Re: Another claim for P=NP
From: Alex Hunsley (lard_at_tardis.ed.ac.molar.uk)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Paul E. Black: "Re: Sum of n numbers 0..1"
- Previous message: Mark \(The WannaBe\): "Re: Testing for acceptance of Kleene closure of alphabet"
- In reply to: Robert Low: "Re: Another claim for P=NP"
- Next in thread: Robert Low: "Re: Another claim for P=NP"
- Reply: Robert Low: "Re: Another claim for P=NP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:54:22 +0100
Robert Low wrote:
> Alex Hunsley <lard@tardis.ed.ac.molar.uk> wrote:
>
>>Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>>
>>>http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/scb.pnp.solved14.pdf
>>
>>".... like what we provide."
>>Ugh. What a *lovely* turn of phrase.
>
>
> You mean that you don't like what they provide?
No, I mean the construction "[It is] not a meta-level argument like what
we provide." is ungrammatical and wrong, particularly in a semi-formal
paper.
- Next message: Paul E. Black: "Re: Sum of n numbers 0..1"
- Previous message: Mark \(The WannaBe\): "Re: Testing for acceptance of Kleene closure of alphabet"
- In reply to: Robert Low: "Re: Another claim for P=NP"
- Next in thread: Robert Low: "Re: Another claim for P=NP"
- Reply: Robert Low: "Re: Another claim for P=NP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]