Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?
From: Robert Low (mtx014_at_linux.services.coventry.ac.uk)
Date: 08/28/04
- Next message: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Will Twentyman: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Aug 2004 13:03:22 GMT
David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>(Robert Low) wrote:
>>and writing 'a forteriori' for a long time, too.
>>Must have somehow polluted it with 'a posteriori'.
>ah. seems to be a common misspelling, based on the
>number of hits in a google search. i couldn't figure
>out where people got it from - 'a posteriori' must
>be the reason.
Startlingly common, if anything: and used by too many
people who ought to know better (amongst whom I include
myself).
-- Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
- Next message: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Will Twentyman: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Loading