I am doing something wrong on a style sheet. I want some space before
the text in the cells of a table, so I used this:
td {
height:19px;
background-color: rgb(248,239,182);
margin-left: 3;
}
When viewed in my editor the spaces are there as desired, but once
viewed with a browser they are gone.
Help!
Brian.
Brian Robertson wrote:
> I am doing something wrong on a style sheet. I want some space before
> the text in the cells of a table, so I used this:
>
> td {
> height:19px;
> background-color: rgb(248,239,182);
> margin-left: 3;
> }
>
> When viewed in my editor the spaces are there as desired, but once
> viewed with a browser they are gone.
>
Margin is outside the element padding is inside the element, therefore
if your want to add space to the text *inside* the TD then the property
for the TD should be padding. Also your must use *units* for almost all
length properties "margin-left: 3;" is invalid, best to use units
proportional with respect to the font
td { height: 1.5em; padding-left: .25em; }
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Brian Robertson wrote:
>
> td {
> margin-left: 3;
> }
3 what? Hobnobs? Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
BTW, margins on a table cell may give odd results in some browsers. Use
padding instead.
--
Berg
Bergamot wrote:
> Brian Robertson wrote:
>> td {
>> margin-left: 3;
>> }
>
> 3 what? Hobnobs? Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
>
> BTW, margins on a table cell may give odd results in some browsers. Use
> padding instead.
>
Comes from using Frontpage!
Brian.
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Brian Robertson wrote:
>> I am doing something wrong on a style sheet. I want some space before
>> the text in the cells of a table, so I used this:
>>
>> td {
>> height:19px;
>> background-color: rgb(248,239,182);
>> margin-left: 3;
>> }
>>
>> When viewed in my editor the spaces are there as desired, but once
>> viewed with a browser they are gone.
>>
>
> Margin is outside the element padding is inside the element, therefore
> if your want to add space to the text *inside* the TD then the property
> for the TD should be padding. Also your must use *units* for almost all
> length properties "margin-left: 3;" is invalid, best to use units
> proportional with respect to the font
>
> td { height: 1.5em; padding-left: .25em; }
>
Thanks!
In article <5ed3i4F3898moU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot
> Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
This is right.
However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
However, there is an issue of some gravity here.
Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft
of Being and Nothingness. He said to the waitress, "I'd like a
cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replied, "I'm
sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"
Now surely, if a cup of coffee without milk is different to a cup
of coffee without cream, then a length without any pixels is
different to a length without any em width. So those with a
particular interest in great clarity in their css might be wise
to use units for zero lengths too. It will do no harm and it will
communicate more precisely with those who read css sheets.
--
dorayme
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:01:16 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article <5ed3i4F3898moU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Bergamot
>
>> Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
>
> This is right.
>
> However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
> not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
> However, there is an issue of some gravity here.
>
> Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft
> of Being and Nothingness. He said to the waitress, "I'd like a
> cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replied, "I'm
> sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"
>
> Now surely, if a cup of coffee without milk is different to a cup
> of coffee without cream, then a length without any pixels is
> different to a length without any em width. So those with a
> particular interest in great clarity in their css might be wise
> to use units for zero lengths too. It will do no harm and it will
> communicate more precisely with those who read css sheets.
Actually, the question should be "Is nothing equal to 0?" and the answer
is "No."
Example:
Cookies left in the jar=0
Cookies left in the jar=
Are the above two lines meaningfully the same?
According to (most) scientists, the universe started from a singularity.
Hypothetically, this singularity was nothing (or 0 if your prefer) but
had the theoretical *potential* to be something. Furthermore, the name
"singularity" in this context definitely does not relate to "1" because,
as I have proven elsewhere, you cannot have just 1 exclusively in a
totality unless you consider a possible all-encompassing totality as "The
Totality", i.e. 1, and the only thing in existence forevermore.
Now the next question is "How can you have 'nothing with potential?'"
Isn't that very potential something in its own right? The answer is that
you cannot have "nothing with potential" because potential implies the
existence of time, which, of course, would be not nothing. Ergo, the
"potential theory" is nothing.
Unfortunately, this brings us back to the nothing vs. zero problem. If
zero has no potential, does it not equate to nothing? The only logical
solution is that 0 does, indeed, imply something in addition to itself
(as opposed to "nothing") but which can be defined exclusively by numbers
or other tangible contrivances irrational in scope.
In conclusion, all this goes to prove that religion is inconsummate,
God's existence is inconceivable, and putting units after 0 quantities in
css is an exercise in futility. However, dues to flaws beyond the
markupists' control, it realistically is sometimes not.
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little bird
That made me rather hasty.
So now I have no little bird,
But it was very tasty.
dorayme wrote:
> Bergamot
>
>> Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
>
> This is right.
>
> However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
> not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
> However, there is an issue of some gravity here.
Also "line-height" doesn't require a length. When the length is missed
out, it behaves a bit like "em", but not quite.
For what it's worth, when I'm in early stages of CSS layout, I often set a
bunch of borders on elements to:
border: 0px solid magenta;
(and dotted/dashed lime/cyan/yellow/red/etc).
Then, with a single search-and-replace I can change 0px to 1.0px to see
borders around everything. Then search-and-replace back.
By leaving on the "px" my search-and-replace is able to differentiate
between these debugging borders, and other, more normal, occurrences of 0
in my style sheet.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 6 days, 15:46.]
The End of an Era
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/06/26/end-of-an-era/
Toby A Inkster wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>> Bergamot
>>
>>> Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
>> This is right.
>>
>> However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
>> not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
>> However, there is an issue of some gravity here.
>
>
>
> Also "line-height" doesn't require a length. When the length is missed
> out, it behaves a bit like "em", but not quite.
>
> For what it's worth, when I'm in early stages of CSS layout, I often set a
> bunch of borders on elements to:
>
> border: 0px solid magenta;
>
> (and dotted/dashed lime/cyan/yellow/red/etc).
>
> Then, with a single search-and-replace I can change 0px to 1.0px to see
> borders around everything. Then search-and-replace back.
>
> By leaving on the "px" my search-and-replace is able to differentiate
> between these debugging borders, and other, more normal, occurrences of 0
> in my style sheet.
>
Let me explain where my mistake came from. I am reading a book about CSS
and slowly learning new things, but these things take time. Meanwhile, I
wanted to sort the padding problem out. Previously I had highlighted the
text and put the padding in through Frontpage settings. The code was an
inline style and it said margin-left: 3. There was no unit shown. From
this I simply tried to guess the proper rule and then turned to you lot
for help. It worked but was clumsy, which is why I wanted it out.
Brian.
In article
Toby A Inkster
> For what it's worth, when I'm in early stages of CSS layout, I often set a
> bunch of borders on elements to:
>
> border: 0px solid magenta;
Me too, one's own private "FF developer type outline elements"
facility...
--
dorayme
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
writing in news:Xns995BC2E7B66C5nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161:
> Actually, the question should be "Is nothing equal to 0?" and the answer
> is "No."
>
>
Were you watching Sesame Street this morning? The number of the day was
Zero (ha ha ha ha) --- Sorry, as a single Mom with a three and a half year
old ....
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:42:05 GMT Adrienne Boswell scribed:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
>
> news:Xns995BC2E7B66C5nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161:
>
>> Actually, the question should be "Is nothing equal to 0?" and the
>> answer is "No."
>>
>>
>
> Were you watching Sesame Street this morning? The number of the day
> was Zero (ha ha ha ha) --- Sorry, as a single Mom with a three and a
> half year old ....
Truthfully, the question of the universal singularity has haunted me for
years. The notion, simply put, is that it is/was both something and
nothing outside of time. Now how can anyone in their right mind accept
that? Ergo, I thought referring to it in the shade of dorayme's sentient
penumbra might just shed some light on the reality or lack thereof imbued
within the scope of my nightmare. Juvenile, I admit, but since my second
childhood has expired, I've entertained nostalgic longings for convoluted
neuroses.
