nothing could've prevent this from happening | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
dariusgriffin
...and 586 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614124
Today 3
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
nothing could've prevent this from happening
 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2003-09-14 21:42 [#00863067]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker



3678 points

i don't know what to say. this is such an amazing
achivement, and yet i cannot put the things i'm feeling into
words at this wonderful moment. it's an end of an era, which
i will greatly miss, but i look forward to my new path of
destruction.

i love you all


 

offline ambsace from canaDUH. on 2003-09-14 21:43 [#00863070]
Points: 6326 Status: Lurker



*goat skull*


 

offline BlatantEcho from All over (United States) on 2003-09-14 21:44 [#00863071]
Points: 7210 Status: Lurker



listen, i only have so many awards to hand out


 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2003-09-14 21:45 [#00863075]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00863071



i ask nothing of you but love and respect


 

offline princo from Shitty City (Geelong) (Australia) on 2003-09-14 21:46 [#00863078]
Points: 13411 Status: Lurker



VERY nice

Bo)


 

offline Job a boj from Land of the Lost Timezone! (Canada) on 2003-09-14 21:47 [#00863079]
Points: 498 Status: Regular



I want the award for saying award the most in an award
winning sentence. Award.


 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2003-09-14 21:47 [#00863081]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker | Followup to princo: #00863078



MAKE SOME FECKIN' NOISE!!!!

thanx princo. big up yourself


 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2003-09-14 21:50 [#00863092]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker | Followup to BlatantEcho: #00863071



i wouldn't mind if you'd post a hot piccy of natalie portman
though.


 

offline ambsace from canaDUH. on 2003-09-14 21:52 [#00863096]
Points: 6326 Status: Lurker | Followup to AlbertoBalsalm: #00863092



done and done.

(good taste, mate). =]


Attached picture

 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 21:54 [#00863101]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



The question is... would "3678" in the decimal system be of
any significance, in terms of being an exact exponential
number, if we counted with a different number system based
on 9's or 7's or something?


 

offline Job a boj from Land of the Lost Timezone! (Canada) on 2003-09-14 21:56 [#00863106]
Points: 498 Status: Regular



Well.... 3678 is 00110011001101100011011100111000 in binary,
and thats a very wonderful looking number now isnt it.


 

offline AlbertoBalsalm from Reykjavík (Iceland) on 2003-09-14 21:57 [#00863108]
Points: 9459 Status: Lurker | Followup to ambsace: #00863096



thank you. that's awesome :D

i made a natalie portman wallpaper for natalieportman.com a
while back. i used to have lots of pictures of her in my
puter. shit...obsession is not a good thing. but that's all
over now, i hope ;)

here it is, my nat wallpaper


 

offline ambsace from canaDUH. on 2003-09-14 21:58 [#00863110]
Points: 6326 Status: Lurker



only when the reciprocal of the determinant coefficient is
factored into the logrithmic magnitude.


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:01 [#00863119]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



good point,... given that 3678 contains an "8", then then it
can only be a number in number systems based on exponentials
of 8 or above... unless you delete some arbitrary lower
number symbols like "2" instead.

Actually, "3678" contains 4 seperate symbols (none of them
are the same)... therefore the only exponential number
system that can produce it must have at least 4 symbols of
code in it.


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:05 [#00863127]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



i like star trek


 

offline Job a boj from Land of the Lost Timezone! (Canada) on 2003-09-14 22:05 [#00863129]
Points: 498 Status: Regular



not true. YOu can produce any number that exists with 2
different symbols. 0's and 1's can make any number.


 

offline Job a boj from Land of the Lost Timezone! (Canada) on 2003-09-14 22:05 [#00863130]
Points: 498 Status: Regular



and star trek is fucked up


 

offline The_Funkmaster from St. John's (Canada) on 2003-09-14 22:07 [#00863134]
Points: 16280 Status: Lurker | Followup to Job a boj: #00863130



Star Trek RULES!! :)


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:14 [#00863144]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



now now, all those posts of yours could come out of data or
any other crew member: a bunch of scientific jibberish,
which is correct though


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:25 [#00863153]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



I know 3678 can be written in a different code containing
only, say 1's and 0's... but then the number would look
different, as you wrote above... still the same number but
it only contains the symbols "1" and "0"... what I meant was
that "3678", if already coded in an exponential
system containing a different number of constituent symbols
than the decimal system must have at least 8 symbols:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... because 8 is the highest symbol used in
"3678"... I just thought that it must contain nine or
more symbols since I forgot about zero... so... how much
would "3678" be if counted in a system using only 9 symbols
(including 0)...

