It sucks. Why do I need to add "LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./" for every linux program? Why do you linux-retards forcecopying libs to /usr/lib and data to /usr/share? DLLs and data should be placed in the same directory as their program.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-24 12:42
Windows is so much better. To install a windows program I just copy it to destination directory and add registry entries. Simple as fuck!
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-24 12:45
BTW, windows code is portable. I can still run win95 progs on my Windows 7. Quality, bitches!
>>1
My fucking computer stutters when i try to read /usr/bin/ already. Why cant unix-tards just learn to use folders and proper file(dir)names?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-24 12:51
And this ./configure crap never works. I've to manually take sources and just "gcc *.c -o shit" the crap of them with all libs into one big static exe, that'll at least work without recompilation on several linuxes.
Hello, dear friends from /g/. Please do not forgot to put ``sage'' in the e-mail field when posting on /prog/, it is considered a common courtesy here. Thanks!
What is it with all these trolls lately that can't write a coherent troll? How am I supposed to get mad at you if I can't make out any points to disagree with?
Formally, assuming the axiom of choice, the cardinality of a set X is the least ordinal α such that there is a bijection between X and α. This definition is known as the von Neumann cardinal assignment. If the axiom of choice is not assumed we need to do something different. The oldest definition of the cardinality of a set X (implicit in Cantor and explicit in Frege and Principia Mathematica) is as the class [X] of all sets that are equinumerous with X. This does not work in ZFC or other related systems of axiomatic set theory because if X is non-empty, this collection is too large to be a set. In fact, for X ≠ ∅ there is an injection from the universe into [X] by mapping a set m to {m} × X and so by limitation of size, [X] is a proper class. The definition does work however in type theory and in New Foundations and related systems. However, if we restrict from this class to those equinumerous with X that have the least rank, then it will work (this is a trick due to Dana Scott: it works because the collection of objects with any given rank is a set).
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-01 16:11
Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however, because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification project, Metamath, includes derivations of more than 10,000 theorems starting from the ZFC axioms and using first order logic.