Sentence examples for Lt from inspiring English sources
Early in 1804 the new Lieutenant Governor, Captain (later Lt Col) David Collins RM, moved the settlement across the Derwent River to Sullivan's Cove where he named the new settlement "Hobart Town" after the Under Secretary for War.(Neither Lt Bowen RN nor Captain Collins RM were able to "sell their stories" to the media..... G A Watts Tasmania Australia .
lt will offer amnesty to those who committed them, provided they meet the (distinctly subjective) conditions: full disclosure, political motivation, and action which, however nasty, accorded with their side's policy at the time.
lt is less clear that a majority actually want to leave South Africa: lnkatha's showing in the poll will give some indication.
In a later explanation Lt.
In a video, Lt Jack Cambria, hostage negotiator, advises officers not to destroy their careers "for a moment of indiscretion".
Lt Col Kevin Olson, spokesman for the Minnesota national guard, said Wednesday that the guard is aware of the charges and cooperating with the FBI investigation.
Lt-Gen Barno says arguments about unit-cohesion were also made, and disproved, when the army was desegregated after the second world war and when, in 2011, openly gay candidates were accepted into the ranks.
Definition EP shows how claims of progress can be fallibly evaluated on the basis of evidence: if \ ver(g\mid e) \lt ver(g'\mid e)\), it is rational to claim on evidence \ e\) that the step from \(g\) to \(g'\) in fact is progressive.
Then to check whether \(\mathcal{D}\) is a valid derivation, it suffices to check whether each of its \(n\) lines (where \(n \lt \lvert \mathcal{D}\rvert\) – the size of \(\mathcal{D}\) under a suitable binary encoding) is an axiom of \(\mathsf{ZFC}\) or follows from earlier lines by modus ponens or universal generalization.
As each such verification can be performed in a number of steps polynomial in \(\lvert \mathcal{D}\rvert\) and there are \(\lt \lvert \mathcal{D}\rvert\) such verifications to be performed, it follows that there is an algorithm for deciding whether \(\mathcal{D}\) is a correct derivation of its last line which runs in time polynomial in its size.
Thus, for the first premise to be true, all that is needed is that \(\negt G\) entails \(P\), while for the third premise to be true, all that is needed, according to most systems of inductive logic, is that \(P\) is not entailed by \(G \amp k\), since according to most systems of inductive logic, \ \Pr(P \mid G \amp k) \lt 1\) is only false if \(P\) is entailed by \(G \amp k\).
