
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I signed it.
Very cool. From reading your comments over the years I would think you are a craftsman (and not an Agilist).
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I wish it would say when I did
Actually you can see when you signed it.
I searched for anyone named "paul" who signed and this is what it looks like[^].
What is the name you signed under? Just type it into the search box (have to scroll down a bit on the main page) and search and it'll show you when you signed.





raddevus wrote: not an Agilist
I definitely do Agile (or maybe lowercase agile). I don't see those as mutually exclusive.
Not a dogmatist, I think those types are the bad ones, regardless of dogma.
Oh, I kept scrolling down and using the browser's find in page until I found myself.
3682 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phoenix, AZ) 5/12/2009
Now to complain that they don't use an ISO 8601 format...





PIEBALDconsult wrote: I definitely do Agile (or maybe lowercase agile).
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Not a dogmatist, I think those types are the bad ones, regardless of dogma.
Wow, I agree with you 100%!!
I like to take all the good parts and leave the useless dogmatic arguments behind.
Whatever helps me get to good, maintainable, robust code the best is my choice.
I think Tech books / Tech publishing industry has created more problems really because many things  like Agile and Agile Scrum can be explained in a pamphlet  but you can't sell a pamphlet for $59.99
And, most people never finish those books anyways. It's a crazy system.
(And, I love to read tech books)
Meanwhile, real devs, sort out the chaff, use the good stuff and make things happen.





LOL, I once compared programmers to construction workers on this forum and people weren't having it My point being that professional programmers have to make things work in a practical sense in the real world, as opposed to the sort of theoretical programming that computer scientists do.
So this is interesting to me. Is there a secret society behind this bent on world domination? How do I get into the inner circle, is there a special handshake? Or do you have to blink in binary or something?





StatementTerminator wrote: I once compared programmers to construction workers on this forum and people weren't having it
I like the analogy. I'm working on a thing right now that includes using DependencyInjection with Service and Repository Classes that requires mostly just copy/paste to adhere to the ARCHITECT'S Pattern and it is a whole lot like digging a hole that we will fill with gravel and pave over.
Blinking in binary is a great idea but if we have a lot of meetings we will all probably get headaches.





raddevus wrote: copy/paste
Which construction workers can't do. They have to hit the nail on the head right each and every time. And their version of undo isn't perfect either.





StatementTerminator wrote: compared programmers to construction workers
Software development is just a very different thing to everything, it just doesn't compare.
About the closest people come is to compare to a musical composer or someone writing cooking recipes, but that still misses the mark.





Haven't bothered to check that site yet, but it seems to me as if this is an offshoot of those "clean code" folks, for rather selfserving reasons....





... for example: a woman's age, a car mechanic's repair estimate, the president's weight.
(That last example might get me in trouble, but hey, seems I'm already in trouble here).
Thank you and good night.





One of my math professors had said that "all numbers are imaginary". For example, I can show you two oranges, or two cats, but I cannot show just "two". So, all the numbers we deal with, are in our head, mind.
We write it, of course, as 2, but that is just a representation of "two" in my written language. The same 2 is written as ೨ in my language Kannada, and as २ in Devanagari script. But none of them are the concept called "two"; the concept called "two" is imagined in my mind, it is imaginary. This was the logic of my professor.
Stated otherwise, I cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste "two" or "three". None of the numbers is tangible in that sense.
The concept of "imaginary number i" takes that imagination abstraction to the next level.





Your argument is unnecessarily complex.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
 Rigoletto





Mathematicians are special. They cannot calculate sqrt(1) and instead of giving up math, they simply state that we have discovered a new number. I swear, you cannot win against these people...





Physicists do the same all the time.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
 Rigoletto





CPallini wrote: Physicists do the same all the time.
The difference being that they invent a new type of "energy" (potential, gravitational, electric, chemical, heat, ...)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
 6079 Smith W.





Also spin, antimatter and so on.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
 Rigoletto





Dark energy... What a solution
There must be some anti money job I have...





Bit coins, my dear.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
 Rigoletto





CPallini wrote: Physicists do the same all the time. Presuppose they don't
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.





We can thank Kurt Goedel for this. He proved that in any formal logic system there are questions that can be asked but not answered in that system.





Well, you can, but then it has to be inconsistent...





I'm slightly leaning into your statement, but to be fair to mathematicians, they can calculate sqrt(1). It's sqrt(1). It's a misunderstanding of what an imaginary number is to assume that it can be further simplified. sqrt(1) is a 90 degree counterclockwise rotation into the "imaginary" plane from 1 (which is a rotational plane, not a cartesian plane). That's why if you rotate it again (i.e. 1 * i * i) you arrive at 1. And if you rotate twice again you end up back at 1. They can be very useful for doing rotational math in a standard cartesian plane, for example, and avoid doing coordinatesystem translations.
This is a good article [^] I read awhile ago on the topic. I know in school my teachers never really explained them beyond "they just pop up so you need to know the rules", so I never developed any intuition on what they meant.
A quote from the article, attributed to Carl Gauss:
If +1, 1, √1 had not been called a positive, negative, imaginary (or even impossible) unit, but rather a direct, inverse, lateral unit, then there could hardly have been any talk of such obscurity.





Thank you very much for that. Really cool one





I can further the development: see (1)^(1/4)
Imaginary numbers are actually from Italy. Solving the quintic, they came up, and everyone said they weren't real, but Cardano showed that you could actually plug in the answers and get zero out, so... They did give answers, but not a real solution that you could use in this world.





Kenneth Haugland wrote: Imaginary numbers are actually from Italy. Solving the quintic, they came up, and everyone said they weren't real, but Cardano showed that you could actually plug in the answers and get zero out, so... They did give answers, but not a real solution that you could use in this world.
Actually, it was to solve the cubic. The only way to solve a real cubic that has 3 real solutions is to have an intermediate quadratic solution of complex conjugates.
The quintic cannot be solved, and that was proven by Abel, who refined the proof that Ruffini had done (and which was a mess). Later on, Galois used Abel's work to come up with the idea of permutation groups, from which spring the discipline of Group Theory. Arnold came up a with proof that does not rely on Group Theory, but instead relies on the complex plane and functions that wind around the plane.





My comment got autotuned/autocorrected on me, but yes. Between the proofs and the Renaissance Italians, there was also the paper from Lagrange that showed the similarities in how to get the solutions to these two equations, cubic and quartic, which is basically the start of group theory.
I wanted to study complex numbers in detail but never got around to it. I mean, I know the basics, but there are a lot of neat and cool theorems you can use from them to solve realworld problems.




