The Twelve Bit Process

The eight bit process has premise because a transy's brain is two four bit processes with a fine silky thread connecting the two four bit processes together... while my brain is a straight four bit process... What is at issue here is that there is an answer to the question of why 16 bit computers didn't live up to expectations in the 1980's.

IF.8+4=12.THEN.8+(+4)=8+4=8(+4)+=16.ELSE.8+4(+4)=8 (+4)+4=8+4+4=16

It is basically true that '+4' encased in parentheses brackets are the bane of the world's computing industry and so for that reason 8+4=16 is a true statement... or at least it is a true enough statement given that argument is futile against those who claim that it is a true statement... Ya see, it's the posers who say: 'Don't obsess and skip ahead instead' but it's the same posers who claim to support trinary... I support trinary by being mindful of what threatens trinary and skipping ahead does nothing in that regard...

The truth behind the subtle things that some of you might make note of is that it is easier for the human brain to add like numbers:

1+1=2
2+2=4
3+3=6
4+4=8
5+5=10
6+6=12
7+7=14
8+8=16
....

Adding 8 plus 4 is adding to 'unlike' numbers... Human brains make it complicated... The implications of that are that I can make up a rule that it is impossible to add two unlike numbers if 8+4 is not equal to 12.

1+2.NE.3
2+1.NE.3
2+3.NE.5
3+2.NE.5
3+1.NE.4
1+3.NE.4
4+1.NE.5
1+4.NE.5
....

(Seriously... Keep going until you get to 8+4 and that is the first true statement in this series... 'cuz... obviously enough... four plus eight is absolutely not equal to twelve is the punchline, 'k?)

What is true is that in computing '(+4)' is defined as material empty space.... and... as my brain is a four bit computer, I am confused with physics and their obsession with empty space and vacuum arguments since those issues have long since been resolved.

8+(+4)=8+
8(+4)=8+4.OR.8
4+8.NE.8+4

(Whew!! Close Call... I think Hawkin almost jumped out of his chair... So why is it that I can't load up Usenet with page after page of '(+4)' and it doesn't cause the internet to 'have a cow'? What is increasingly clarified to me as being the answer to that question is 'Who controls a robot that has a cosmic eye?' The answer to that question seems to be (ta-da):

THE OMNIPOTENT AND ETERNAL BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY

A robot with cosmic eye can consolidate a gramophone (which is like a square-ish (or square-esque) spiral) and flip a consolidated gramophone ninety degrees to generate the illusion that a square is a straight line... Loading up Usenet with page after page of '(+4)' amounts to:

BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE OMNIPOTENT AND ETERNAL BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY

(although I personally might argue that it is merely sacrilegious instead so I might do it anyways... maybe... umm... what i mean is that... what is a 'thought experiment' between friends? Right, Boing old buddy?)

and, of course, Boeing Aircraft Company just laughs it off since they have all the power and most importantly:

YOU DON'T!!

"Kevin Barry" kirjoitti
...
The eight bit process has premise because a transy's brain is two four bit
processes with a fine silky thread connecting the two four bit processes
together... while my brain is a straight four bit process... What is at
issue here is that there is an answer to the question of why 16 bit
computers didn't live up to expectations in the 1980's.

IF.8+4=12.THEN.8+(+4)=8+4=8(+4)+=16.ELSE.8+4(+4)=8 (+4)+4=8+4+4=16

It is basically true that '+4' encased in parentheses brackets are the bane
of the world's computing industry and so for that reason 8+4=16 is a true
statement... or at least it is a true enough statement given that argument
is futile against those who claim that it is a true statement... Ya see,
it's the posers who say: 'Don't obsess and skip ahead instead' but it's the
same posers who claim to support trinary... I support trinary by being
mindful of what threatens trinary and skipping ahead does nothing in that
regard...

The truth behind the subtle things that some of you might make note of is
that it is easier for the human brain to add like numbers:

1+1=2
2+2=4
3+3=6
4+4=8
5+5=10
6+6=12
7+7=14
8+8=16
....

