Recent content by Elendur

Have anyone ever been convinced by your method?

Unless you have confirmed any of the information, you're in the clear. It's an old trick to fish for information by baiting with close info, whether it's intentional or not. (As for the screenshots, I'll post as soon as I have a working version again)

Not really, not that I can identify at least. I'm quite (read entirely) new to actually producing on my own so I don't have any expectations of the work required other than the rough outlining. Very impressive! Feels a bit chapel-like.

Still working on it, I've improved the structure which holds the information about the branch, but I haven't repaired the collision detection yet, it's proving much harder than I had anticipated. Aside from that, I've actually applied this to an invention contest :P (by advice of my...

Um ... no.

To summarize: AV is not literal in his interpretation of KJB. [/thread]

If you're not being literal, perhaps. Again, if you're not being literal, perhaps.

I wouldn't know. Not my fault that you're not literal.

I see no mention of sin. (Also, I noticed that you didn't necro a very old thread this time, I hope you'll keep that standard)

I don't want you to believe anything (not to be confused with "I want you to not believe in anything"). I was merely explaining how that answer was a proper way to answer that question. Binary questions are very easy like that. If you wanted him to expand upon his answer, why not ask for...

It's a valid answer. False or false -> false. Therefore no. I.e. you could see that as no to both embedded questions.

I was told you would do fine without me ;) To infinity. And beyond! (Not really beyond, but it's catchy :P )

I'm working on similar things at the moment, partials everywhere *shudder*. Geometrical numerical integration. Not the easiest to do... And who the hell decided that energy and/or momenta are of interest? It's a tad to close to physics for me...

Definitely: I find it entertaining as well, since we most often use integrals without singularities on the line of integration, which removes the second series and the modified principal value (PV*). Also, we rarely use residue calculus for integration over finite distances, which makes this...

:thumbsup: I agree with you that the hard position of downright rejecting a source due to the possibility of funding bias is wrong. But the funding bias does not apply the other way. His standard was, if I understood correctly, a harder version of funding bias, rejecting those whose...