it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

How come?

The Rev Dodgson said:

it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

How come?

Kind of looks like 11 words to me.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

How come?

Kind of looks like 11 words to me.

Add the title, too.

Google doesn’t know everything.

And, it’s like those games on social media. Most smart phones suggest words based on what you’ve already typed*, so if someone gives you a sentence eg “If I have seen…” you can just keep pressing the middle suggested word until you have a sentence. It won’t make any sense, but it’s a sentence and everybody’s will be different.

*You can turn off this feature.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

How come?

Kind of looks like 11 words to me.

The other 8 are the thread title (but the 11 words aren’t on Google either).

Divine Angel said:

Google doesn’t know everything.

And, it’s like those games on social media. Most smart phones suggest words based on what you’ve already typed*, so if someone gives you a sentence eg “If I have seen…” you can just keep pressing the middle suggested word until you have a sentence. It won’t make any sense, but it’s a sentence and everybody’s will be different.

*You can turn off this feature.

No, but Google does have a pretty good idea of the exact words that have been used on the Internet.

If you substitute “I have stood on the shoulders of giants” into the sentence Google finds 1000’s of exact hits.

So the real question is, why do we focus on the development of accepted ideas, and neglect the examination of rejected ideas, when the latter is just as an important part of the scientific process?

If you put them all together in a post here I wonder how long before google picks it up?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

How come?

Kind of looks like 11 words to me.

The other 8 are the thread title (but the 11 words aren’t on Google either).

In any case, I don’t think your question makes sense. There would probably be millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of 19 word combinations that aren’t within Google’s grasp and it’s probably not fruitful to ask “why not” about some specific one of them.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Kind of looks like 11 words to me.

The other 8 are the thread title (but the 11 words aren’t on Google either).

In any case, I don’t think your question makes sense. There would probably be millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of 19 word combinations that aren’t within Google’s grasp and it’s probably not fruitful to ask “why not” about some specific one of them.

Of course, but they weren’t selected at random.

See response to DA.

Peak Warming Man said:

If you put them all together in a post here I wonder how long before google picks it up?

For reasons unknown to me, this forum seems to be relatively immune to Google’s charms.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If you put them all together in a post here I wonder how long before google picks it up?

For reasons unknown to me, this forum seems to be relatively immune to Google’s charms.

Yet perfectly findable to spam bots.

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If you put them all together in a post here I wonder how long before google picks it up?

For reasons unknown to me, this forum seems to be relatively immune to Google’s charms.

As in when searching the site directly or just generally googlin’ a phrase?

No links from other websites possibly. Apparently, the google doesn’t like webpages that no one else links to.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

Do you know any giants with bins?

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If you put them all together in a post here I wonder how long before google picks it up?

For reasons unknown to me, this forum seems to be relatively immune to Google’s charms.

As in when searching the site directly or just generally googlin’ a phrase?

No links from other websites possibly. Apparently, the google doesn’t like webpages that no one else links to.

What’s the search url for this forum?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

Do you know any giants with bins?

No, but I don’t know any giants with shoulders either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

Do you know any giants with bins?

No, but I don’t know any giants with shoulders either.

Here’s a giant’s bin

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Do you know any giants with bins?

No, but I don’t know any giants with shoulders either.

Here’s a giant’s bin

Thanks :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, but I don’t know any giants with shoulders either.

Here’s a giant’s bin

Thanks :)

And a giant with shoulders

I seem to recall there was a prize or contest some years ago to come up with the simplest phrase with no Google hits.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

Well maybe.

dv said:

I seem to recall there was a prize or contest some years ago to come up with the simplest phrase with no Google hits.

