JamesTauber wrote:
>1) the problem is theirs not ours
>vs
>2) it is their problem not our problem
So, if I understand well, our problems are ours, and their problems are theirs.
Thanks for the teaching: I didn't dare to put a "s" on "their", up to now,
especially after a plural (but only con
I find that words and their meaning can have magical properties, despite
this discussion not seeming to me to have bearing on my article; perhaps a
new thread on semantics can be started? It matters not to me.
For example, if I say all that is is all that is, then I am not really
saying much. On
Oops, instead of neither all those times, I think I "needed" to say "none"
whatever "need" means in the context of language.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Brian Tenneson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find that words and their meaning can have magical properties, despite
> this discussion not
Brian,
you can count on me to support you for the verbosity medal. In your longlong
blurb 4 lines are randomly printed, but from the 5th to the 2nd from bottom
there is an empty word-space at ~60% of the lines, neetly arranged as an
internal (in-text) margin. I admired it.
Bruno, btw, is grammatic
John,
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian,
> you can count on me to support you for the verbosity medal. In your
> longlong blurb 4 lines are randomly printed, but from the 5th to the 2nd
> from bottom there is an empty word-space at ~60% of the lines,
Oh, I'd also like to guess that if O(x) means that x is an omniscient device
or oracle that the implications go this way:
O(x) ==> R([x])
AND
O(x) ==> S(x).
The second one should be easy to prove while the first, for me, is less
obvious and possibly false.
Let's suppose that has any bearing on t
6 matches
Mail list logo