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
In article
Neredbojias
> singularity has haunted me for
> years. The notion, simply put, is that it is/was both something and
> nothing outside of time. Now how can anyone in their right mind accept
> that? Ergo, I thought referring to it in the shade of dorayme's sentient
> penumbra might just shed some light on the reality or lack thereof imbued
> within the scope of my nightmare.
I take this as license to speak. Perhaps you are having
difficulty with the idea of anything being outside of time? With
some things, it makes no sense for them to be time stamped; for
example, there is a prime number between 5 and 8 but it can
hardly have any kind of lifespan. Now, if something has no
lifespan, it cannot be in time.
The other difficulty you are having perhaps is the idea of being
on the edge of something. What really is an edge? I have a Theory
of Edges but I get this funny feeling that it might be a bit OT
to expound it here.
--
dorayme
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:18:35 GMT dorayme scribed:
>> singularity has haunted me for
>> years. The notion, simply put, is that it is/was both something and
>> nothing outside of time. Now how can anyone in their right mind
>> accept that? Ergo, I thought referring to it in the shade of
>> dorayme's sentient penumbra might just shed some light on the reality
>> or lack thereof imbued within the scope of my nightmare.
>
>
> I take this as license to speak. Perhaps you are having
> difficulty with the idea of anything being outside of time?
Yes, that is true. How can existence itself *be* with no time? I can
possibly accept timelessness in conjunction with a test-acceptance of The
Singularity or absolutely nothing at all, but otherwise I see it as
impossible.
> With
> some things, it makes no sense for them to be time stamped; for
> example, there is a prime number between 5 and 8 but it can
> hardly have any kind of lifespan.
Ironically, it is true for all time. It becomes non-true with no time.
> Now, if something has no
> lifespan, it cannot be in time.
I think semantics are getting in the way here. Everything you know,
imagine, or feel exists within time. Even 2 + 2 = 4 needs "time" to have
any meaning. Physical laws do not exist outside of time so neither do
their formulae.
> The other difficulty you are having perhaps is the idea of being
> on the edge of something. What really is an edge? I have a Theory
> of Edges but I get this funny feeling that it might be a bit OT
> to expound it here.
Well, an edge can be part of something, as the edge of a precipice. It can
be a limit in other ways, -the limit of my patience. I suppose it can be
external to something as well, but what are your thoughts? Don't keep me
on edge...
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
In article
Neredbojias
> > Now, if something has no lifespan, it cannot be in time.
>
> Everything you know, imagine, or feel exists within time.
I was not talking about what you or anyone knows or imagines or
feels. There are plenty of things that are true that no one
knows. It just does not make any obvious sense to say about some
things (I gave an example) that they exist in time.
Anyway, you know what about time? So why would you be insisting
that everything exists in it. (Is someone paying you Boji to say
this?). You might as well say everything exists in bright
daylight but not otherwise.
--
dorayme
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:09:06 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> > Now, if something has no lifespan, it cannot be in time.
>>
>> Everything you know, imagine, or feel exists within time.
>
> I was not talking about what you or anyone knows or imagines or
> feels. There are plenty of things that are true that no one
> knows. It just does not make any obvious sense to say about some
> things (I gave an example) that they exist in time.
>
> Anyway, you know what about time? So why would you be insisting
> that everything exists in it. (Is someone paying you Boji to say
> this?). You might as well say everything exists in bright
> daylight but not otherwise.
According to (most) scientists, time did not exist until after the start
of the Big Bang. Ergo, the Banger itself had to exist outside of time
prior to that. This prodigious Banger has been proposed to be a
singularity, but what is the grist of that? Anyway, it would seem the
brainiacs agree with you, although whether you can actually have
something prior to the start of time is an interesting dilemma.
