C Sharp & Me

                                                                                                Microsoft Learns Training C# Module

 Counting With C Sharp

The arithmetic for C# coincides with what core education in America is about. We understand it has a quadrilateral expalanation from what we learned in elementary education. Technically, a machine and a user interact not on a quadrilateral understanding, and not even a linear understanding of logic involved with the binary that supports these fascinating ins and outs of word generating equations. According to history, in any part of the world, it began with our hands. What is the first thing we grab at to begin our counting mechanical relationships? 

We are placing logic with binary languages (which is just translation of each letter that the machine/robot understands as programmable data) and relying very heavily on its structure to produce quality conversations between user and machine. It really isn't though... is it? 

I hate to admit it, but if we keep upgrading the machine, we are going to outdo ourselves first - before we can break it to dissect and improve after. What of this technology do we want? What is the ultimate goal? 

C# identified an equation that brings me to the history of counting. 

The image above indicates how a variable is incremented using the "++" operator/keyword, which is supposed to make it easier. That's great, it does. But what I want to understand with this arithmetic is the counting systems of history where they begin to integrate alphabets with numeral icons and coincide this to favor what can be considered a multiplication table. 

So, we have 1-9, A-Z, and 0. Where does 0 coincide with the alphabet? Is there an operator that can connect these icons/symbols/letters/numbers? Is that what ++ does? No, it can be related to the Mayan "repeat" icon which is similar to a colon (example is ':') icon. This is interesting, considering it doesn't want to function as an entire sequence - but it does. It just means to increment by 1. 

AGAIN. I favor counting by 1, but I don't think many people understand today - how this is decrementing our mathematical concepts and space of what we are using to communicate with machine and user. 

We can do better. 

I do admire everything that software programming has done thus far, and beyond, and after - but I just want to express my knowledge disconnection and time with comprehending the "logic" between the languages that we are using and relying on and what it is doing to our future programming. I don't want this time to be a waste either. 

How do we connect these little tid bit peices that seem to keep us standing still? It is great, but, I want to do something that has more human history and in-depth research to what can create programming languages for the concrete philosophies and evolved concepts that have proven themselves in nature and not forced. There are downfalls to forcing these programming languages. It becomes spaghetti code. 

The interpretation is literal - have you checked stackOverflow lately?

I found myself on StackOverFlow and had to waste literally 10 minutes on a phrase that was typed the same - but within itself, jumbled, and made into the same thing. The headlines for these arguments are often misinterpreted into what program does what with this code - and why it didn't work - and what did work. It is a community. Very intimidating if you are just beginning. 

I go in this place, brand new, look around, and get stunned by this argument --- and end up feeling like a fool for trying to understand the HISTORY of the concepts. This isn't taught, by the way - where the C# protocol arrived to describe or need this keyword, function, method, etc. in a programming scheme. That part never gets explained. I'm the type, that kind've needs that, to understand what you are referencing so I can imagine this concept as useful and relevant. 

There isn't anything like it at this time. 

We literally need to consider these strategist histories and reference where you were inspired for this keyword genius compilation that got us the interface design tools we see today. What was it? Who was it? Do you even know? 

I recommend researching Zero philosophies in your culture, language, and stand by them. Get those approved with your American history making techniques and revamp what being an American is all about. We literally need you to be inspired by more American "doings" and program based on that history. This would provoke a country people to develop the lifestyle for space travel, pioneering, and sustainability. Preserving what we are inspired by - nature (what I use currently) - helps me accept this. We are making virtual realities after all. 

Reading Lists: 

1. "The Nothing That Is" by Robert Kaplan. 

2. "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Seife (Personally have not read yet, but on deck!)

3. Red Rising Series by Pierce Brown

You have to know not to take these literal. Zero mathematics isn't proven on the other side of the world, much less in Mayan Civilization - it is drought in comparison to what it should be today. Those languages have not been properly translated and are here today from compiling into English society with education systems that have not been formed at the time to accept a different superior mathematical system. They heard about Zero here, went back home and tried figuring out where it was this whole time... it's a difficult study to prove. But they do it best in "The Nothing That Is" - which is truly inspiring and awesome for the rich history in commerce, diversity, and the counting phenomena that has improved each of the cultures within it. The concept of Zero has yet to be revealed with what I have seen so far, and it shows in our core education with mathematics - a dot. It is nothing. It is emptiness. It is a hub that makes everything work in connection. 

