Maybe we are both confused with the term "equivalence". I consider that "toYou are confused because you are obviously making up the meaning of words as you go along to suit your blinkered point of view.
be equivalent" is not the same as "to be equal to" (operator "="). For that
reason, a better word than "equivalence" might be "analogy".
...whereas "+" means "carry out a bitwise addition of these binary values"Here appears to be a glitch...(physical level <> logical level).
Your 24 hours expired. I cannot see your disproof .I think you were given the proof you asked for but you claimed to have forgotten it less than four hours later, despite a reminder in the meantime.
not to expand this thread with nonsenses and petties, since I am not willingMaybe if everyone simply responds with a link to the post with the proof that Albert is trying to forget and ignore he will either have to acknowledge it or go away.
to respond them.
those who have difficulties in differentiating between their arses and headsYou obviously have no trouble making the differentiation as you have one in the other.
I'm giving you 24 hours G R A T I S to make me F O O L !!!I don't think there's any need for that. Not just that it's rude, but you've done a good enough job of making yourself a FOOL as it is.
I can perfectly realize and "see" analogy between arithmeticOk, let's leave the nitty gritty out of it.
operation and concatenation operation (don't use "equivalence"
since it appears to make confusion), and thus between the "+"
and the "||" operators (the analogy in the sense of their
Maybe we see different pictures in our heads.
I believe Scott already gave you a proof of whateverScott proved NOTHING. Scott was joking. Except that, it was not Scott who was supposed to disprove my conclusion.
it was you were on about in this post: