.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 9/18/06, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, would the Glorious Speaker please collect the votes.
Not me! *dances*
--
The Goddess Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 10/26/06, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agora can't die... it just can't...
On 10/26/06, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Does anyone else care if this game continues, really?
2. Would it help if I published the new ruleset? (Answer honestly,
I don't want to waste time if no
On 11/9/06, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby gamble and commit wanton adultery.
insert classic Kelly quote
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
)
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2006-December/002743.html
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 12/20/06, Manuel Lanctot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You asked for it, you got it.
http://agora.lendemaindeveille.com
I'll buy a domain name if we use it enough. Now let's see how long it
takes for spam bots
to find it.
If you like, I can put up a record for it on agoranomic.org.
--
Taral
On 12/20/06, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forget that. If I were still registered I'll allege that Goethe had
won by paradox.
I'd. Damn fast typing.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
are mutually
exclusive X for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
. :)
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
AWW!
On 1/10/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I register again. :D
You deregistered on 13 December, so rule 869 prohibits you from
registering today.
--
Michael Slone
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's
it
no longer has any numerical properties.
It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/11/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to
actually construct a free ultrafilter.
Nobody's been able to construct a free ultrafilter because it's
impossible to do so.
Hope
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite
filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and
it isn't even an ordered ring.
Hm, it seems I was mistaken.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 2/26/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby registers as a player.
Oh, beautiful!
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
free votes.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
of the judiciary?
Err... it's just a summary of a larger list of items. Sure, you can
publish it, and if someone is interested in implementing it, please
get a hold of me so we can discuss the full list.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Abracadabra! *poof*
On 4/11/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*prod*
The website's still in its old crap form. Please put up the page that
I drafted at http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/tmp/agoranomic.html.
-zefram
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's
On 4/25/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'm voting against this, because I don't see Zefram adding emself to
the map in this proposal.
Eep. I thought I'd attract votes against if I *did* add anything.
Yes!
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 28, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Taral wrote:
I, The Goddess Eris, register.
I, Promotor OscarMeyr, welcome you back. How was your vacation?
Fascinating.
--
The Goddess Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's
On 4/29/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Murphy the holder of the office
of Clerk of the Courts.
I object. This is a scam-response, not a failure to do the job. Goethe
seems to do it well.
--
The Goddess Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove
You don't have to ask permission. :D
On 4/30/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby request permission to register under the name BobTHJ.
Thanks,
BobTHJ
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/3/07, quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So non-natural players may not vote on democratic proposals?
Exactly.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/3/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4941 4942 4943 4944 4945 4946
AI 3 3 3 3 1.1 1.1
VI 0.75 7 3.5 *U*1 2.5
4945 looks like failed to pass to me. Or is there some quirk I'm missing?
--
Taral [EMAIL
On 5/3/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I reported it as failing to pass. In particular, the Text of
adopted proposals section does not include it.
Oops, I got the columns confused, thought 4945 was Slim the map.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's
is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
Any suggestions on wording?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons.
How boring.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
deontic logic might be closer, but it axiomatizes the concept
that ought implies can.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant executorship of the Pineapple Partnership to Goethe and Zefram.
Grant executorship of Human Point Two to Murphy and Quazie.
Are proposals empowered to change executorship?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything
On 5/9/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/9/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I'm going on what wikipedia says: deontic logics are modal
logics with axiom D: O(A) - P(A).
But P(A) means that A is permissible, not that A is possible.
I'm working through one of von
of the individual rather than the
ambiguity of the description which prevents public agreement.
You, sir, are cited for the use of domain-specific meanings in a
general context. :P
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 5/15/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would expect a goddess to know not to call me ``sir''.
Bah, you'd spoil a perfectly quotable statement with some nitpick. :P
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
She, he... do you really want to get that close?
-- Me
.
Curiouser and curiouser.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
the existing text.)
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Don't force redundant elections
FOR
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
is hereby deregistered.
I am not sure that a proposal is empowered to deregister players.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 5/23/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
I am not sure that a proposal is empowered to deregister players.
Why not? Proposals can make pretty much any change to the gamestate.
They can? Where does it say that?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any
You can withdraw and resubmit.
On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 5/30/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assign CFJ 1684 to Eris. Eris is now turned.
Meanie.
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 6/6/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I write Kallisti on the back of 1 Share of Primo Corporation,
then transfer it to Eris.