Just a reminder that Native Americans are the oldest human beings in the world and we have had to colonize our new modern living through translation. We are always going to sound unintelligent, for being taught the English ways. The actual perspective is that intelligence isn't taught, it is forced to learn eloquent communication as a type of prestige you are born with. So... a couple of generations later. Here we are. Learning how to count in C#, asking the simple question of, "Where does this come from?"

What is the most likely answer? 

Because, I can't explain this whole blog post in one keyword that explains exactly what I am trying to ask: Why does it looks like that? (Also, do you realize what you DON'T have to learn and still understand?)

How are you not asking these questions to find out while its still a thousand years fresh on their mind? (In comparison to human history, a thousand years is actually pretty fresh when talking about zero as a mathematical concept.)

___Mischief

C# Static As A Data Type

 

First of all, static to me - is a fuzzy screen of squares that buzz over a screen in an erratic display for abstraction to render difficulty due to the compositional speed of its display. 

In C#, static is explained in static modifier - C# Reference | Microsoft Learn as an ability for Classes, Interfaces, Structures by adding a "static" modifier to fields, methods, properties, operators, events, and constructors. (Not with indexers or finalizers.) 

So - in the revised version (for my understanding) - I wrestle with this as something that is not an object but can define itself for inclusion of the entire class upon appearance and need. The example in the link provided definition for static used as a counter. I think the parameters set with static include when it can and when it cannot be used. Not sure why yet - and it doesn't state why it cannot be used just anywhere either. The code that is used with the link, also uses it in a down-casting to return after each section has been run. As I continue to learn C# anticipating my next C# course - I am glad I am taking extra measures to pass my courses for career fulfillment for these very particular questions I do not know the answers to yet. (I enjoy documenting these learning flubs to familiarize myself with teaching or interpreting these programming keyword tools and future tool making I may do in my software designs.)

Static being used - I imagine the fuzzy channels that used to be the "in-between" from one channel to the next when that static would appear like a bridging from one to the next. So, using this (TIME) as a means to explain the bigger picture - which is, that all channels are on static, its just, the ones that come in with picture have been produced on specified channels to output where, all channels are technically made of - static. 

Is this supposed to be the internet static - where it is also hiding secret data type values as "static" to explain a side-by-side approach to interfacing the space of code here? It is creating a place that can exist with certain rules, that use the space from one element to the next not in size, distance, or any other data type for that matter - and putting static as an explanation for data being written on another unexplainable internet/signal. I like it - but am worried about it also. 

If internet in signals (plus all of the code and gadgets and system networks with bells and whistles) cannot be explained as a space of static itself and isolated to channels of code as a modifier for fields, methods, properties, operators, events, and constructors - then it should remain consistent in what this space is called. 

Why is there no explanation of code layers and weaving methods that are occurring of content quality to define space as what data types go to what space and have a course on explaining why this computationally is correct because the binary and character data types must match to correlate its boolean match? Decimal to Binary ASCII approved - Where is the course on mapping these abilities of code and why that is needed at that point? (I use weaving here because I envision the ground/soil of interface designs with binary to be what we are mutually in agreement with. What 'weaves' could also mean, what can bring connection by process or function without needing to make a synpasis match - like an actual two of the same thing uniting as one (smh, I don't want this but I know you understood it more than the weaving concept). This is actually pretty dangerous to do, I can't believe computers are still doing - by the way, just straight up connecting to each other.)

One of the difficult parts on learning programming is what to envision. What is internet? What are they writing it on? What is understanding it? This might be ridiculous of me to suggest, but, we're not cutting corners - are we? How do we know for sure?

Using static as a data type, not an object data type, but of itself - requires further explanation for me. I am intrigued at the idea of using this as a canvas approach to use access modifiers as adjectives from a structure there (but not always talked about or used). It's almost like trying to render an image of what internet and programming is by the developer's point of view - by syntax. 

Currently seeking an imagery of what I am creating as a Software Developer. Code, creates the language I describe what is being able to move an image into production and the syntax creates the machine language necessary to operate more than image if necessary. What I want from any programming language is the ability to create my [internet] space...

And this goes into something deep. 

First generation programmers and presently learning programmers to the future of signal processing in the environment. 

And be able to explain what I am creating and where I am creating it. 

An idealistic approach to anything we introduce to the world should have the seventh-generation perspective (we do not decide until we understand the impact of the seventh generation with our decision-making, for it is us that are borrowing the future's world) and technological input and its output are not short of that. 

__Mischief