Content deleted Content added
Line 269:
::"undergoes a transformation operation" is math jargon for 'turns into', if you must be purist about it, The question is made doubly difficult by Microsoft's track record of playing ducks and drakes with standards (aka "embrace and undermine") without us getting picky about choice of words when the meaning is obvious. That is why I'm suggesting that terminological exactitude is critical. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 19:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm torn between just letting the discussion die and objecting to being called "picky". After wrestling with the issue, I'm afraid that I come down on the side of protest. "960 turns into 192" cannot be parsed as "960 undergoes a transformation operation 192" unless "transformation" and "192" are in [[apposition]], which is clearly not the intent. My suggestion that it meant 192 = mod (960,256) was apparently incorrect, but it was an honest attempt at making sense of "turns into". To me, the meaning was and is not obvious. So long as I'm not called "picky", I'm content to let it remain obscure. — [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 02:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
::::192 = mod (960,256) is exactly what I meant by "turns into". You take 960, apply the mod-256 operation to it, and you get 192. So the number 960 turns into the number 192. It is possible this terminology is popular in computer science because the input is often not needed after the operation and is discarded, or may even be replaced by writing something like {{code|1=x = mod(x, 256)}} which replaces x with it's value mod 256, actually turning x into a new number.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 02:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
| |||