And if not, we can start one. I suppose there is no clear criteria for “simplest phrase”. Rev is off to a flier with “bins of giants”. Suppose we restrict it to simple common words, in a regular, grammatical formation. “lorries of worry” also gets nothing.

language is an encoding/decoding system, initially it began with grunts (and signs/gestures often used together), like pointing, in fact all language is pointing. I still use a lot of grunts, real grunts.

language is a bully, largely, you could say it’s an AK47 even. Most native grunts aren’t bully-tools, modern language though (common use of) is mostly made of bully-tools, or lends to.

you’d think with all the nuance in modern grunts, even written, it’d be less of a bully, but why would it?

you’re asking about convergence toward word formulations, peoples combinatorial efforts that way, which is largely constrained by imagination and familiarity.

imagination, serious imagination is work, involves mental discomfort, so its commonness is constrained by that.

is there a possibility space, of word formulations, I think for sure there is. Potentialities, absolutely.

dv said:

dv said:

I seem to recall there was a prize or contest some years ago to come up with the simplest phrase with no Google hits.

And if not, we can start one. I suppose there is no clear criteria for “simplest phrase”. Rev is off to a flier with “bins of giants”. Suppose we restrict it to simple common words, in a regular, grammatical formation. “lorries of worry” also gets nothing.

All the external bits of giants that I tried got at least 30 hits, but “spleens of giants” has no recorded previous use on the entire electric internet.

transition said:

language is an encoding/decoding system, initially it began with grunts (and signs/gestures often used together), like pointing, in fact all language is pointing. I still use a lot of grunts, real grunts.

language is a bully, largely, you could say it’s an AK47 even. Most native grunts aren’t bully-tools, modern language though (common use of) is mostly made of bully-tools, or lends to.

you’d think with all the nuance in modern grunts, even written, it’d be less of a bully, but why would it?

you’re asking about convergence toward word formulations, peoples combinatorial efforts that way, which is largely constrained by imagination and familiarity.

imagination, serious imagination is work, involves mental discomfort, so its commonness is constrained by that.

is there a possibility space, of word formulations, I think for sure there is. Potentialities, absolutely.

Hmmm

Maybe calling modern language a bully tool is an example of using modern language as a bully tool.

Certainly a widespread use of language is getting people to accept the authority of those in authority.

Not really what I had in mind, but no-one is interested in that, so please proceed.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, it’s because i stood on a chair”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

language is an encoding/decoding system, initially it began with grunts (and signs/gestures often used together), like pointing, in fact all language is pointing. I still use a lot of grunts, real grunts.

language is a bully, largely, you could say it’s an AK47 even. Most native grunts aren’t bully-tools, modern language though (common use of) is mostly made of bully-tools, or lends to.

you’d think with all the nuance in modern grunts, even written, it’d be less of a bully, but why would it?

you’re asking about convergence toward word formulations, peoples combinatorial efforts that way, which is largely constrained by imagination and familiarity.

imagination, serious imagination is work, involves mental discomfort, so its commonness is constrained by that.

is there a possibility space, of word formulations, I think for sure there is. Potentialities, absolutely.

Hmmm

Maybe calling modern language a bully tool is an example of using modern language as a bully tool.

Certainly a widespread use of language is getting people to accept the authority of those in authority.

Not really what I had in mind, but no-one is interested in that, so please proceed.

you didn’t spend that much time decoding what I wrote

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, it’s because i stood on a chair”.

Good one.

And just as valid as the Newton version, where “chair” = any mechanical device that allows us to do things we couldn’t do without it.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

language is an encoding/decoding system, initially it began with grunts (and signs/gestures often used together), like pointing, in fact all language is pointing. I still use a lot of grunts, real grunts.

language is a bully, largely, you could say it’s an AK47 even. Most native grunts aren’t bully-tools, modern language though (common use of) is mostly made of bully-tools, or lends to.

you’d think with all the nuance in modern grunts, even written, it’d be less of a bully, but why would it?

you’re asking about convergence toward word formulations, peoples combinatorial efforts that way, which is largely constrained by imagination and familiarity.

imagination, serious imagination is work, involves mental discomfort, so its commonness is constrained by that.

is there a possibility space, of word formulations, I think for sure there is. Potentialities, absolutely.

Hmmm

Maybe calling modern language a bully tool is an example of using modern language as a bully tool.

Certainly a widespread use of language is getting people to accept the authority of those in authority.

Not really what I had in mind, but no-one is interested in that, so please proceed.

you didn’t spend that much time decoding what I wrote

True.

And I won’t be bullied into it :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

dv said:

I seem to recall there was a prize or contest some years ago to come up with the simplest phrase with no Google hits.

And if not, we can start one. I suppose there is no clear criteria for “simplest phrase”. Rev is off to a flier with “bins of giants”. Suppose we restrict it to simple common words, in a regular, grammatical formation. “lorries of worry” also gets nothing.

All the external bits of giants that I tried got at least 30 hits, but “spleens of giants” has no recorded previous use on the entire electric internet.

Did you use other search engines?

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

And if not, we can start one. I suppose there is no clear criteria for “simplest phrase”. Rev is off to a flier with “bins of giants”. Suppose we restrict it to simple common words, in a regular, grammatical formation. “lorries of worry” also gets nothing.

All the external bits of giants that I tried got at least 30 hits, but “spleens of giants” has no recorded previous use on the entire electric internet.

Did you use other search engines?

No, I’m Googling today.

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, it’s because i stood on a chair”.

Even “it’s because i stood on a chair” gets no hits, and “because i stood on a chair” gets exactly 1.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

All the external bits of giants that I tried got at least 30 hits, but “spleens of giants” has no recorded previous use on the entire electric internet.

Did you use other search engines?

No, I’m Googling today.

Just thinking that other engines may produce difference results.
I got this using Bing

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, it’s because i stood on a chair”.

Even “it’s because i stood on a chair” gets no hits, and “because i stood on a chair” gets exactly 1.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, it’s because i stood on a chair”.

Good one.

And just as valid as the Newton version, where “chair” = any mechanical device that allows us to do things we couldn’t do without it.

Could have been that Lucasian Chair that Hawking used

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Did you use other search engines?

No, I’m Googling today.

Just thinking that other engines may produce difference results.
I got this using Bing

Did you start with a +?

Bing doesn’t treat phrases in quotes as an exact search unless you start with +.

“I have seen further than giants” also gets nowt

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, it’s because i stood on a chair”.

Even “it’s because i stood on a chair” gets no hits, and “because i stood on a chair” gets exactly 1.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

Possibly because it is grammatically incorrect. It should read If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood on a chair

Zero hits for
“because I looked in the rubbish bins”

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “it’s because i stood on a chair” gets no hits, and “because i stood on a chair” gets exactly 1.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

Possibly because it is grammatically incorrect. It should read If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood on a chair

But the phrase “because I stood on a chair” only gets one hit, and even that is a false hit which doesn’t even mention chairs, so it doesn’t matter what you start it with.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

Possibly because it is grammatically incorrect. It should read If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood on a chair

But the phrase “because I stood on a chair” only gets one hit, and even that is a false hit which doesn’t even mention chairs, so it doesn’t matter what you start it with.

You have to scroll down to see (or search) it.

The entry says:

“I remember that whenever someone did something stupid, a silence would fall over the cadet mess hall at dinner and there would begin a tinkling of spoons on glasses. Then the name of the guilty party would be chanted by all present until the guilty party stood on his chair for all to see, and announced his error for all to hear. I remember it well because I stood on a chair one evening.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men, because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “If I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

No results found for “I have seen further than other men because i stood on a chair”.

Possibly because it is grammatically incorrect. It should read If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood on a chair

But the phrase “because I stood on a chair” only gets one hit, and even that is a false hit which doesn’t even mention chairs, so it doesn’t matter what you start it with.

True.

what about i have seen farther?

:-)

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Possibly because it is grammatically incorrect. It should read If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood on a chair

But the phrase “because I stood on a chair” only gets one hit, and even that is a false hit which doesn’t even mention chairs, so it doesn’t matter what you start it with.

You have to scroll down to see (or search) it.

The entry says:

“I remember that whenever someone did something stupid, a silence would fall over the cadet mess hall at dinner and there would begin a tinkling of spoons on glasses. Then the name of the guilty party would be chanted by all present until the guilty party stood on his chair for all to see, and announced his error for all to hear. I remember it well because I stood on a chair one evening.

