in terms of hacking anything is "possible", however "probable" is another case.
No, not everything is possible. Some things are, some things aren't, and, until you can tell the difference, please do not talk with authority on the subject.
authority is not needed on concepts that are common sense.
possible != probable
there is a *possibility* for an exploit to exist that modifies some things perceived as impossible (stats?), and it's *possible* that some person might be smart enough to "hack" into blizzards database and change information. is it likely? no, but its possible.
anything can be possible when technology is implied, but that doesn't make it probable.
this is why i said in terms of hacking, IE anything you would want to hack.
but if it makes you feel better anything is possible that doesn't involve mathematical equations with an infinite answer.
p.s. technically you CAN divide by zero, wanna see? 10/0 = 1 there. i winof course that answer is incorrect however all that you mentioned was doing it, not in acquiring a correct answer :P
No, you don't win, you fail. Any expression of the form 'a/0' where as is any number (real or complex, it doesn't matter) is meaningless and has no value. The outcome is undefined.
Also, in mathematics doing/solving an equation or evaluating an expression implies doing it correctly and if you assume otherwise you're an idiot.
PS. It doesn't have an 'infinite answer'. Infinity is a well established concept in mathematics, and it is most certainly not the result of a/0.
you seem to like being right alot huh?
1. I'm sorry i forgot a spaceI'm a baaaaad person.
2.when dealing with possibilities you should imply nothing lest some unforeseen circumstance pop up to effect it in a way unintentional of the original problem. this is basic, and something i would expect a programmer to know.
if i take a math test, but get all the answers wrong. did i do the test? yes. i did it, but i did it wrong. doesn't change the fact i did it though.
3. infinity -- the assumed limit of a sequence, series, etc., that increases without bound.
Last edited by arigity; 09-13-2008 at 10:33 PM.
Semantics, the backbone of any quality internet conversation!
:wave:
lol! tele-porting on a retail is possible but if you expect to continue playing your account for more than a month i suggest don't do it ... hack privates instead
0. Irony ftw.
1. Yes, yes you are.
2. /facepalm. Pedantic is one thing, thats just retarded. Good luck 'implying nothing' and commenting your code like this:
// X is an object of type T1. Y and Z are objects of type T2. T2 has operator overloads to allow multiplication. The overloads return a reference to const to stop expressions such as 'y + z = x'. T1 has a constructor to allow conversion from type T2 to T1. The result of this expression is the execution of the operator* overloads and assigning the return value to x. This is assigment not construction.
// And I could get even more verbose. etc.
x = y * z;
The point is, the great thing about object oriented languages is you CAN 'imply' things, one of the foundations of OO is ABSTRACTION. The users of your classes shouldn't need to know the internals to be able to use them. I suggest you acquaint yourself with a book on object oriented programming because that's one of the primary design goals.
Also, stop with the Straw Man argment bullshit. My position is that if you are told to solve an equation the expectation is that you attempt to do it correctly, not that the fact you got a question wrong implies you never attempted it. Furthermore, if you get it wrong you technically didn't 'do' it because it isn't solved (which was the aim to begin with).
Reference in case you're unfarmiliar with the terminology of what you're doing:
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. The result of a/0 is not a sequence/series so the result obviously is not zero. Although given the expression 1/b as b approaches 0 the result approaches infinity the actual result of the expression 1/0 is undefined and as such is not a series/sequence and cannot be defined as infinity. Although it is sometimes convenient to think of it this way (a/0 = inf.) it is not correct.
Just to clarify. You're making the same misconception about division by zero as Bhaskara.
As shown here.
So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = ∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times ∞ must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02 = 0, and √0 = 0.
You fail. That is all.