Boolean Values Quotes

Furious, the beast writhed and wriggled its iterated integrals beneath the King’s polynomial blows, collapsed into an infinite series of indeterminate terms, then got back up by raising itself to the nth power, but the King so belabored it with differentials and partial derivatives that its Fourier coefficients all canceled out (see Riemann’s Lemma), and in the ensuing confusion the constructors completely lost sight of both King and beast. So they took a break, stretched their legs, had a swig from the Leyden jug to bolster their strength, then went back to work and tried it again from the beginning, this time unleashing their entire arsenal of tensor matrices and grand canonical ensembles, attacking the problem with such fervor that the very paper began to smoke. The King rushed forward with all his cruel coordinates and mean values, stumbled into a dark forest of roots and logarithms, had to backtrack, then encountered the beast on a field of irrational numbers (F1) and smote it so grievously that it fell two decimal places and lost an epsilon, but the beast slid around an asymptote and hid in an n-dimensional orthogonal phase space, underwent expansion and came out, fuming factorially, and fell upon the King and hurt him passing sore. But the King, nothing daunted, put on his Markov chain mail and all his impervious parameters, took his increment Δk to infinity and dealt the beast a truly Boolean blow, sent it reeling through an x-axis and several brackets—but the beast, prepared for this, lowered its horns and—wham!!—the pencils flew like mad through transcendental functions and double eigentransformations, and when at last the beast closed in and the King was down and out for the count, the constructors jumped up, danced a jig, laughed and sang as they tore all their papers to shreds, much to the amazement of the spies perched in the chandelier-—perched in vain, for they were uninitiated into the niceties of higher mathematics and consequently had no idea why Trurl and Klapaucius were now shouting, over and over, “Hurrah! Victory!!

The Bernoulli is an accurate way of expressing probability,” Luke said. “It’s based on the idea that there are two possible outcomes to certain empiric events, like coin flips or the winners of football games. The outcomes can be expressed as p for positive result and n for negative result. I won’t bore you with the details, but you end up with a boolean-valued outcome that clearly expresses the difference between

So they rolled up their sleeves and sat down to experiment -- by simulation, that is mathematically and all on paper. And the mathematical models of King Krool and the beast did such fierce battle across the equation-covered table, that the constructors' pencils kept snapping. Furious, the beast writhed and wriggled its iterated integrals beneath the King's polynomial blows, collapsed into an infinite series of indeterminate terms, then got back up by raising itself to the nth power, but the King so belabored it with differentials and partial derivatives that its Fourier coefficients all canceled out (see Riemann's Lemma), and in the ensuing confusion the constructors completely lost sight of both King and beast. So they took a break, stretched their legs, had a swig from the Leyden jug to bolster their strength, then went back to work and tried it again from the beginning, this time unleashing their entire arsenal of tensor matrices and grand canonical ensembles, attacking the problem with such fervor that the very paper began to smoke. The King rushed forward with all his cruel coordinates and mean values, stumbled into a dark forest of roots and logarithms, had to backtrack, then encountered the beast on a field of irrational numbers (F_1) and smote it so grievously that it fell two decimal places and lost an epsilon, but the beast slid around an asymptote and hid in an n-dimensional orthogonal phase space, underwent expansion and came out fuming factorially, and fell upon the King and hurt him passing sore. But the King, nothing daunted, put on his Markov chain mail and all his impervious parameters, took his increment Δk to infinity and dealt the beast a truly Boolean blow, sent it reeling through an x-axis and several brackets—but the beast, prepared for this, lowered its horns and—wham!!—the pencils flew like mad through transcendental functions and double eigentransformations, and when at last the beast closed in and the King was down and out for the count, the constructors jumped up, danced a jig, laughed and sang as they tore all their papers to shreds, much to the amazement of the spies perched in the chandelier—perched in vain, for they were uninitiated into the niceties of higher mathematics and consequently had no idea why Trurl and Klapaucius were now shouting, over and over, "Hurrah! Victory!!