Actually I don't know what the hell I'm talking about... I
think what I really mean to say was "if the number amount of
3678 (from the decimal system) was converted into some other
system, would it possibly be an exact exponential in that
system?.." Ah, screw it.


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:29 [#00863160]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



just watch startrek


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 22:41 [#00863178]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #00863153



If it was 3678 in a base 9 system, that would be equal to
2744 in the familiar base 10 system. Which means...
absolutely nothing. Sorry.


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:44 [#00863185]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



i bet in star trek it would
sorry


 

offline The_Funkmaster from St. John's (Canada) on 2003-09-14 22:44 [#00863188]
Points: 16280 Status: Lurker



what about hexadecimal?


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 22:47 [#00863192]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker



hexadecimal? does that mean base 6? 0-1-2-3-4-5?


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:47 [#00863193]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



I'd have to think awhile before I'd be able to calculate
that that fast... hmm..

oh yeah, I think you just went "8x9 plus 7x81 plus 6x179
plus 3x(whatever 9 to the 4th power is)"


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 22:49 [#00863199]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #00863193



yeah.
hey, you knew what 9 cubed was off the top of your head?
that's pretty good


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:49 [#00863201]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



isnt that just a function on your calculator?
i bet...
data..
wat..


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:49 [#00863202]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular | Followup to The_Funkmaster: #00863188



no no no, you mean homosexual.


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:51 [#00863206]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



o, i already had this with this smokh dude..


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 22:53 [#00863210]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to mappatazee: #00863199



oh wait what am I thinking... 179 isn't 9 cubed at all, off
by several hundered there (its 729). regrettably, i rescind
my compliment


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:55 [#00863212]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



no, it's just easy to multiply in your head since you just
have to go 9x81 ...
9x1=9
9x8=17

=179 is easy in your head


 

offline The_Funkmaster from St. John's (Canada) on 2003-09-14 22:55 [#00863213]
Points: 16280 Status: Lurker



hexadecimal is something like 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,e,f
or something... It uses all the number we normally use, and
uses the first few letter for the other numbers... I forget
how it works, but that's how it is I think...


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:56 [#00863216]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



ha ha, I am retarded cubed


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 22:57 [#00863217]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



9x8= 17

ahh ha ha ha! I am 500 porcent stupid.


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:57 [#00863218]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



it's like after F comes 10, which in the decimal stuff is
our 16


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 22:58 [#00863219]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to w M w: #00863212



yeah you just confused me more with 9x8=17


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 22:59 [#00863221]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



our: that's stupid, like the hexidecimal stuff is from outer
space


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 23:00 [#00863223]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to big: #00863221



okay, yeah, hexa: 6 deca: 10, hedadecimal: 16


 

offline mappatazee from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2003-09-14 23:01 [#00863225]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker | Followup to mappatazee: #00863223



err... hexadecimal, not heda


 

offline Q4Z2X on 2003-09-14 23:01 [#00863228]
Points: 5264 Status: Lurker



blabba labba


 

offline w M w from London (United Kingdom) on 2003-09-14 23:08 [#00863239]
Points: 21454 Status: Regular



Hexadecimal is probably the best most natural one... that or
octa... because in these you can take a nice round even
exponential number like 1000 (in hexadecimal) and conviently
divide it in half again and again until you're left with 1.
If you try to count this way in decimal, you'd start with a
strange number like 2048 and divide it in half to other
strange numbers to 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2,
1 Of course you can do this with binary, but it's awkward to
work with such large sequences probably.

Also obviously you can divide penta easily into fifths
instead of halfs etc. I think...


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 23:11 [#00863243]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



yeah, but you couldnt count that on your fingers
*laughs a nerdy laugh*


 

offline big from lsg on 2003-09-14 23:12 [#00863244]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



i mean
*laughs like data*
ha: he doesnt laugh
*.. and so on


 

offline Job a boj from Land of the Lost Timezone! (Canada) on 2003-09-15 18:57 [#00864444]
Points: 498 Status: Regular



I know base8 systems which is octal i think.... I could
figure that number out in base 9, but its a pain in the hole


 


Messageboard index