Yep you really don't get it at all and you are off in Bill lala land in another example of "Bill in the box"
No one said you couldn't count by anything you like what I said is SUPPOSE you are REQUIRED to do a whole number count.
REQUIRED is a pretty exact term even for you Bill.
I have no doubt you get errors about type on programming because the language protects itself from idiots because it REQUIRES a certain type in it's function and protects itself from idiots.
All I can say is it is fortunate you only do a little programming and on nothing critical
Unfortunately complex maths problem has no way to protect itself from idiots it will just do the maths regardless of whether it's valid to do so or not and spits the stupid invalid answer.
That is the joke I was playing with you in all the samples but clearly this is way beyond your understanding and as you are happy with the stupid answers you are getting ... be happy my friend
It really isn't worth wasting time on because you aren't trying to actually understand anything, you are doing what you often accuse Paul of going off on tangents because all you care about is being "right" and so you are bending the argument to stupidity. Don't you ever complain about Paul doing that again.
You are "right" Bill whatever that means because you are not worth spending this amount of time on and going thru this crazy garbage which has almost reached Marosz standard crazy.
