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-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <zyBSh.44138$oV.14776@attbi_s21>
 <461B52A6.20102@obry.net> <awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <461BA892.3090002@obry.net> <yeabxgnsrj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <sa4ps6apjb7.fsf@margay.local>
 <wccwt0ho2fc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1rbtw92apxpl1.1ednvo8v6oiq8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <aslkgxyvpj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <el1sx203zohn$.1ehb1vbs3p0vd.dlg@40tude.net>
 <mn3b33w7tf.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <13tcswu59l28h.zxb26cabf9a0.dlg@40tude.net>
 <thr6ql7hkp.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <15k5b4j6za8ag.tpkuccinvzbd.dlg@40tude.net>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:41:13 +0200
Message-ID: <bwhcrhb9ja.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CFsivKbwphYsR6tXpFpdo7QWrO0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.204.228
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1176672822 88.72.204.228 (15 Apr 2007 23:33:42
 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15048
Date: 2007-04-15T23:41:13+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:01:10 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote:
>
>> Now I'd like you to close this loophole for arbitrary hand waving and
>> define NON-TRIVIAL in a way suitable to you purposes (but keep it
>> convincing, still -- defining it to FALSE won't wash with me) and
>> perhaps try to prove the central assertion above.
>
> OK, here is a formalization of "non-trivial." Let me use a more or less
> standard notation:

It would have been nice, if you could not have confused the issue by
changing the notation. 

Regards -- Markus