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
-
-
-
Replying to @coyotespike
(maybe this is actually a convention somewhere?? completely threw me though)pic.twitter.com/YFgEfdihch
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @drossbucket @coyotespike
@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.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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
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.