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: Will Twentyman: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Aug 2004 13:02:17 GMT
Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2004 10:47:48 GMT, Robert Low
>> 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".
Well, I suppose I could try to claim some combination of
common usage and euphony in my defense. But I'll refrain,
and try to remember the correct version in future.
-- Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
- Next message: Will Twentyman: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Robert Low: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- In reply to: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Will Twentyman: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
