QUIT USING MICROSOFT PRODUCTS

| I'm sorry, but it looks like what I wrote went over your head. It's not
| really worth it, but I'll try again.
|

Maybe you should quit while you're behind.

On 01/02/2016 02:36 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

If the original statement had said that a byte can be set to 255 *unique*
values, rather than *different* values, then you'd have a point.


I did figure out what you meant. When I said "different", I did NOT say
"different from ...". That's where the difference comes in.

256 different values. 255 values DIFFERENT FROM 0. That's a common
problem, overreading.

If I have an apple and an orange, that's TWO DIFFERENT FRUITS.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Fundamentalist: One who's mental and wants your funds."

In message , Mark Lloyd
writes:
On 01/02/2016 02:36 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

If the original statement had said that a byte can be set to 255 *unique*
values, rather than *different* values, then you'd have a point.


I did figure out what you meant. When I said "different", I did NOT say
"different from ...". That's where the difference comes in.

256 different values. 255 values DIFFERENT FROM 0. That's a common
problem, overreading.

(Nobody said the original value was 0 ...)

If I have an apple and an orange, that's TWO DIFFERENT FRUITS.

Given that it has an original value, it can be _changed_ to 255
different values. The semantic argument here is whether writing to it
the value it already holds counts as "setting" it, or just leaving it
alone. I can see both interpretations ... (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anybody who thinks there can be unlimited growth in a static, limited
environment, is either mad or an economist. - Sir David Attenborough, in
Radio Times 10-16 November 2012

On 01/03/2016 06:26 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip

(Nobody said the original value was 0 ...)

That was an EXAMPLE. Do you know what an example is? :-) Notice that I
mentioned different initial values in another post. I used to have a
home computer where uninitialized RAM would have the high byte of the
address.


If I have an apple and an orange, that's TWO DIFFERENT FRUITS.

Given that it has an original value, it can be _changed_ to 255
different values. The semantic argument here is whether writing to it
the value it already holds counts as "setting" it, or just leaving it
alone. I can see both interpretations ... (-:

The memory has some content at any time.

There are 255 different values it can be CHANGED to AT THIS TIME.

There are 256 different values it can HAVE. That is what I was talking
about.

I didn't say CHANGED.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It cannot be too often repeated, that truth scorns the assistance of
miracle." [Robert G. Ingersoll]

In message , Mark Lloyd
writes:
On 01/03/2016 06:26 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip

(Nobody said the original value was 0 ...)

That was an EXAMPLE. Do you know what an example is? :-) Notice that I

Yes. You didn't make it clear, by any means, that that was the case. (-:

mentioned different initial values in another post. I used to have a
home computer where uninitialized RAM would have the high byte of the
address.

At a guess, from the RAM test that some home computers used to do at
switchon. (Early PCs that is; obviously that is therefore not truly
uninitialised.)

If I have an apple and an orange, that's TWO DIFFERENT FRUITS.

Given that it has an original value, it can be _changed_ to 255
different values. The semantic argument here is whether writing to it
the value it already holds counts as "setting" it, or just leaving it
alone. I can see both interpretations ... (-:

The memory has some content at any time.

There are 255 different values it can be CHANGED to AT THIS TIME.

There are 256 different values it can HAVE. That is what I was talking
about.

I didn't say CHANGED.

The - highly UNimportant! - point being made by me and others is that
the word SET - which is the one that was being used - is interpreted by
some people as including not-changed, and by others as including only
changed. My brother the lexicographer would - resignedly - remind us
that language usage is fluid, and both are acceptable interpretations,
unless it actually matters for some technical reason.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

How do you govern a country that seems to have decided that facts are the work
of the devil? - Andy Hamilton on HIGNFY, 2010