hominem and not knowing something is not a shame. But it does not make for good discussion if you're not engaging with the arguments.

Fallacy doesn't require response, yet I have entertained them as much as I have ignored them, such as this straw man. The other comments mentioned in my GP were ad hominem, though they didn't have to be phrased in a way that made them so, but instead asserted against my argument and cited rather than focusing on what I should do. One must speak to the argument, not to the man, "your facts are in error and your argument flawed because x, y, z," rather than "you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about, and I know this because I am an expert." Fallacy is not too difficult to avoid, but also easy enough to be trapped by,

Re: Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

#105

Post by adrianN »

Maursault wrote: post #104
adrianN wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything that disagrees with you is ad hominem and not knowing something is not a shame. But it does not make for good discussion if you're not engaging with the arguments.

Fallacy doesn't require response, yet I have entertained them as much as I have ignored them, such as this straw man. The other comments mentioned in my GP were ad hominem, though they didn't have to be phrased in a way that made them so, but instead asserted against my argument and cited rather than focusing on what I should do. One must speak to the argument, not to the man, "your facts are in error and your argume…

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Post reply on HN