I attempt to eat 1 Share of Primo Corporation, but it doesn't taste
very good. Whatever happened to using apples?
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know
-natural-person members.
A partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is
the same as that of another registered partnership.
Very good. Now just identify them and we'll avoid any issues.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give
On 6/7/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
Very good. Now just identify them and we'll avoid any issues.
We voted against that already: proposals 4973 and 4974.
Sorry, math identify - make equal.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can
colors bookmarklet:
http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 6/11/07, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary.
Spurious of?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 6/11/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/11/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spurious of?
It's just reification of indices. I don't see the problem.
It's not a problem - just an aesthetic thing.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I
On 6/19/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ha! :)
*ahem*
CHAOS AND DISORDER! YAY!
- Her Most Chaotic Divinity, The Goddess Eris
, and responsibilities onto the parties of that agreement
to be a non-natural person.
}}
}
BobTHJ
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
understand signatures?)
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
-sensitive cases)
to propose in duplicate, so that you can't vote all the copies down.
How about if you keep them if you use them AGAINST, but not if you use them FOR?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 6/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
I can't wait to get my hands on this...
Memo to Agora: don't put Eris in charge of numbering anything if e's
got a seventeen-digit number secreted about eir person.
Memo to Zefram: Look up computable numbers.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED
, to be assigned by the
Promotor.
Amend Rule 897 (Court Procedure) by appending, after the paragraph
containing The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ,
this text:
CFJs have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let
Conway's notation).
Oh, bother. The wikipedia article references computable reals, but
there is such a thing as a non-computable natural number.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
function or set,
but that's not a usage I'm familiar with.
The busy beaver S() function, for example, is a canonical example of a
non-computable function yielding natural numbers. I call these
non-computable natural numbers.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further
On 7/5/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris wrote:
Where's the Party? :)
Do you have an apple handy that says to the second-prettiest one?
Of course not!
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
),
I'm not sure you've implemented the useful contents of these rules in
your substitute.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 7/5/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of an apple, how about a sour grape?
Easy. Those grow on trees. Good luck reaching them.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
, Rule 754 (3) applies; in
the latter, it does not.
This is somewhat time-reversed analysis. person was human until
Zefram decided that maybe legal persons might be allowed.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 7/27/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you going to be the one to tell Blob that?
I had no reason to believe that Blob was not simply a nickname for a person.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 7/29/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
I had no reason to believe that Blob was not simply a nickname for a
person.
It certainly is a nickname for a person. That person has consistently
claimed that e is not human.
I have no reason to believe that any more than anyone
in the rule.
(It's in rule 2147 instead.) The retitling is successful.
*snerk*
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
didn't clearly state what you mean
by legal (legal by Agoran standards? the foreign nomic's?). Game
Actions are not defined/regulated by Agora, so IRRELEVANT might apply
instead of UNDECIDABLE, but that won't get you the kind of answer you
want.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know
On 8/6/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris sitting up has changed this, however.
*wink*
--
The Goddess Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 8/8/07, Peekee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would urge Judge root to Judge TRUE. If I am foolish enough to allow
other people/Players to send email as if from me. Then those messages
should be considered as being sent from me. What if somebody left
their email account open and somebody sent
On 8/8/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
5120 Oi 1Murphy Allow implicit resolution
FOR
Your voting limit on the ordinary proposals in this batch is 4.
Yes, but I hate tracking that number. So I vote once unless I feel the
need to vote more.
--
Taral [EMAIL
.
You're still losing the first character of your subject lines.
I don't like this -- it takes 3 people with high EVLOP to bork the
system. Majority or something might be better?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
the support indices by one?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 8/17/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
within a time limit, e gains one VC. The VC gained is Black
if the judicial question is on sentencing, or Blue otherwise.
on veracity or culpability, e gains one Blue VC, unless e
Spurious line.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 8/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whence the anti-Zefram movement?
I don't think it's a personal thing, Zefram. For all we know, those
votes could have been I'll vote AGAINST this one just because I can,
and vote FOR the other because it's funny.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let
On 8/24/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The submitted form of each of these three proposals is in the proposal
pool (as it has been since late 2006).
Can they be withdrawn?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 8/30/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris, how do I regenerate cotc_amend.pyc from cotc_amend.py? Not that
it matters AFAICT, since I'm not setting matters.typecode = 'Criminal'
directly when entering the CFJ, but adjusting it manually afterward.
