Philosophy Now Forum

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:00 am They are too liberal to want to have any rules in place let alone know what rules should be put in place.

Sort of like you.

I just hope they aren't as fucked up as you are.

One thing's certain.

We are very lucky you don't get to decide on any rules.

Seeming as you keep choosing the wrong division.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:02 am One thing's certain.

We are very lucky you don't get to decide on any rules.

Not "we" but "Skepdick and the like". There are people who are pro-rules, you know, not everyone is a spoiled degenerate child.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:04 am Not "we" but "Skepdick and the like". There are people who are pro-rules, you know, not everyone is a spoiled degenerate child.

The irony should hit you in the nether regions once more.

I am not against rules. I am against bad rules.

My rules are better than yours.

N / N -> N x N is a different Mathematical function to N / N -> N

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:12 am I am not against rules.

You very much are. Stop lying.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:13 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:12 am I am not against rules.

You very much are. Stop lying.

I am against YOUR rules yes.

I am definitely not against MY rules.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:12 am N / N -> N x N is a different Mathematical function to N / N -> N

It's irrelevant, dummy. In both cases, the remainder is present and it's the same provided that the inputs are the same. Whether or not the remainder is included in the result changes nothing with regards to what wtf has said in his post.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:14 am I am against YOUR rules yes.

I am definitely not against MY rules.

Blah blah blah.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:19 am It's irrelevant, dummy. In both cases, the remainder is present and it's the same provided that the inputs are the same. Whether or not the remainder is included in the result changes nothing with regards to what wtf has said in his post.

It's directly relevant to identification of even numbers, dummy.

wtf defined even numbers as those which divide by 2 without remainder.

They all divide by 2 without remainder when you use division without remainder.

3/2 = 1 WITHOUT REMAINDER. Therefore 3 is even.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:25 am

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:19 am It's irrelevant, dummy. In both cases, the remainder is present and it's the same provided that the inputs are the same. Whether or not the remainder is included in the result changes nothing with regards to what wtf has said in his post.

It's directly relevant to identification of odd and even numbers, dummy.

wtf defined even numbers as those which divide by 2 without reminder.

3/2 = 1 WITHOUT REMINDER. Therefore 3 is even.

We go back to what I said earlier. Your entire tactic consists in MISINTERPRETING what other people saying while trying to make it look like you aren't committing that mistake. It's pure sophistry relying on equivocation.

Dummy, the remainder of the integer division of 3 by 2 is 1. Thus, 3 is an odd number.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:30 am Dummy, the remainder of the integer division of 3 by 2 is 1.

Contradiction. Integer division has no remainder.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:31 am

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:30 am Dummy, the remainder of the integer division of 3 by 2 is 1.

Contradiction. Integer division has no remainder.

Contradiction. Every division has a remainder ( even fi that remainder is zero. )

The term "remainder" refers to the difference between the dividend and the divisor multiplied by the quotient.

It has nothing to do with what's in the output of the function.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:34 am Contradiction. Every division has a remainder.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 10:43 pm Integer division "refers to the process of dividing two integers and obtaining the quotient without any fractional part

Contradiction.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:35 am

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:34 am Contradiction. Every division has a remainder.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 10:43 pm Integer division "refers to the process of dividing two integers and obtaining the quotient without any fractional part

Contradiction.

It means that the quotient has no fractional part, dummy, not that there is no remainder.

You have a really hard time listening and understanding what other people are saying.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:38 am It means that the quotient has no fractional part, dummy, not that there is no remainder.

It doesn't mean that.

"fractional part" is synonymous with "remainder".

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntegerDivision.html

Integer division is division in which the fractional part (remainder) is discarded

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/co ... r-division

Integer division refers to the process of dividing two integers and obtaining the quotient without any fractional part.

ChatGPT

Integer division is a mathematical operation where one integer is divided by another, and the result is the quotient without the remainder. In this operation, the result is always an integer, with any fractional part discarded

While you were copy-pasting blindly you didn't even understand what any of the text means.