Forums → Forum Games → Count to 100: Games Chat

4.
@kalisenpai What subjects are you studying?

@Yellowcat I don't know if that's a good idea to argue with Commissioner like that... You see he might interpret that quoted rule that way. That's his privilege and logic is also on his side... more than on yours this time. Between 1 and 0 as first digits there's a big difference. 03 is a presentation of number 3 most of the time used on digital clocks. On binary clocks 00:03 would be: 0000:000011 (because 11 = 1101 and 59 = 111011). We count to 100 so the use of 01 - 09 doesn't make much sense, it doesn't give any benefits. If it was about me I'd not care about 0s in the front as they don't change the value. But that quoted rule says as it says and HahiHa has a right to interpret it as he wants. I'm not resetting, but from now this count seems not sure.

05. Well, since most of the numbers in CT100 are 2 digits, adding the 0 actually makes more sense.

06. This is getting technical

7. In my opinion this doesn't make sense, because If I'm not adding 0 I don't have to write another sign and the benefits of adding it are scant. And most important thing:

HahiHa:

I guess it depends how accommodating I am

I like that Yoda style inversion.

He didn't express a clear-cut opinion about 0s in the front yet.

8. I do think Yellowcat's logic makes for a very good argument point! Happy we don't have to worry about it since it was in the last count

9. Shall we move on?

10. You want me to move on from life?! I refuse!

11. @perin106 The problem is that he still uses it :-P I'm not used to care about such things, but when you say that his arguments are correct you are saying that mine are incorrect, and that fights with the logic that I see and I believe that's not a wrong logic. Yellowcat's logic doesn't make a good argument point. It's not my opinion, it's my claim. Here's why:

That argument is a fallacy:

03. is the same as 3. The number of the post is 03, and it is at the front. Saying otherwise would be like discounting 12 at the beginning of a post because the post starts with 1.

Leading 1 changes the value of a number, leading 0 doesn't.

Well, since most of the numbers in CT100 are 2 digits, adding the 0 actually makes more sense.

This is only true if we aren't strict to the rule of using 0 before numbers. Here is everything about leading 0s, with links to reliable sources on the bottom:

Dear wikipedia

Leading zeros also present whenever the number of digits is technically fixed (such as in a memory register), but the stored value is not large enough to result in a non-zero most significant digit.

That also should be cut out - the rest of the paragraph says about similar situations, this is the only useful application of leading 0. That means that Yellowcat should use two 0 to be correct in the first place, because our fixed maximum number has 3 digits. So good luck with typing 001, 002 etc. every time xD

It's like with Agent 007. That number was designed for maximum 3 digit amount of secret agents.

It's all logic. I don't interpret, I analyse facts and deduce basing on them.

12. @PLGuy, just to clarify - I didn't say he was correct - I said his logic makes for a good argument

Your argument of "Leading 1 changes the value of a number, leading 0 doesn't." also makes a very good argument point.

And just to play into your very scientific process - true science can never be proven true, it can only be proven not false

13. This is getting a bit out of hand but interesting arguments none the less

14. Agreed! Very interesting.

Also interesting that both arguments are saying the same thing (0 in front should count towards the count), but just different arguments

15. Yeah it's interesting what we talk about, but I don't like that you throw logic to the same bag with other branches of science.

true science can never be proven true, it can only be proven not false

Perin, man, just look at this. That sentence is very smart, I have to agree, but it refers to the whole world of science. We need to be sure that logic is all absolute truth. Logic is human cognitive tool, we use it to explore the science, to create theories, differ which are true, which false.

So the thing people use to prove that theories are not false is logic. Of course tests are very important, but due to them people gather informations to analyse them, deduce what results mean. Imagine what would happen if people would treat logic as the rest of science. Where would that lead scientists? How would you separate science from para-science?

And the core of my argument is different than: "0 in front should count towards the count." It is: "We can't decide on our own if 0 in front counts towards the count, that privilege belongs to the Commissioner."

1 (16) - two cents: there is no reason to use 0X, but I also can't really see a count being dismissed for using them.

17. 16. Interesting. I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, and absolutely "Logic is human cognitive tool, we use it to explore the science, to create theories"

But I don't agree that "logic is all absolute truth". I think a paired down definition of "logic" is simply "a reasonable way of thinking". Someone could be complete wrong/false, but still have a "logical" argument (perhaps Yellowcat )

anyyyyyywayyyyyyss. 100% correct - the privilege belongs to the commissioner!

018. @PlGuy

Leading 1 changes the value of a number, leading 0 doesn't.

That means that Yellowcat should use two 0 to be correct in the first place, because our fixed maximum number has 3 digits. So good luck with typing 001, 002 etc. every time xD