Just a heads up, I have decided to take Friday off from comic updating, due to the holiday.
Whichever one of you is NOT the killer robot, say "Zero Equals One"
Just a heads up, I have decided to take Friday off from comic updating, due to the holiday.
The position of Sandy’s shoe made it look like she has a tail . Since I also read Carry On – a comic about anthropomorphic hyenas who wear pants and have a little hole in the back for their tail – I thought we had a little crossover going there for a minute.
I have a lot in common with Arfur. He’s a complex character hiding inside a grrrruf! Exeterior.
The dork is strong in this one.
“This… sentence… is… FALSE! don’t think about it don’t think about it don’t think about it don’t think about it don’t think about it“
Umm true… I’ll go true. Yeah that was easy. I’ll be Honest I might have heard that one before, sort of cheating.
How about . . . .
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?
I find I can’t say zero = one outloud either. It just strikes me as so utterly incorrect a concept… am I a killer robot somehow? If I am, that’s kinda cool and all. I wish I would have known sooner, though, I might have taken a very different career path.
You know, mathematically, there’s no proof that zero does not equal one.
That’s… an interesting claim. My college math is too rusty to write up something watertight, but I think if you did a set-based construction of the nonnegative integers, you’d be able to prove that 0 ≠ 1. In ring theory, it is possible that 0 = 1, but if so, 0 is the only number that exists (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)#Basic_properties).
But since we’re talking robots and computer science, it’s a lot clearer that 0 ≠ 1. Either the bit is on or it’s off–or it could be indeterminate depending on the physical representation, but in any case On and Off are distinct states.
not if you’re using a Quantum Computer… then it can be EITHER, or NEITHER… or BOTH… at the same time even… yeah, quantum physics gets real weird, weird enough you have to pass a pretty high SAN Check to fully understand it. (within reason, of course) 😀
Um…
…never mind.
It’s clear that you’re a robot, but you don’t have to be a killer robot.
This whole situation is so awkward, I love how it this is playing out. I’m hoping for growth.
A better robot test would be, “whichever of you is NOT the evil robot, give the answer to 10 divided by 0”.
Any nerd knows that programming languages faceplant on divide-by-zero errors. Meanwhile, the human, even if they don’t know it’s not impossible to divide by zero, will just be like “um, what”.
try {
say “10 divided by 0 = ” + 10/0
} catch (err) {
say “um, what?”
}
But they can’t be evil twins, otherwise they’d have mustaches and goatees!
I knew I forgot something