Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Wed, 10 Feb 1993 09:38:10 +0000 Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA12022; Wed, 10 Feb 93 01:27:51 -0800 Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Precedence: bulk Received: from ganymede.inmos.co.uk by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA12017; Wed, 10 Feb 93 01:27:45 -0800 Received: from frogland.inmos.co.uk by ganymede.inmos.co.uk; Wed, 10 Feb 93 09:27:20 GMT From: David Shepherd Message-Id: <21997.9302100927@frogland.inmos.co.uk> Subject: Re: Waugh! Huh! What is it good for? To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted (info-hol mailing list) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 09:27:14 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <"swan.cl.ca.842:09.02.93.13.47.03"@cl.cam.ac.uk> from "John Harrison" at Feb 9, 93 01:46:48 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 809 John Harrison has said: > Formal logic, like > so many other things studied in the universities, must surely be a colossal > waste of time. Far better play with Rubic cubes, which might impart a > measure of digital dexterity which could be useful in a world threatened by > a plague of RSI. Now, where's my cube! (Actually I found one at home recently but have forgotten how to do it). Anyway how about a HOL theory of Rubik cubes? (BTW Rubik Cube thumb was an RSI in any case :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk tel: 0454-616616 x 625 inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television - Husbands and Wives