Adding 8 plus 4 is adding to 'unlike' numbers... Human brains make it
complicated... The implications of that are that I can make up a rule that
it is impossible to add two unlike numbers if 8+4 is not equal to 12.

1+2.NE.3
2+1.NE.3
2+3.NE.5
3+2.NE.5
3+1.NE.4
1+3.NE.4
4+1.NE.5
1+4.NE.5
....

(Seriously... Keep going until you get to 8+4 and that is the first true
statement in this series... 'cuz... obviously enough... four plus eight is
absolutely not equal to twelve is the punchline, 'k?)

What is true is that in computing '(+4)' is defined as material empty
space... and... as my brain is a four bit computer, I am confused with
physics and their obsession with empty space and vacuum arguments since
those issues have long since been resolved.

8+(+4)=8+
8(+4)=8+4.OR.8
4+8.NE.8+4

(Whew!! Close Call... I think Hawkin almost jumped out of his chair... So
why is it that I can't load up Usenet with page after page of '(+4)' and it
doesn't cause the internet to 'have a cow'? What is increasingly clarified
to me as being the answer to that question is 'Who controls a robot that has
a cosmic eye?' The answer to that question seems to be (ta-da):

THE OMNIPOTENT AND ETERNAL BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY

A robot with cosmic eye can consolidate a gramophone (which is like a
square-ish (or square-esque) spiral) and flip a consolidated gramophone
ninety degrees to generate the illusion that a square is a straight line...
Loading up Usenet with page after page of '(+4)' amounts to:

BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE OMNIPOTENT AND ETERNAL BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY

(although I personally might argue that it is merely sacrilegious instead so
I might do it anyways... maybe... umm... what i mean is that... what is a
'thought experiment' between friends? Right, Boing old buddy?)

and, of course, Boeing Aircraft Company just laughs it off since they have
all the power and most importantly:

YOU DON'T!!


Let use other basenumbers!
For example 1/2 = 0.5 is in 3-base-number(O,I,L)
O.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII....
= ½ in 3-base number...

How to calculate with other base-numbers than 2,8,10,16?

Well that zeroa bigger mantissa, only divide with that base number and the
modulus then to next number substracting that new number from result.

And, if there are fractions, you must only mulitply, with base-number, and
if result is bigger than zero, that is the new O.IIILLL x 3^ x 3^^ x
3^^^... number. You must substract only that result and there are again next
fraction with multiplieng with base-number....

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:47:37 PM UTC-5, Ksuvo wrote:
"Kevin Barry" kirjoitti

...

The eight bit process has premise because a transy's brain is two four bit

processes with a fine silky thread connecting the two four bit processes

together... while my brain is a straight four bit process... What is at

issue here is that there is an answer to the question of why 16 bit

computers didn't live up to expectations in the 1980's.



IF.8+4=12.THEN.8+(+4)=8+4=8(+4)+=16.ELSE.8+4(+4)=8 (+4)+4=8+4+4=16



It is basically true that '+4' encased in parentheses brackets are the bane

of the world's computing industry and so for that reason 8+4=16 is a true

statement... or at least it is a true enough statement given that argument

is futile against those who claim that it is a true statement... Ya see,

it's the posers who say: 'Don't obsess and skip ahead instead' but it's the

same posers who claim to support trinary... I support trinary by being

mindful of what threatens trinary and skipping ahead does nothing in that

regard...



The truth behind the subtle things that some of you might make note of is

that it is easier for the human brain to add like numbers:



1+1=2

2+2=4

3+3=6

4+4=8

5+5=10

6+6=12

7+7=14

8+8=16

...



Adding 8 plus 4 is adding to 'unlike' numbers... Human brains make it

complicated... The implications of that are that I can make up a rule that

it is impossible to add two unlike numbers if 8+4 is not equal to 12.