I believe that time is just a euphemism for motion and "prior to" the Big
Bang there was no motion. Now physical reality requires motion; atoms
pulse with "life" and could not exist completely static. Neither could
their constituents in all probability. Therefore, there would *be* no
reality prior to the BB, and this is something almost everyone agrees
with. Of course, I'm speaking of reality as we know it; perhaps there
was God at first after all. A simple musing of faith doesn't solve the
problem rationally, however, because nothing tangible (-including prime
numbers) would exist in a homogeneous, non-cognible environment.
Basically what we have is something springing from nothing. In other
words, before there was something, there was nothing. But it couldn't
have been quite nothing because something somehow, somewhen came from it.
Even an empty container is something. So your insistence that some thing
(s) exist(s) outside of time may very well be true, but whatever it
is/was is (so far, at least) unfathomable from a deductive point of view.
Based on this knowledge, my belief is that if you have just 1 of
something in the absolute (-meaning in a universe with nothing else,) you
may as well have nothing because, based on what we know, there is no
difference. To put it another way, 1 = 0.
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
In article
Neredbojias
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:09:06 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article
> >
> > Neredbojias
> >
> >> > Now, if something has no lifespan, it cannot be in time.
> >>
> >> Everything you know, imagine, or feel exists within time.
> >
> > I was not talking about what you or anyone knows or imagines or
> > feels. There are plenty of things that are true that no one
> > knows. It just does not make any obvious sense to say about some
> > things (I gave an example) that they exist in time.
> >
> > Anyway, you know what about time? So why would you be insisting
> > that everything exists in it. (Is someone paying you Boji to say
> > this?). You might as well say everything exists in bright
> > daylight but not otherwise.
>
> According to (most) scientists, time did not exist until after the start
> of the Big Bang. Ergo, the Banger itself had to exist outside of time
> prior to that.
This is mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
waters.
If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
damage in the wrong heads.
--
dorayme
In article
dorayme
> This is mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
> have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
> waters.
>
> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
> Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
> damage in the wrong heads.
My God, I only had one glass of wine with dinner tonight!
This mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
waters.
If time begins at the start of the BB, there is no prior about
it. Please stop thinking about these things, it can cause brain
damage in the wrong head.
--
dorayme
"dorayme"
news:doraymeRidThis-08EFDF.21101430062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
You miss the point. Both of you. Time did not "begin" at the big bang. It
started to exist, from our point of view. Loose and sloopy I know but, lets
proceed and hopefully clarify a bit...
The big bang did not "start", so to say that time did not exist until after
"the start of the big bang" is erroneous. The big bang simply is. It is a
boundary condition, from our point of view. On our side of that boundary
time exists. On the other side, well, ?
Mr Hawking opines that the big bang is, indeed, a singularity in our concept
of space/time. As such one can not state anything at all about conditions
"on the other side" of that singularity. On this side we have time and space
as we think we know it. On the other side we cannot even conjecture but
there is/was/will be probably no such thing as time and/or space. For us
"the other side" does not exist (from our point of view) as it is not
accessable to us, but we can be sure that different rules apply. There is
probably no HTML.
The jury is still out on the "big crunch" at the other end of our concept of
time. Depends on how much dark matter there is laying about, which is still
under dispute AFAIK.
> Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
> damage in the wrong heads.
Not really. A knowledge of higher mathematics makes it quite easy to
understand. One cannot poke a stick at it, nor explain it clearly to the
layman, but one can debate it ad nauseum, in the arena of the mathematics.
--
Richard.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:56:06 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> dorayme
>
>> This is mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
>> have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
>> waters.
>>
>> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
>> Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
>> damage in the wrong heads.
>
> My God, I only had one glass of wine with dinner tonight!
How big was the glass?
> This mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
> have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
> waters.
>
> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is no prior about
> it. Please stop thinking about these things, it can cause brain
> damage in the wrong head.
He he he, I'm beginning to think you are correct. Fortunately, I only
suffer these maladies at fairly infrequent cycles, but the toll can be
significant. I s'pose I'll hop "on the wagon" for a while now and dally
with the simplicities of htmlish stuff and the family of ie deviants.
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:20:12 GMT rf scribed:
>> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
>
> You miss the point. Both of you. Time did not "begin" at the big bang.
