Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?
From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 08/28/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Reply: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Aug 2004 11:07:26 GMT
On 28 Aug 2004 10:47:48 GMT, Robert Low
<mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk> said:
>
> David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>>(Robert Low) wrote:
>>>You have no idea what 'a forteriori' means, do you?
>>
>>uh, to be fair i don't either. if you'd said 'a fortiori' i'd
>>understand what -that-0 meant...
>
> Oh, bugger. My mistake. I'm sure I've been saying and writing 'a
> forteriori' for a long time, too. Must have somehow polluted it with 'a
> posteriori'.
You and alot of others, as a quick google shows. Frankly, I think it
rolls off the tongue rather better than "a fortiori".
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Reply: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Loading