Re:Illegal prime
by AndrewDucker on Monday January 11, 2010 @11:51AM
(#1045421)
You're merely arguing there that a number is not necessarily an image, because it cannot be converted into one without knowing how. And you'd be right. But the image is still a number, because it's stored as a series of bits, and any series of bits is interpretable as a number.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I asked: "How can an image be a number?", when I should have asked instead: "How can a number be an image?"
To use the verb to be in this scenario, I demand a one-to-one correspondence between numbers and images. If a number y can represent two distinct images x1 and x2, then we can't use "is", we can only use "can be".