Sujet : Re: The actual truth is that ... industry standard stipulative definitions
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 19. Oct 2024, 16:29:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <10dbf21d6bb94b03634d464099b683e0eea06dc4@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:35:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/19/2024 7:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-19 11:17:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-16 17:14:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/16/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-15 12:33:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/15/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-14 16:05:20 +0000, olcott said:
It says nothing about disagreement.
In particular, one may diagree with the usefulness of a
stipulative definition.
It seems that my reviewers on this forum make being disagreeable a
top priority.
Irrelevant.
Not at all. If reviewers are lying about my work that is libelous.
This is not a court.
As is if you lie about your reviewers.
I never lie because I believe that this could result in eternal
damnation.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.
So you say. Would be more credible if you would sometimes show some
honesty.
It seems to me that I am always honest and most of my reviewers mostly
use the strawman deception in all of their rebuttals.
Same here.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…