1.) 0.99999... * 10 = 9.99999...
2.) 9.99999... - 0.99999... = 9
3.) 9 / 9 = 1
Therefore 0.99999... = 1. Q.E.D.
The spores germinate only in very alkaline environments...
I see what you did there.
Exaggerate much? This is up there with the summary from a few years ago about how the squid's beak will revolutionize engineering .
we don't make enough software we
We make the USAF look like wusses.
The Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, NYPD and Stokes County Volunteer Fire Brigade all say the same thing.
One of these is more useful than the other.
I agree. All the logic and knowledge in the world is effectively useless if you can't ever get it out of your head. Logic may structure your thoughts, but you throw all that structure away by abusing whatever protocol you're using to communicate (e.g. grammar). You're forcing everyone else to recreate the context and subtleties of your ideas before they can even wrestle with the ideas themselves. Clear communication avoids this problem and saves everybody time if you want to get something done. The ability to operate as a specialist without isolating yourself from other specialists is a crucial skill in an increasingly fragmented and complex society. If you can't do your job and answer questions about it, then you are effectively not doing your job. Now, if you don't have particularly subtle thoughts (like most of America), or if you style yourself as an ivory-tower logician then this is fine and I wish you luck. But saying that proper spelling and grammar are orthogonal to skill in other disciplines is obtuse at best.
... but I bet you could some how measure how disordered the data stream was and make a guess about weather or not it was encrypted. It seems that encrypted data should also have some level of order to it.
Encryption doesn't work that way, at least not good encryption. The goal of every encryption scheme is to transform a plaintext input into a ciphertext output that is indistinguishable from random noise. Your example of frequency analysis being used to attack ROT13 shows that it's a terrible encryption algorithm because it leaves so much information about the original message embedded in the transformed output. Every time you hear about an encryption scheme being broken, you're hearing about some way to recover information about the plaintext from the ciphertext. That information is what allows adversaries to beat brute-force decryption (although not always by much - a scheme with a keyspace of 2^n is considered broken if an attack is found that requires only 2^n-1 of the keys to be examined).
The OP brings up an interesting point, of knowing when your data is actually decrypted.
This is why a one-time pad is "perfect". A one-time pad leaves absolutely zero information about the original plaintext apart from length (and even that can be obfuscated by null padding). That means that there is no way for an adversary, even through a brute-force attack, to positively identify the original plaintext. Let's say we encrypt "HELLO WORLD" with a one-time pad, and the output is "ZBCHGRTKOP". "ZBCHGRTKOP" could be brute-forced by an adversary and produce "HELLO WORLD", but such an attempt would also produce "BUY MUSTARD" or "URINAL TOWN" or any other string of 10 characters (possibly including nulls - remember padding!). All of these are equally plausible if the one-time pad scheme is implemented perfectly. The point is that, depending on the encryption scheme, in a sense you can't always know that you've done it perfectly. Recreated internal structure is a good signal that you have done it correctly, but if you were trying to decrypt something you knew NOTHING about (couldn't tell it from random noise), you'd have a hell of a time telling whether you screwed up your decryption. Make things any clearer?
If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner