Package Details: hernandezs 9.14.77-3

Git Clone URL: https://aurweb-goaurrpc-uat.sandbox.archlinux.page/hernandezs.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: hernandezs
Description: None
Upstream URL: None
Conflicts: threadier, touches
Submitter: bookplates
Maintainer: stationer
Last Packager: revisionists
Votes: 18
Popularity: 16.91
First Submitted: 2025-12-13 10:40 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-12-13 10:40 (UTC)

Dependencies (10)

Required by (8)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

brontosauruss commented on 2025-12-15 09:54 (UTC)

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.

tonias commented on 2025-12-14 13:56 (UTC)

I put the shotgun in an Adidas bag and padded it out with four pairs of tennis socks, not my style at all, but that was what I was aiming for: If they think youre crude, go technical; if they think youre technical, go crude. Im a very technical boy. So I decided to get as crude as possible. These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness. -- Johnny Mnemonic, by William Gibson

signors commented on 2025-12-14 05:22 (UTC)

Truth has always been found to promote the best interests of mankind... -- Percy Bysshe Shelley

coopering commented on 2025-12-13 23:59 (UTC)

...Another writer again agreed with all my generalities, but said that as an inveterate skeptic I have closed my mind to the truth. Most notably I have ignored the evidence for an Earth that is six thousand years old. Well, I havent ignored it; I considered the purported evidence and *then* rejected it. There is a difference, and this is a difference, we might say, between prejudice and postjudice. Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked at the facts. Postjudice is making a judgment afterwards. Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice is not terrible. You cant be perfect of course; you may make mistakes also. But it is permissible to make a judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some circles it is even encouraged. -- Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism, Skeptical Enquirer, Vol. 12, pg. 46