From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c42dbf68f5320193 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-09 20:38:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr14.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!3bae8248!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generation of permutations References: <3CDB0BB2.DF5ECED0@san.rr.com> X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.112.202.37 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com 1021001839 ST000 67.112.202.37 (Thu, 09 May 2002 23:37:19 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 23:37:19 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: [[PAPDONAJUMB_LY@BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^RR@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 03:37:20 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23816 Date: 2002-05-10T03:37:20+00:00 List-Id: > determine if that set of instructions implements a sort. "Reliably" > implies "always", doesn't it? I mean, if I give you a block of > instructions and ask "does this implement a sort", and sometimes you can > say "Yes, I'm sure it does", and sometimes you can only say "I can't > tell", then doesn't that mean your program doesn't reliably give the > right answer? This is almost as bad as philosophy in terms of one person thinking, erroneously, that another person interprets a statement the same way. To me, "reliably" does not imply "always". It simply implies that it never gives a *wrong* answer. A time traveler from the future might be totally reliable when he predicts the outcome of a presidential election, but he might not know, and thus wouldn't tell me, if the penny I'm tossing will come up heads.