broke: I've done the calculation wrong woke: this paper has an error bespoke: I've done the calculation right but the paper defined 0 as true and 1 as false several pages ago FFS
-
-
@urbit has > We should note that in Nock & Hoon, 0 (pronounced "yes") is true, and 1 ("no") is false. Why? As in Unix, using zero for success generalizes smoothly to multiple error codes. And it's strange for success not to equal truth. Or at least, this is our official excuse. -
I was trying to search for why you'd do this, and one answer I saw was 'to match unix success code' In this case it's quantum foundations... for qubits it kind of makes sense to match |0> to true, so presumably comes from there? dunno
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
every day we fall further from grace -
I have a vague memory that some widely-used programming language made this mistake? And its designer eventually apologized, but it’s unfixable because changing would break all existing code. Can’t remember which, so maybe this was in a nightmare not reality
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
(maybe this is actually a convention somewhere?? completely threw me though)