Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #8512
| Path | csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. |
| Date | Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:02:36 +0000 (UTC) |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Lines | 15 |
| Message-ID | <p8rpcs$b7n$2@reader2.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <p8piv7$nmb$7@dont-email.me> <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com> |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | spitfire.i.gajendra.net |
| X-Trace | reader2.panix.com 1521576156 11511 166.84.136.80 (20 Mar 2018 20:02:36 GMT) |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@panix.com |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:02:36 +0000 (UTC) |
| X-Newsreader | trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) |
| Originator | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming:8512 |
Show key headers only | View raw
In article <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com>, Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote: >Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and >proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions. > >And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though. Proofs that use epsilon/delta reductions tend to fall into the category of constructive proofs. >It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis. I think you mean analysis. - Dan C.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. computer45 <computer45@cyber.com> - 2018-03-20 00:00 -0400
I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 11:28 -0700
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-20 18:42 +0000
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-03-20 20:00 +0000
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-21 13:22 +0100
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-03-20 20:02 +0000
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:23 -0700
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-03-20 21:07 +0100
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:25 -0700
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-03-20 21:44 +0100
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-21 13:28 +0100
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 08:19 -0700
Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-22 18:13 +0000
csiph-web