Automatic.
--
Taral [EMAIL
On 8/29/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Statement: A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting
another message (even if the quote is intended to perform an
action) is never a violation of Rule 2149 to publish.
[Proto-Judgement]
Veracity: UNDECIDABLE
Proto-Proposal: Lying down on the job
Add the following paragraph to the end of Rule 1871 (The Standing Court):
When a judge is recused with cause, e becomes supine.
(Players can make themselves sitting right away if they want.)
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's
On 9/7/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I nominate Eris and Pavitra for International Associate Director
of Personnel.
I consent
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
by announcement.
(Perhaps the by announcement bit should be split off into a separate
statement?)
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 9/13/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the proposal confuses me; I don't understand how the second sentence is
necessary given the first one.
Oops. Ignore the first sentence, that's the old proto.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give
On 9/16/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/16/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I announce my intent to make BobTHJ inactive without objection.
I vote OBJECT. I don't have much time but I'm still here.
Ah, well, at least make yourself ineligible to judge if you don't have time
. Zefram holds enough offices as it is.
I vote for Wooble as well.
-root
The initiating message lacks a description of the class of eligible voters.
I contains a clear reference: Rule 2154. This kind of thing has been
CFJ'd on before, IIRC.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know
On 9/21/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmmaybe Chokey wasn't such a bad sentence after all
Ha.
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 9/22/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 September 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
How about REMAND?
I consent to that as well.
I would prefer reassign :)
Why?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 9/23/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disposition:applicable, OVERRULE to APOLOGY
with prescribed words 'espalier',
'conjunctive', 'stoat', 'ovation',
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SUPPORT: BobTHJ, comex, pikhq, Levi
OBJECT: Eris
*sniff* I love the smell of scams in the morning.
--
Eris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
wasn't (the ASAP timer didn't start
ticking until your judgement on culpability was delivered).
My judgement on culpability was late? I though I had to wait out the
pre-judgement period.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 9/22/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/22/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer reassign :)
Why?
We are running out of time. comex, can you please articulate your
reasons for preferring REASSIGN over REMAND? I prefer REMAND unless
there's something wrong
On 9/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) Any other votes are unprotected. The vote collector CAN
invalidate or change an unprotected vote by announcement
when e resolves the decision.
SCAM SCAM SCAM?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know
reading my email backwards or
something.
Unfortunately, gmail does this too. It happens to any mail reader that
relies on subject lines instead of In-Reply-To/References headers.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 9/30/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1754 open Goddess Eris
I did this.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
to submit pseudo-judgements. I'll
send you the blue if you do.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 10/3/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. Goddess Eris, you are hereby informed of CFJ 1735, a criminal case
in which you are the defendant, and invited to rebut the argument for
your guilt.
Isn't this dead yet?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further
On 9/17/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I announce the initiation of an Agoran decision for the position of
Scorekeepor as per Rule 2154. The options are Wooble and Zefram.
You know what's funny? There's no requirement to resolve.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's
On 10/3/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
Fine. I close the pre-trial period of CFJ 1735.
What, no defence?
I don't believe the State has made its case. :)
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Bravo!
On 10/22/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
Perhaps not, but having more Patent Titles can never be a bad thing.
I hereby submit the following proposal titled famous last words:
{{{
Award comex the patent title Sorceror's Apprentice.
}}}
-zefram
--
Taral
On 10/22/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend (without objection) to ratify the entirety of the quoted message:
Why?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
that to the people who continue the great tradition begun with
the likes of APL and TECO.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 10/22/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's reasonable to consider proposals that only change the
game state and don't modify any rules. Do you disagree?
It sounds a bit capricious. What justification do we have for only
considering a subset of possible proposals?
--
Taral
why I suggested
simply overruling with IRRELEVANT this time around.
Doh! Sorry, this thread and the other thread were indeed for the same appeal.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 10/29/07, Pikhq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
すいません。私たちは英語で話せないんだ。
And can't spell your Japanese, either. :D
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 10/31/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about multiple inheritance?
That would be multiple superclasses.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/30/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, in programming, objects belong to
only one subclass. I find, therefore, that an individual case can only
belong to one subclass.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/82412.html
I was speaking
On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As, I think, is analogy to OOP to begin with.
The term was used without definition. I drew parallels to existing
usage of subclass. :P
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
1 - 100 of 683 matches
Mail list logo