> It started to exist, from our point of view. Loose and sloopy I know
> but, lets proceed and hopefully clarify a bit...
>
> The big bang did not "start", so to say that time did not exist until
> after "the start of the big bang" is erroneous. The big bang simply
> is. It is a boundary condition, from our point of view. On our side of
> that boundary time exists. On the other side, well, ?
>
> Mr Hawking opines that the big bang is, indeed, a singularity in our
> concept of space/time. As such one can not state anything at all about
> conditions "on the other side" of that singularity. On this side we
> have time and space as we think we know it. On the other side we
> cannot even conjecture but there is/was/will be probably no such thing
> as time and/or space. For us "the other side" does not exist (from our
> point of view) as it is not accessable to us, but we can be sure that
> different rules apply. There is probably no HTML.
>
> The jury is still out on the "big crunch" at the other end of our
> concept of time. Depends on how much dark matter there is laying
> about, which is still under dispute AFAIK.
You are right, but therein lies my dilemma. I find it unsettling to have
something about which I cannot even conjecture. So, the "other side of
the boundary" is nothing yet it is not nothing. 1 = 0 again, hah! Er, I
thought science was supposed to be precise?
The Church was right: science is heresy.
>> Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
>> damage in the wrong heads.
>
> Not really. A knowledge of higher mathematics makes it quite easy to
> understand. One cannot poke a stick at it, nor explain it clearly to
> the layman, but one can debate it ad nauseum, in the arena of the
> mathematics.
The fact that many people find mathmatics nauseating is hardly debatable
at all.
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
"Neredbojias"
news:Xns995F4D1D5AF6Dnanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:20:12 GMT rf scribed:
> You are right, but therein lies my dilemma. I find it unsettling to have
> something about which I cannot even conjecture. So, the "other side of
> the boundary" is nothing yet it is not nothing. 1 = 0 again, hah! Er, I
> thought science was supposed to be precise?
Obviously not concept of science.
> The Church was right: science is heresy.
Bloody obviously.
In article
Neredbojias
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:20:12 GMT rf scribed:
>
> >> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
> >
> > You miss the point. Both of you. Time did not "begin" at the big bang.
> > It started to exist, from our point of view. Loose and sloopy I know
> > but, lets proceed and hopefully clarify a bit...
I see rf, you can be loose and sloppy but I can't be eh! You
replied to my typo (which I corrected a few minutes later). What
is "the" point that I miss? Here is a feller (called Boji)
telling me about before the BB by talking about "prior" and
saying stuff. I am telling him there is no prior about it and you
come in and tell me I am missing some point? What is it that you
object to? That I said time "began" with the BB? It is not okay
for me to say this but it okay for you to say it "started to
exist, from our point of view"? (Even though we were nowhere near
around then? Perhaps you owe me the courtesy of exactness if you
are going to sort me out.)
>
> >> Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
> >> damage in the wrong heads.
> >
> > Not really. A knowledge of higher mathematics makes it quite easy to
> > understand.
Did you see the word "wrong" in my sentence? If the head is full
of mathematics and physics, it would not be the _wrong_ head. Is
that not right, young man? I am pleased to see the respect you
have for maths as a window on the world. However, I hope you do
not overestimate it as a tool and underestimate logic and
language? [1]
You are mistaken to think I am addressing the science community
at large. I was saying it to Boji. What do you think this forum
is, some sort of free for all discussion about html/css where
anyone can come in and interfere in my 19th Century style
education of this irreverent foreigner by the name of Boji?
[1] Here is something that can be solved using either mathematics
or just logic really.
http://tinyurl.com/2qzgqz
--
dorayme
On 2007-06-30, dorayme
> In article
>
> dorayme
>
>> This is mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
>> have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
>> waters.
>>
>> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
>> Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
>> damage in the wrong heads.
>
> My God, I only had one glass of wine with dinner tonight!
>
> This mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
> have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
> waters.
>
> If time begins at the start of the BB, there is no prior about
> it. Please stop thinking about these things, it can cause brain
> damage in the wrong head.
