|
Outrail posted:They could easily have cut down on the number of symbols per letter by using something other than dots and dashes. Even just incorporating a vertical line would half the length of the signals. Morse is a binary alphabet by design because of how it's delivered. How would you differentiate between a horizontal or a vertical dash using a Morse Key? e: fb 
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Also the length of the pattern for a given letter is shorter the more frequently the letter is used, by design. I think that partially explains the randomness. The fact that it's such an old system also probably explains it, since there wasn't much thought given to encoding schemes in the 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:How would a vertical line work in transmitting morse code? CharlieWhiskey posted:Are you talking about morse code? The code transmitted via telegraph? How is a vertical line differentiated from a dot on a telegraph? flosofl posted:Morse is a binary alphabet by design because of how it's delivered.  Keep going, I'm so close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Outrail posted:
Yes. You are quite the Puppet Master.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
When we look to the traditional approach related to the Fibonacci Numbers we see this block diagram on wikipedia: The first One that you see here is however a enigma in mathematics. What is 1^0? There are different opinions between mathematicians. In the Pelastratic approach this enigmatic first One is composed by two zero's (two background membrane peaks), making a new union that has three layers. That gives next picture:  ONE is a topological union of two zero's where one zero is active - the penetrator - and the other one is a passive peak tube. The passive and active peak have each another origin, here represented by an opposite spiral motion. Since the topological penetration (pelastration) creates three membranes in this union a "space" - with three dimensions - - is created. Now the image of two separating curves may remember you to images of particle collisions in particle colliders like at Cern. See next images about the decay of some fundamental particles.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:When we look to the traditional approach related to the Fibonacci Numbers we see this block diagram on wikipedia: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
E4C85D38 posted:The big problem with graph-based methods like that is that even after completely internalizing them, lookup is too slow to copy down code you hear at any appreciable speed. The only way to really get competent at code is to memorize and internalize how each letter 'sounds'. The graph shows how Morse sequences were assigned for maximum efficiency. More common letters require fewer key presses and of those key presses, more are dots. You’re not supposed to use the graph for look‐up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
So from what I get there's top zeros and bottom zeros? Huh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:So from what I get there's top zeros and bottom zeros? Huh. megaman fanfiction has room for all kinds of headcanons
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Also the length of the pattern for a given letter is shorter the more frequently the letter is used, by design. I think that partially explains the randomness. The fact that it's such an old system also probably explains it, since there wasn't much thought given to encoding schemes in the 1800s. It's literally a compression algorithm! The only difference between Morse and modern compression algorithms is that the conversion tables ("compression dictionary") are now recreated ad hoc every time, to reflect the effective symbol frequencies of each message (the most common letter may not be E for example), and that symbols can now be longer than a letter (if a message's most common word is "fart", it's "fart" that will have the shortest encoding, not the letter E). Guy named Huffman came up with it in the 50s and virtually all data compression is still in part based on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:When we look to the traditional approach related to the Fibonacci Numbers we see this block diagram on wikipedia: I can't look at those without seeing Koru
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
The only Morse code I know off-hand is SOS and that's probably the only real use most people would need it for. gently caress, you can send SOS as a smoke signal if you had to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
If you have any interest in learning Morse code, there are worse options than this website.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
Any signal in groups of three should be recognized by rescuers, from what I've heard. Even like three piles of stones could be enough as a distress signal, as long as it's visible
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:When we look to the traditional approach related to the Fibonacci Numbers we see this block diagram on wikipedia: Anything to the power of zero is 1, though 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Hyperlynx posted:Anything to the power of zero is 1, though So what is 00?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:So what is 00? Still 1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Outrail posted:
Guys he was just pretending to be that stupid
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
We've been bamboozled! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:So what is 00? An indeterminate form. 0x = 0 and x0 = 1, so 00 could be either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Maybe that too depends on whether it's a penetrator 0 or a penetrated 0! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:An indeterminate form. 0x = 0 and x0 = 1, so 00 could be either. 00 itself is just plain undefined. If you're getting "00" as a limit, then since it's an indeterminate form the actual limit could be anything at all (not just 0 or 1) and you need to look more closely at how the function approaches the limit to see what the actual limit is. (My first instinct is to take the log, rewrite as a fraction, and apply L'Hopital, but it depends on how nice the function in question is.)     
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
hell yea state machines where does it start tho?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:hell yea state machines Hold onto your balls. Hermsgervørden has a new favorite as of 05:19 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Operations 0 and 1 are consistent enough, but then 2 doesn't fit the pattern they establish. I might have latched onto a spurious correlation which isn't the actual aaaaaagh I've been nerd sniped haven't I
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
i just wanna A->B->C with some detours maybe this is too much! gently caress dig og din tilstandsmaskine  (((
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
From Matt Taibbi's recent article on Thomas Friedman's new book: And Friedman's proposed solution: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
A time machine would be a pretty good solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:From Matt Taibbi's recent article on Thomas Friedman's new book: Let me guess, "governing smarter" is "scrap all regulations" and "learning faster" is "all public schools should become charter schools".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:An indeterminate form. 0x = 0 and x0 = 1, so 00 could be either. fake edit: looks like it's 1. 
Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 22:09 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Laserjet 4P posted:Let me guess, "governing smarter" is "scrap all regulations" and "learning faster" is "all public schools should become charter schools". I don't think you're all that familiar with Thomas Friedman. He's the dumbest columnist in the NYT. Except for Frank Rich, who is amazing in that every single sentence he writes is dumber than the previous one, on an asymptotic trend towards zero intelligence. My favorite thing about that graph is fixing things the way Friedman wants to requires *literally traveling back in time*. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:From Matt Taibbi's recent article on Thomas Friedman's new book: Oh poo poo, so all this time the solution has been "do things better"? This man is a genius!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:From Matt Taibbi's recent article on Thomas Friedman's new book: These are wonderful. I mean even at a quick glance they make no sense, but then you add the Laffer style lack of quantification, and then the fact that the Y axis is actually rate of change. Given that we don't know the initial values of Human Adaptability and Technology, whatever the gently caress those would be, there could easily be no problem whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Phanatic posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Oh poo poo, so all this time the solution has been "do things better"? This man is a genius! "Already have been doing things better for several centuries so as to catch up with ourselves now." It's pretty plausible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:What's the limit of x^x as x approaches 0? Right, limx->0(xx) is 1. That's not the only way to have 00 show up in an equation though, and in other contexts you get other answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:From Matt Taibbi's recent article on Thomas Friedman's new book: The previous six months are crucial here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I don't think you're all that familiar with Thomas Friedman. He's the dumbest columnist in the NYT. Except for Frank Rich, who is amazing in that every single sentence he writes is dumber than the previous one, on an asymptotic trend towards zero intelligence. This is massively disrespectful to David Brooks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:This is massively disrespectful to David Brooks. Don't count out Maureen Dowd!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:10
|
|
