Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 6/28/2024 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote:What is regarded as common knowledge depends on the target audience.On 2024-06-27 17:18:23 +0000, olcott said:The details of common knowledge of self-evident truth
On 6/27/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-06-26 12:25:28 +0000, olcott said:That is a stupid thing to say.
I will use your system of reasoning.You nave not shown the proof.
The semantics of decimal arithmetic prove that 2 + 3 = 5.
are never required to be provided, not even in patents.
When I say that this is proven by the semantics of theThe x86 semantics is not common knowledge in comp.theory. Claims about
x86 language then the entire semantics of the x86 language
is incorporated by reference.
Thanks. Fortunately you got the intended meaning.No, it is not. Sometimes it is important to say the obvious. Of course,You just did do this:
other things should be said, too, though not necessarily at the same time.
When you try to disagree with arithmetic that provesThat "when" refers to 'never'.
you are a troll that wants to infinitely delay any and
all closure at the possible expense of life on Earth.
>>> You nave (typo for "have") not shown the proof.
Indeed we could. Though people who prefer to talk about details ofWe could say that this is true:The same system of reasoning that I use to show howTrue, but your reasoning is not good enough for serious use.
the input to H0(DD) does not halt.
2 + 3 = 5 and get into an infinite debate about
exactly what the English word "this" means.
A dishonest deflection like Trump did on two keyHe has a good knowledge about the claims voters want to hear and how
questions last night. He also flat out lied in
most of his answers.
Yes, we can stay here until you prove something.If you don't sufficiently understand the x86 language then*Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*Yes, as long as you don't provide that you have proven nothing.
*language known to be true*
we can stop right here.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.