comp.theory

Liste des Groupes Pages :123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233
Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     i   i ii `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Fred. Zwarts
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     i   i i`- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     i   i `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     i   `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)3Richard Damon
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     i    `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)2olcott
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     i     `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i     `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)3Fred. Zwarts
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i      `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)2olcott
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii i       `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)4Fred. Zwarts
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii  `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)3olcott
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii   +- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i ii   `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Fred. Zwarts
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i`* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)10olcott
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i +* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)6Richard Damon
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i i`* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)5olcott
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i i +- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i i `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)3Fred. Zwarts
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i i  `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)2olcott
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i i   `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i `* Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)3Fred. Zwarts
9 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i  +- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Richard Damon
10 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i i  `- Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)1Fred. Zwarts
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      i `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i        i      `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Damon
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i        `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1olcott
7 May 25  i i iiiii    +* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable11Richard Heathfield
7 May 25  i i iiiii    i`* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable10olcott
7 May 25  i i iiiii    i `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable9Richard Heathfield
7 May 25  i i iiiii    i  +- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i  `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable7olcott
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i   `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable6Richard Heathfield
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i    `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable5olcott
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i     +- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i     `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable3Keith Thompson
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i      `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable2olcott
8 May 25  i i iiiii    i       `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
8 May 25  i i iiiii    `- Re: faithful simulations [was: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable]1joes
7 May 25  i i iiii`* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable2Richard Heathfield
7 May 25  i i iiii `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
7 May 25  i i iii`* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable11dbush
7 May 25  i i iii `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable10olcott
7 May 25  i i iii  `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable9dbush
7 May 25  i i iii   `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable8olcott
7 May 25  i i iii    `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable7dbush
7 May 25  i i iii     `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable6olcott
7 May 25  i i iii      `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable5dbush
7 May 25  i i iii       `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable4olcott
7 May 25  i i iii        `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable3dbush
7 May 25  i i iii         `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable2olcott
7 May 25  i i iii          `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1dbush
7 May 25  i i ii`* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable2olcott
8 May 25  i i ii `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Mikko
6 May 25  i i i+- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1olcott
7 May 25  i i i`* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable2Mikko
7 May 25  i i i `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
7 May 25  i i +- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Damon
7 May 25  i i +- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Mikko
7 May 25  i i `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
6 May 25  i `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable3Richard Damon
6 May 25  i  `* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable ---ELABORATED2olcott
7 May 25  i   `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable ---ELABORATED1Richard Damon
5 May 25  +* Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable2Richard Heathfield
5 May 25  i`- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Heathfield
6 May 25  `- Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable1Richard Damon
15 May 25 * How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?14olcott
15 May 25 +* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?5Richard Damon
15 May 25 i`* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?4olcott
15 May 25 i `* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?3Richard Damon
15 May 25 i  `* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?2olcott
15 May 25 i   `- Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?1Richard Damon
15 May 25 `* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?8Mikko
16 May 25  `* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?7olcott
16 May 25   +* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?3Mikko
16 May 25   i`* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?2olcott
17 May09:00   i `- Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?1Mikko
16 May 25   `* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?3Richard Damon
16 May 25    `* Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?2olcott
16 May 25     `- Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?1Richard Damon
15 May 25 * Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong8Ben Bacarisse
16 May 25 +* Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong2Richard Heathfield
16 May22:39 i`- Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong1Ben Bacarisse
16 May22:33 `* Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong5Ben Bacarisse
16 May22:44  `* Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong4olcott
16 May22:47   +* Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong2olcott
17 May01:28   i`- Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong1Richard Damon
17 May01:25   `- Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong1Richard Damon
16 May 25 * Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met13olcott
16 May 25 +* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
17 May00:46 i`* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
17 May01:08 i `- Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
16 May 25 `* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met9Mike Terry
16 May 25  `* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met8olcott
16 May 25   `* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met7Richard Damon
16 May 25    `* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met6olcott
16 May22:51     `* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met5Richard Damon
16 May23:14      +* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
17 May01:15      i`- Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
16 May23:24      `* Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met -- wrong words2olcott
17 May01:14       `- Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met -- wrong words1Richard Damon
10 May 25 * What it would take...143Richard Heathfield
10 May 25 +* Re: What it would take...10Richard Damon
10 May 25 i+* Re: What it would take...2Richard Damon
10 May 25 ii`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
10 May 25 i`* Re: What it would take...7olcott
10 May 25 i +- Re: What it would take...1Fred. Zwarts
10 May 25 i `* Re: What it would take...5wij
10 May 25 i  `* Re: What it would take...4olcott
10 May 25 i   +* Re: What it would take...2olcott
