 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"It follows that for every TC, (TC = RTC) is A-true or TC is A-equivalent to
RTC. .... Hence, (TC - RTC) is never false."
jstor.org
WOW! :)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:43:04 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote:
>"It follows that for every TC, (TC = RTC) is A-true or TC is A-equivalent to
>RTC. .... Hence, (TC - RTC) is never false."
>
> jstor.org
>
> WOW! :)
Good to know and better than looking at chicken guts :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:pdcda4d18v73c4feh22jl72ou3fqujs9a0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:43:04 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>"It follows that for every TC, (TC = RTC) is A-true or TC is A-equivalent
>>to
>>RTC. .... Hence, (TC - RTC) is never false."
>>
>> jstor.org
>>
>> WOW! :)
>
> Good to know and better than looking at chicken guts :)
Heh, I'm not going to ask what you've been doing today! ;)
Do you Stephen, (or anyone else), know what that statement actually
means? I know the result is 'never false', but 'what' is never false?
~Steve~
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:16:31 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:pdcda4d18v73c4feh22jl72ou3fqujs9a0@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:43:04 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>
>>>"It follows that for every TC, (TC = RTC) is A-true or TC is A-equivalent
>>>to
>>>RTC. .... Hence, (TC - RTC) is never false."
>>>
>>> jstor.org
>>>
>>> WOW! :)
>>
>> Good to know and better than looking at chicken guts :)
>
> Heh, I'm not going to ask what you've been doing today! ;)
>
> Do you Stephen, (or anyone else), know what that statement actually
>means? I know the result is 'never false', but 'what' is never false?
>
Haruspicy
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:16:31 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
> Do you Stephen, (or anyone else), know what that statement actually
>means? I know the result is 'never false', but 'what' is never false?
Always true?
I don't know the terms so it's out of my 20000 leagues :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:tkhea4trn6h2ql058qmv6pjmc1crcndb7q@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:16:31 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Do you Stephen, (or anyone else), know what that statement actually
>>means? I know the result is 'never false', but 'what' is never false?
>>
>
> Haruspicy
LOL! Ok, just did a quick look-up on Google, and this page explains it
quite well: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Har.html
Well, it's still an art form! :op
Heh, never heard of that word, ever. And there goes my perfect sig...
lol. ;)
~Steve~
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:42:35 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>> Haruspicy
>
>
> LOL! Ok, just did a quick look-up on Google, and this page explains it
>quite well: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Har.html
>
> Well, it's still an art form! :op
>
> Heh, never heard of that word, ever. And there goes my perfect sig...
>lol. ;)
I've worked with some people whose fault finding techniques were on a par with
looking at chicken livers.
Many a seagull has been sacrificed on my helideck :)
No names, no pack drill
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:uqhea4pl8l8pfk47tm8q07i1avsp76ceor@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:16:31 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you Stephen, (or anyone else), know what that statement actually
>>means? I know the result is 'never false', but 'what' is never false?
>
> Always true?
That makes sense to me!
>
> I don't know the terms so it's out of my 20000 leagues :)
Hehe, well worked in. :) In my head, I'm at minus 1000 leagues...
Figure that out! ;)
~Steve~
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:muiea49bvp6bjj3nte8m7g6ni62ks1dgb7@4ax.com...
> Many a seagull has been sacrificed on my helideck :)
LOL! Can you work up here and get rid of a few thousand?? Pleeease... :)
~Steve~
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:42:35 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Haruspicy
>
>
> LOL! Ok, just did a quick look-up on Google, and this page explains it
>quite well: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Har.html
>
> Well, it's still an art form! :op
>
> Heh, never heard of that word, ever. And there goes my perfect sig...
>lol. ;)
Well I had to look it up, I thought that it was "auspice" and when I was
checking the spelling I found the actual word was Haruspicy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
