Linux Cookie: 929 of 1140 |
Who are the artists in the Computer Graphics Show? Wavefront's latest box, or
the people who programmed it? Should Mandelbrot get all the credit for the
output of programs like MandelVroom?
-- Peter da Silva
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 930 of 1140 |
Trailing Edge Technologies is pleased to announce the following
TETflame programme:
1) For a negotiated price (no quatloos accepted) one of our flaming
representatives will flame the living shit out of the poster of
your choice. The price is inversly proportional to how much of
an asshole the target it. We cannot be convinced to flame Dennis
Ritchie. Matt Crawford flames are free.
2) For a negotiated price (same arrangement) the TETflame programme
is offering ``flame insurence''. Under this arrangement, if
one of our policy holders is flamed, we will cancel the offending
article and flame the flamer, to a crisp.
3) The TETflame flaming representatives include: Richard Sexton, Oleg
Kisalev, Diane Holt, Trish O'Tauma, Dave Hill, Greg Nowak and our most
recent aquisition, Keith Doyle. But all he will do is put you in his
kill file. Weemba by special arrangement.
-- Richard Sexton
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 931 of 1140 |
"As I was walking among the fires of Hell, delighted with the enjoyments of
Genius; which to Angels look like torment and insanity. I collected some of
their Proverbs..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 932 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 1
proof by example:
The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that it
contains most of the ideas of the general proof.
proof by intimidation:
'Trivial'.
proof by vigorous handwaving:
Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 933 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 2
proof by cumbersome notation:
Best done with access to at least four alphabets and special
symbols.
proof by exhaustion:
An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.
proof by omission:
'The reader may easily supply the details'
'The other 253 cases are analogous'
'...'
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 934 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 3
proof by obfuscation:
A long plotless sequence of true and/or meaningless
syntactically related statements.
proof by wishful citation:
The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of
a theorem from the literature to support his claims.
proof by funding:
How could three different government agencies be wrong?
proof by eminent authority:
'I saw Karp in the elevator and he said it was probably NP-
complete.'
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 935 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 4
proof by personal communication:
'Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete
[Karp, personal communication].'
proof by reduction to the wrong problem:
'To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is
decidable, we reduce it to the halting problem.'
proof by reference to inaccessible literature:
The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found
in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian
Philological Society, 1883.
proof by importance:
A large body of useful consequences all follow from the
proposition in question.
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 936 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 5
proof by accumulated evidence:
Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.
proof by cosmology:
The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or
meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.
proof by mutual reference:
In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in
reference B, which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in
reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in
reference A.
proof by metaproof:
A method is given to construct the desired proof. The
correctness of the method is proved by any of these
techniques.
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 937 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 6
proof by picture:
A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines well
with proof by omission.
proof by vehement assertion:
It is useful to have some kind of authority relation to the
audience.
proof by ghost reference:
Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in
the reference given.
|
|
|
Linux Cookie: 938 of 1140 |
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 7
proof by forward reference:
Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author,
which is often not as forthcoming as at first.
proof by semantic shift:
Some of the standard but inconvenient definitions are changed
for the statement of the result.
proof by appeal to intuition:
Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.
|
|