10 May 25 i   i`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
11 May 25 i   `- Re: What it would take...1Mikko
12 May 25 +* Re: What it would take...130Ben Bacarisse
12 May 25 i+* Re: What it would take...121Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 ii+* Re: What it would take...118Ben Bacarisse
13 May 25 iii+* Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?4olcott
13 May 25 iiii+- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1dbush
13 May 25 iiii+- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii`- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1Mikko
13 May 25 iii+* Re: What it would take...16Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii`* How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met15olcott
13 May 25 iiii +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met8Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met7olcott
13 May 25 iiii i +- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1dbush
13 May 25 iiii i +- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii i +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
13 May 25 iiii i i `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Mikko
13 May 25 iiii +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met5Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met4olcott
13 May 25 iiii i `* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
14 May 25 iiii i  `* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
14 May 25 iiii i   `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Fred. Zwarts
13 May 25 iii`* Re: What it would take...97Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii +- Re: What it would take...1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii +* Re: What it would take...8olcott
13 May 25 iii i+* Re: What it would take...5Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii ii+* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25 iii iii`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii ii`* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25 iii ii `- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii i+- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii i`- Re: What it would take...1Mikko
13 May 25 iii `* Re: What it would take...87André G. Isaak
13 May 25 iii  `* Re: What it would take...86olcott
13 May 25 iii   `* Re: What it would take...85Fred. Zwarts
13 May 25 iii    `* Re: What it would take...84Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric83olcott
13 May 25 iii      +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric74dbush
13 May 25 iii      i+* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric52olcott
13 May 25 iii      ii+* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric50dbush
13 May 25 iii      iii`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP49olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP47dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP46olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP44dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP43olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP42dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP41olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP40dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP39olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP38dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i      `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP37olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i       `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP36dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i        `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP35olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP6dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP28Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i          `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP27olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i           `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP26Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i            `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP25olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i             `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP24Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i              `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP23olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP21Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP20olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP18Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP17olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP11Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP10olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP8Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP7olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP6Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP4dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3olcott
15 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2Fred. Zwarts
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i      `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5joes
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP4olcott
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3Richard Damon
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2olcott
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i     `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1joes
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1joes
14 May 25 iii      iii i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      iii `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      ii`- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii      i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric21Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii      i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric9dbush
13 May 25 iii      i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric8Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii      i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric7Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii      i i  +- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1wij
13 May 25 iii      i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric5olcott
14 May 25 iii      i i   +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric3Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 iii      i i   i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric2olcott
14 May 25 iii      i i   i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1dbush
14 May 25 iii      i i   `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii      i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric11olcott
13 May 25 iii      i  +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric3Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii      i  i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric2olcott
14 May 25 iii      i  i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 iii      i  +- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1dbush
14 May 25 iii      i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric6Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric5olcott
14 May 25 iii      i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric4Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric3olcott
14 May 25 iii      i      `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric2Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      i       `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1olcott
13 May 25 iii      +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric7olcott
14 May 25 iii      i+- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 iii      i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric5Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric4olcott
15 May 25 iii      i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric3Richard Damon
15 May 25 iii      i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric2olcott
15 May 25 iii      i    `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii      `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 ii`* Re: What it would take...2Mike Terry
13 May 25 ii `- Re: What it would take...1Richard Heathfield
12 May 25 i`* Re: What it would take...8Andy Walker
12 May 25 i +- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1olcott
13 May 25 i +- Re: What it would take...1wij
13 May 25 i +- Re: What it would take...1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 i +* Re: What it would take...3Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 i i`* Re: What it would take...2Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 i i `- Re: What it would take...1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 i `- Re: What it would take...1Andy Walker
12 May 25 `* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25  `- Re: What it would take...1Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 * What. A. Slog.24vallor
14 May 25 +* Re: What. A. Slog.2olcott
15 May 25 i`- Re: What. A. Slog.1Richard Damon
14 May 25 +* Re: What. A. Slog.20Mike Terry
14 May 25 i+* The exact words of this spec are met2olcott
15 May 25 ii`- Re: The exact words of this spec are met1Richard Damon
14 May 25 i`* Re: What. A. Slog.17Mike Terry

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal