Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7582067" data-attributes="member: 6795602">No I am not.&nbsp; You are confusing what should be zero with null.What you are trying to say would be like claiming &quot;Null Velocity and 0 velocity have equivalent effects on motion.&nbsp; But they are not equal.&quot;&nbsp; When you aren't moving your velocity isn't NULL.&nbsp; Even if you were incapable of moving your velocity still wouldn't be NULL, it would be 0.&nbsp; SureYes!&nbsp; But you are assuming the final damage total is g(x) = x + (damage bonus) and so g(f(x)) = f(x) + (damage bonus).&nbsp; That's not the case. What's happening is f(x) = 0 s.t. x = y + (damage bonus) where y = 0 damage.Agreed...The proper way to define no damage is with 0 damage just as the proper way to define no velocity is with 0 velocity.&nbsp; Where on earth are you and others getting the insane idea that I think 0 and null are the same thing?&nbsp; My argument is that what you are attempting to call Null is not Null but actually 0.No it would not.&nbsp; That's precisely the illogical mess this confusion over null and 0 leads to.&nbsp; When you are quantifying something the answer is 0 unless the thing in question cannot be quantified that way.&nbsp; Touchdowns and damage and velocity etc all can.&nbsp; Most things can be quantified with 0 and so when answering the question of how much the answer will be 0 and not null.I've spent 3 pages here as the only one arguing for the correct definition of 0 vs null.&nbsp; I'm a bit entitled to at this point <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7582067, member: 6795602"] No I am not. You are confusing what should be zero with null. What you are trying to say would be like claiming "Null Velocity and 0 velocity have equivalent effects on motion. But they are not equal." When you aren't moving your velocity isn't NULL. Even if you were incapable of moving your velocity still wouldn't be NULL, it would be 0. Sure Yes! But you are assuming the final damage total is g(x) = x + (damage bonus) and so g(f(x)) = f(x) + (damage bonus). That's not the case. What's happening is f(x) = 0 s.t. x = y + (damage bonus) where y = 0 damage. Agreed ...The proper way to define no damage is with 0 damage just as the proper way to define no velocity is with 0 velocity. Where on earth are you and others getting the insane idea that I think 0 and null are the same thing? My argument is that what you are attempting to call Null is not Null but actually 0. No it would not. That's precisely the illogical mess this confusion over null and 0 leads to. When you are quantifying something the answer is 0 unless the thing in question cannot be quantified that way. Touchdowns and damage and velocity etc all can. Most things can be quantified with 0 and so when answering the question of how much the answer will be 0 and not null. I've spent 3 pages here as the only one arguing for the correct definition of 0 vs null. I'm a bit entitled to at this point :) [/QUOTE]

Verification