Challenge Accepted!

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

33 Replies - 6078 Views - Last Post: 07 November 2015 - 05:45 PM

#16 andrewsw  Icon User is online

  • say what now
  • member icon

Reputation: 6409
  • View blog
  • Posts: 25,901
  • Joined: 12-December 12

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 14 October 2015 - 11:05 AM

I am not convinced by the veridicality of holes, although, if they do exist, I will accept them as ontologically parasitic.

This post has been edited by andrewsw: 14 October 2015 - 11:06 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#17 ArtificialSoldier  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 1837
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,788
  • Joined: 15-January 14

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 14 October 2015 - 11:23 AM

Your mom is ontologically parasitic!
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#18 Xupicor  Icon User is offline

  • Nasal Demon
  • member icon

Reputation: 456
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,179
  • Joined: 31-May 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 14 October 2015 - 11:50 AM

That escalated quickly. ^^
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#19 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Chinga la migra
  • member icon


Reputation: 10720
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,353
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 14 October 2015 - 11:54 AM

Your mom's so naive and untutored she treats holes as objects of reference, on a par with ordinary material objects.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#20 BetaWar  Icon User is offline

  • #include "soul.h"
  • member icon

Reputation: 1490
  • View blog
  • Posts: 8,217
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 15 October 2015 - 02:46 PM

Because people have decided to be a bit pedantic at points, here's my entry:
Spoiler

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#21 Xupicor  Icon User is offline

  • Nasal Demon
  • member icon

Reputation: 456
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,179
  • Joined: 31-May 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 15 October 2015 - 02:49 PM

What about $number=500? You don't want to, but you have to think about the D.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#22 astonecipher  Icon User is offline

  • Too busy for this
  • member icon

Reputation: 2342
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,393
  • Joined: 03-December 12

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 15 October 2015 - 02:53 PM

500 would be D, which has 1 hole. Optical recognition would have still caught it.

Xup, where is the optical setup for testing?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#23 Xupicor  Icon User is offline

  • Nasal Demon
  • member icon

Reputation: 456
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,179
  • Joined: 31-May 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 15 October 2015 - 05:06 PM

I would lend you mine, but it's almost irreplaceable. However, if you want to gauge it so badly, I think that could be arranged...

Btw - D is 500, I is 1, C is 100... How much is DIC? A converter tools tells me it's not a valid input. Meh, it's probably to much for them to handle.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#24 CTphpnwb  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 3717
  • View blog
  • Posts: 13,491
  • Joined: 08-August 08

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 15 October 2015 - 06:05 PM

599?
I'm thinking 500 + (100 - 1)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#25 Xupicor  Icon User is offline

  • Nasal Demon
  • member icon

Reputation: 456
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,179
  • Joined: 31-May 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 16 October 2015 - 12:25 PM

Nope, can't do that. You have to group tens and hundreds, etc, so valid 599 is: DXCIX
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#26 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Chinga la migra
  • member icon


Reputation: 10720
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,353
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 16 October 2015 - 02:02 PM

Are you sure about that? Roman numerals were never very standardized. It seems to me that there aren't a lot of combinations that are forbidden.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#27 ArtificialSoldier  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 1837
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,788
  • Joined: 15-January 14

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 16 October 2015 - 02:49 PM

Any nerd who pays attention to Super Bowl naming knows that a Roman numeral can only precede the 2 next highest numerals. I can only precede V and X, X can only precede L or C, and C can only precede D or M. This is why Super Bowl 49 is XXXIX and not IL.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#28 astonecipher  Icon User is offline

  • Too busy for this
  • member icon

Reputation: 2342
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,393
  • Joined: 03-December 12

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 16 October 2015 - 03:42 PM

They just do that cause it looks more impressive!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#29 CTphpnwb  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 3717
  • View blog
  • Posts: 13,491
  • Joined: 08-August 08

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 16 October 2015 - 06:23 PM

Isn't XXXIX 39?

(Unless you're counting holes. Then it's 0 or 1 depending on the numeral system.)
Just trying to bring it back on topic. ;)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#30 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Chinga la migra
  • member icon


Reputation: 10720
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,353
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Challenge Accepted!

Posted 16 October 2015 - 07:41 PM

View PostArtificialSoldier, on 16 October 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

Any nerd who pays attention to Super Bowl naming knows that a Roman numeral can only precede the 2 next highest numerals. I can only precede V and X, X can only precede L or C, and C can only precede D or M. This is why Super Bowl 49 is XXXIX and not IL.


This is an example of the "no negative evidence" problem. All you know from this is that XXXIX is one way of writing 39. However, there's no reason to think this is the only way of writing it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3