Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's

From: |-|erc (H_at_r.c)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:24:55 +1000

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>
> Especially since many of us *do* know many of the ins and outs
> of SQL -- I for one. Not that SQL is the perfect
> mathematical language (how does one print out the
> results of "SELECT NUMBER FROM NATURAL WHERE NUMBER > 100000"
> anyway? :-) ), but |-|erc can't even seem to use it correctly.
>

There's more SQL lines of code being run in 100s of companies today
with my initials on it than the number of times you've defined 0.1, 0.2...

As for the rest of you, all I'm asking for is a MISTAKE?

Something not subjective that everyone can prove is wrong. Barring
of course the half dozen major proofs under discussion since they
are what I'm refuting.

Do I have to find mistakes for George, Ghost and Barb here to prove a point?

When you write something, its shown wrong, then you say 'that was wrong'
or in your cases you ditch the thread.

Find one place I ditched the thread for being wrong, you all do it every week.

like this :
[Herc] : a UTM applied to any number always finished after time t, t e N

[Mr Fixer] : that is wrong! All systems of computation equiv. to TMs have
                  representations of "algorithms" that never halt.

FIND ONE!

If you can't then shut up. If you think you're also Godlike I'll post your errors.

MISTAKE : intentional assertion of an erronous concept, not spelling, typos etc.

Nothing subjective like YOU DONT EVEN KNOW 4GLs like George has
stumbled over.

Herc

Relevant Pages