I know this thread has been marked "Do Not Resuscitate", but I just came
across this:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/6/20/1
I don't know which makes my head hurt more: loop quantum gravity or that
9pt font size.
In article
Ben C
> On 2007-06-30, dorayme
> > In article
> >
> > dorayme
> >
> > If time begins at the start of the BB, there is no prior about
> > it. Please stop thinking about these things, it can cause brain
> > damage in the wrong head.
>
> I know this thread has been marked "Do Not Resuscitate", but I just came
> across this:
>
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/6/20/1
>
> I don't know which makes my head hurt more: loop quantum gravity or that
> 9pt font size.
I hope it was the point size. One must take a calm attitude
towards the "partially baked cake[s]" (quote from your url) of
science reporting.
Time is a very tricky customer. These days, it should be clear
enough that it is not what it seems (a flowing river of something
very thin and important). In this shaky state of affairs,
headaches are easily to be had.
--
dorayme
In article
dorayme
> [1] Here is something that can be solved using either mathematics
> or just logic really.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2qzgqz
I became nervous when I looked at my solution last night (there
is a url to it). I stand by it, but wish to forewarn whoever
eventually holds me to account on this one that my reasoning is
not a strict proof. But it is not all that flakey or incorrect as
far as it goes. It also provides me with a reductio ad absurdum
of many other attempts. Simply because it certainly succeeds in
concluding with a provably sensible figure (if not an optimum
one?) and if any other attempt produces a larger figure, the
smaller one that results from my reasoning can clearly prove that
the argument to the larger figure must be faulty (without saying
what is wrong).
--
dorayme
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:04:10 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> dorayme
>
>> [1] Here is something that can be solved using either mathematics
>> or just logic really.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2qzgqz
>
> I became nervous when I looked at my solution last night (there
> is a url to it). I stand by it, but wish to forewarn whoever
> eventually holds me to account on this one that my reasoning is
> not a strict proof. But it is not all that flakey or incorrect as
> far as it goes. It also provides me with a reductio ad absurdum
> of many other attempts. Simply because it certainly succeeds in
> concluding with a provably sensible figure (if not an optimum
> one?) and if any other attempt produces a larger figure, the
> smaller one that results from my reasoning can clearly prove that
> the argument to the larger figure must be faulty (without saying
> what is wrong).
So what is the number in your solution?
--
Neredbojias
Q: Do you speak Turkish?
A: Gobble gobble, dude.
In article
Neredbojias
> So what is the number in your solution?
You have to be kidding! Do you really suppose I would simply
blurt out what it took me ages to work out. I sweated on this one
You need to show some effort and some sort of non-hand-waving
figure before I would provide a url to my effort, and you would
need to email me with your thoughts (Why spoil things here.
Remember, this is an html/css group. Please realise this.)
--
dorayme
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:49:32 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> So what is the number in your solution?
>
> You have to be kidding! Do you really suppose I would simply
> blurt out what it took me ages to work out. I sweated on this one
> You need to show some effort and some sort of non-hand-waving
> figure before I would provide a url to my effort, and you would
> need to email me with your thoughts (Why spoil things here.
> Remember, this is an html/css group. Please realise this.)
This is like one of them "How can I stop people from stealing my code?"
posts. How about a hint?
--
Neredbojias
Q: Do you speak Turkish?
A: Gobble gobble, dude.
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:11:08 +0000, Neredbojias wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:49:32 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
>> In article
>>
>> Neredbojias
>>
>>> So what is the number in your solution?
>>
>> You have to be kidding! Do you really suppose I would simply
>> blurt out what it took me ages to work out. I sweated on this one
>> You need to show some effort and some sort of non-hand-waving
>> figure before I would provide a url to my effort, and you would
>> need to email me with your thoughts (Why spoil things here.
>> Remember, this is an html/css group. Please realise this.)
>
> This is like one of them "How can I stop people from stealing my code?"