CUSTOM_HASH Function create or replace function custom_hash (p_username in varchar2, p_password in varchar2) return varchar2 is l_password varchar2(4000); l_salt varchar2(4000) := 'XV1MH24EC1IHDCQHSS6XQ6QTJSANT3'; begin -- This function should be wrapped, as the hash algorithm is exposed here.  You can change the value of l_salt or the --method of which to call the DBMS_OBFUSCATOIN toolkit, but you must reset all of your passwords if you choose to do --this. l_password := utl_raw.cast_to_raw(dbms_obfuscation_toolkit.md5 (input_string => p_password || substr(l_salt,10,13) || p_username || substr(l_salt, 4,10))); return l_password; end;   CUSTOM_AUTH Function create or replace function custom_auth (p_username in VARCHAR2, p_password in VARCHAR2) return BOOLEAN is l_password varchar2(4000); l_stored_password varchar2(4000); l_expires_on date; l_count number; begin -- First, check to see if the user is in the user table select count(*) into l_count from demo_users where user_name = p_username; if l_count > 0 then -- Fetch the stored hashed password & expire date select password, expires_on into l_stored_password, l_expires_on from demo_users where user_name = p_username; -- Next, check whether the user's account is expired. If it isn’t, execute the next statement, else return FALSE if l_expires_on > sysdate or l_expires_on is null then -- If the account is not expired, apply the custom hash function to the password l_password := custom_hash(p_username, p_password); -- Finally, compare them to see if they are the same and return either TRUE or FALSE if l_password = l_stored_password then return true; else return false; end if; else return false; end if; else -- The username provided is not in the DEMO_USERS table return false; end if; end;

I often said I wouldn't have pursued programming as a career if I still did drugs. This is probably true, since weed was always immensely crippling for me. I would have weed hangovers for days, and while stoned, was unable to read or do much of anything besides clean and play video games. Whether or not this would have turned out to be true is academic, but it's definitely true that I wouldn't have become a programmer if I hadn't lost my mind, because the recovery process taught me my most valuable skill as a programmer: how to not think. Programming requires the acceptance that you are entering meaningless symbols into a machine that's going to spit out other meaningless symbols, and this can be hard to accept. It requires abandoning all hope for an answer for the existential "why?" in favour of shuffling boolean values ad infinitum. By no interpretation of the concept of understanding does a computer understand what you're telling it or what it's telling you. On top of that, programming as an act is more often hindered than helped by thinking. Despite zero years of training in computer science, I've found I have an edge in debugging because I never look or ask for an explanation. Ninety percent of the computer bugs in a program are tiny, one-line errors, and you just have to find that error. Holding the entire logical structure of a million lines of code in your mind in futile. The task is to find the references and connections and track them back until you hit the problem. If I get an error message, I copy it into Google, because someone somewhere has encountered and solved the problem, probably by tracking down the people who originally wrote the program. In seven years of programming, I've solved exactly two undocumented bugs via pure deductive reasoning.

Values of type string, number, and Boolean are not objects, and though the language doesn’t complain if you try to set new properties on them, it doesn’t actually store those properties. As mentioned earlier, such values are immutable and cannot be changed. But these types do have built-in properties. Every string value has a number of methods.

forloop.first is a Boolean value set to True if this is the first time through the loop. This is convenient for special-casing:

Boolean and and or operators return a true or false object in Python, not the values True or False.

class Rational(n: Int, d: Int): require(d != 0) override def toString = s"$n/$d" The require method takes one boolean parameter. If the passed value is true, require will return normally. Otherwise, require will prevent the object from being constructed by throwing an IllegalArgumentException.

One effective approach is to determine a range of accuracy that is acceptable and then use a boolean function to determine whether the values are close enough.

Cassandra uses a very efficient algorithm, called Phi Accrual Failure Detection Algorithm, to detect the failure of a node. The idea of the algorithm is that the failure detection is not represented by a Boolean value stating whether a node is up or down. Instead, the algorithm outputs a value on the continuous suspicion level between dead and alive, on how confident it is that the node has failed.