Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:10:46 +0100 From: "Richard P. Williamson" <richard.williamson@u4eatech.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OT] What's "QED"? (was Re: Wisdom of automating upgrades) Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040609090515.0270ff60@cygnus> In-Reply-To: <40C61BBF.2080008@Pandora.Be> References: <40C5BCAC.6090401@circlesquared.com> <40C5E758.5050406@circlesquared.com> <20040608123647.2cab2e91.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <200406081019.30500.kstewart@owt.com> <20040608175255.GA4309@alexis.mi.celestial.com> <40C61BBF.2080008@Pandora.Be>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 21:04 08/06/2004. Jos De Laender had this to say: >Quod erat demonstrandum is correct. The translation is rather : what needed to be proven, what needed to be demonstrated ... >(although this is probably very poor English :-) ) That which was to be demonstrated, is the closest conceptually. It is used at the end of proofs to show that you are finished proving what you had originally theorized. Theory: Windoze installations are unreliable. Proof: I turned it on. It was hacked into an open proxy. It contracted several hundred worms. It crashed. QED. rip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.1.0.6.2.20040609090515.0270ff60>