> posts. How about a hint?
v : value to the world of some site's code
d : amount of desire to keep that code secret
Generally in this forum:
1
v = ------
d
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:31:36 GMT mbstevens scribed:
>> This is like one of them "How can I stop people from stealing my code?"
>> posts. How about a hint?
>
> v : value to the world of some site's code
> d : amount of desire to keep that code secret
>
> Generally in this forum:
>
> 1
> v = ------
> d
Yes. The detriment of the ol' vd algorithm is familiar to many.
--
Neredbojias
Q: Do you speak Turkish?
A: Gobble gobble, dude.
In article
Neredbojias
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:49:32 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article
> >
> > Neredbojias
> >
> >> So what is the number in your solution?
> >
> > You have to be kidding! Do you really suppose I would simply
> > blurt out what it took me ages to work out. I sweated on this one
> > You need to show some effort and some sort of non-hand-waving
> > figure before I would provide a url to my effort, and you would
> > need to email me with your thoughts (Why spoil things here.
> > Remember, this is an html/css group. Please realise this.)
>
> This is like one of them "How can I stop people from stealing my code?"
> posts. How about a hint?
It is nothing like that at all. You have shown not the slightest
hint of effort.
By the way, last night, I thought of a good way of plugging one
gap that was worrying me recently in my own "proof" of an optimal
solution.
--
dorayme
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:22:11 GMT dorayme scribed:
>> This is like one of them "How can I stop people from stealing my code?"
>> posts. How about a hint?
>
> It is nothing like that at all. You have shown not the slightest
> hint of effort.
>
> By the way, last night, I thought of a good way of plugging one
> gap that was worrying me recently in my own "proof" of an optimal
> solution.
I have a number, but if I don't know your number, how do I know mine's any
good?
--
Neredbojias
Scratched on wall of Tuscaloosa lockup #3:
The woman was
A real looker.
Too bad she war'nt
A real hooker.
In article
Neredbojias
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:22:11 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> This is like one of them "How can I stop people from stealing my code?"
> >> posts. How about a hint?
> >
> > It is nothing like that at all. You have shown not the slightest
> > hint of effort.
> >
> > By the way, last night, I thought of a good way of plugging one
> > gap that was worrying me recently in my own "proof" of an optimal
> > solution.
>
> I have a number, but if I don't know your number, how do I know mine's any
> good?
Oh, I see, you just have a whole lot of numbers on a shelf at
your place and you thought you would bring one of them down and
put it on the desk next to the url of the problem on the screen.
On this bare number sitting on your desk is no label that says
"Good one" or "Not a bad one" or anything at all to guide you?
And then suddenly a wondering kind of thought popped into your
head and you thought you would share this with me?
--
dorayme
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:45:03 GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > By the way, last night, I thought of a good way of plugging one
>> > gap that was worrying me recently in my own "proof" of an optimal
>> > solution.
>>
>> I have a number, but if I don't know your number, how do I know
>> mine's any good?
>
> Oh, I see, you just have a whole lot of numbers on a shelf at
> your place and you thought you would bring one of them down and
> put it on the desk next to the url of the problem on the screen.
> On this bare number sitting on your desk is no label that says
> "Good one" or "Not a bad one" or anything at all to guide you?
> And then suddenly a wondering kind of thought popped into your
> head and you thought you would share this with me?
Oh, jeez...
I worked on the problem. My solution probably isn't optimal because I was
just trying to create an initial solution to begin with. However, it
doesn't look bad, at least to me, but I have no references to know if it is
any good or not.
Tell you what - never mind. I don't care anymore.
--
Neredbojias
Scratched on wall of Tuscaloosa lockup #3:
The woman was
A real looker.
Too bad she war'nt
A real hooker.
In article
Neredbojias
> Tell you what - never mind. I don't care anymore.
You mean, you lose interest because you are not given the
solution to the problem before you offer anything? Don't you have
that thing in you to search for alternative solutions and compare
them and to get a sense of the heart of the issue(s)? Having a
figure that you are confident about is an important part of the
solution.
--
dorayme