1+2.NE.3

2+1.NE.3

2+3.NE.5

3+2.NE.5

3+1.NE.4

1+3.NE.4

4+1.NE.5

1+4.NE.5

...



(Seriously... Keep going until you get to 8+4 and that is the first true

statement in this series... 'cuz... obviously enough... four plus eight is

absolutely not equal to twelve is the punchline, 'k?)



What is true is that in computing '(+4)' is defined as material empty

space... and... as my brain is a four bit computer, I am confused with

physics and their obsession with empty space and vacuum arguments since

those issues have long since been resolved.



8+(+4)=8+

8(+4)=8+4.OR.8

4+8.NE.8+4



(Whew!! Close Call... I think Hawkin almost jumped out of his chair... So

why is it that I can't load up Usenet with page after page of '(+4)' and it

doesn't cause the internet to 'have a cow'? What is increasingly clarified

to me as being the answer to that question is 'Who controls a robot that has

a cosmic eye?' The answer to that question seems to be (ta-da):



THE OMNIPOTENT AND ETERNAL BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY



A robot with cosmic eye can consolidate a gramophone (which is like a

square-ish (or square-esque) spiral) and flip a consolidated gramophone

ninety degrees to generate the illusion that a square is a straight line....

Loading up Usenet with page after page of '(+4)' amounts to:



BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE OMNIPOTENT AND ETERNAL BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY



(although I personally might argue that it is merely sacrilegious instead so

I might do it anyways... maybe... umm... what i mean is that... what is a

'thought experiment' between friends? Right, Boing old buddy?)



and, of course, Boeing Aircraft Company just laughs it off since they have

all the power and most importantly:



YOU DON'T!!





Let use other basenumbers!

For example 1/2 = 0.5 is in 3-base-number(O,I,L)

O.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII....

= ½ in 3-base number...



How to calculate with other base-numbers than 2,8,10,16?



Well that zeroa bigger mantissa, only divide with that base number and the

modulus then to next number substracting that new number from result.



And, if there are fractions, you must only mulitply, with base-number, and

if result is bigger than zero, that is the new O.IIILLL x 3^ x 3^^ x

3^^^... number. You must substract only that result and there are again next

fraction with multiplieng with base-number....

..333... + .666... = 1.000... There is a proof of it that I remember from college and so that must explain it.

"Kevin Barry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:47:37 PM UTC-5, Ksuvo wrote:

snip crap

3^^^... number. You must substract only that result and there are again
next

fraction with multiplieng with base-number....

.333... + .666... = 1.000... There is a proof of it that I remember from
college and so that must explain it.

wrong.

..333...(base 0.333...) + .666...(base 0.666...) = 10.000... (base 2.000...)

"Kevin Barry" kirjoitti
...
The eight bit process has premise because a transy's brain is two four bit
processes with a fine silky thread connecting the two four bit processes
together... while my brain is a straight four bit process... What is at
issue here is that there is an answer to the question of why 16 bit
computers didn't live up to expectations in the 1980's.

IF.8+4=12.THEN.8+(+4)=8+4=8(+4)+=16.ELSE.8+4(+4)=8 (+4)+4=8+4+4=16

Computers doesn't count with 12 bits but 8,16,32 or 64 bits. This was a
retification to your story. Of cource it is possible to count with 12 bits,
for example when computer counts with 16 bits....

"Kevin Barry" kirjoitti
...
The eight bit process has premise because a transy's brain is two four bit
processes with a fine silky thread connecting the two four bit processes
together... while my brain is a straight four bit process... What is at
issue here is that there is an answer to the question of why 16 bit
computers didn't live up to expectations in the 1980's.

IF.8+4=12.THEN.8+(+4)=8+4=8(+4)+=16.ELSE.8+4(+4)=8 (+4)+4=8+4+4=16

Computers don't count with 12 bits but 8,16,32 or 64 bits. This was a
retification to your story. Of cource it is possible to count with 12 bits,
for example when computer counts with 16 bits....