Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers <twirlip@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:10:57 +0000
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:30:50 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe
<poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK, then as I said you're mangling what other people are saying.
I'm only about 95% sure that I'm not, so I won't say any more!
No, I don't believe anybody would say it is impossible to say
with certainty that either x>1 or x<=1.
Prepare to be astonished, then.
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Keith Ramsay
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- References:
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: quasi
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Prev by Date: Re: a series
- Next by Date: Re: x^y + y^x + y^z + z^y + z^x + x^z
- Previous by thread: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Next by thread: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