I did search.

Must have mistyped or something I suppose.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But the phrase “because I stood on a chair” only gets one hit, and even that is a false hit which doesn’t even mention chairs, so it doesn’t matter what you start it with.

You have to scroll down to see (or search) it.

The entry says:

“I remember that whenever someone did something stupid, a silence would fall over the cadet mess hall at dinner and there would begin a tinkling of spoons on glasses. Then the name of the guilty party would be chanted by all present until the guilty party stood on his chair for all to see, and announced his error for all to hear. I remember it well because I stood on a chair one evening.

I did search.

Must have mistyped or something I suppose.

What I am saying is that it is one of those weird pages that don’t present the text until you scroll down, so a search won’t initially show it up.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

You know what that proves, don’t you.

Google has stopped indexing this forum.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

You know what that proves, don’t you.

Google has stopped indexing this forum.

It’s weird this place, its like some hidden bolt for the insane eccentric
You could come across it perhaps by accident and see millions of posts by strangers discussing all manner of things

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

You know what that proves, don’t you.

Google has stopped indexing this forum.

It’s weird this place, its like some hidden bolt for the insane eccentric
You could come across it perhaps by accident and see millions of posts by strangers discussing all manner of things

Leave Bolt out of it!

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

language is an encoding/decoding system, initially it began with grunts (and signs/gestures often used together), like pointing, in fact all language is pointing. I still use a lot of grunts, real grunts.

language is a bully, largely, you could say it’s an AK47 even. Most native grunts aren’t bully-tools, modern language though (common use of) is mostly made of bully-tools, or lends to.

you’d think with all the nuance in modern grunts, even written, it’d be less of a bully, but why would it?

you’re asking about convergence toward word formulations, peoples combinatorial efforts that way, which is largely constrained by imagination and familiarity.

imagination, serious imagination is work, involves mental discomfort, so its commonness is constrained by that.

is there a possibility space, of word formulations, I think for sure there is. Potentialities, absolutely.

Hmmm

Maybe calling modern language a bully tool is an example of using modern language as a bully tool.

Certainly a widespread use of language is getting people to accept the authority of those in authority.

Not really what I had in mind, but no-one is interested in that, so please proceed.

you didn’t spend that much time decoding what I wrote

Fool’s errand.

>Fool’s errand.

why’d you bother?

the thread seems to be, in some way, about word formulations, their frequency of use, and searchability, and what searchability might suggest or indicate.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Even “bins of giants” has zero hits.

I think that’s a bit surprising.

You know what that proves, don’t you.

Google has stopped indexing this forum.

It’s weird this place, its like some hidden bolt for the insane eccentric
You could come across it perhaps by accident and see millions of posts by strangers discussing all manner of things

Every now and then i try to find something on this forum using Google. 5 or so years it used to work sporadically. Now it doesn’t seem to work at all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

Meanwhile 20 words “If I have seen further than other men, it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants porn” gets 59 million exact matches!

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants”

Those 19 perfectly ordinary words have not been used in that exact order ever before.
Or if they have, Google doesn’t know about it.

Meanwhile 20 words “If I have seen further than other men, it is because I looked in the rubbish bins of giants porn” gets 59 million exact matches!

:)

I’m not sure I want to look into the porn that giants reject.

what’s the smallest natural number that attains 0 search results on ‘ur engine of choice ¿

note that some joker seems to have filled the internet with numbers up to (as currently) around 10017630002

SCIENCE said:

note that some joker seems to have filled the internet with numbers up to (as currently) around 10017630002

All the possible 11 digit phone numbers are there but you get some nulls starting with 2 such as 21953585400

SCIENCE said:

note that some joker seems to have filled the internet with numbers up to (as currently) around 10017630002

Hey I have a lot of free time. And what sort of nerd-Jedi trick did you use to ascertain this tidbit?

https://mylearning.nps.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Geek-Venn-Diagram.jpg

i searched for 10017630000