Central to our narrative while making the cuts was the assertion – valid in my view – that if our predecessors has faced up to difficult decisions earlier, we would not have had to take such desperate measures.
"None of these assertions are valid".
These assertions are valid for all sensory modalities.
Then the following assertions are valid: (a) if the inverse problem (1.1)–(1.4) is solvable, then so is the Eq. (1.8).
The following assertions are valid (see Methods).
The following assertion is valid.
The IRS asked a federal judge to issue an order blocking the two from filing returns claiming the tax credit unless the assertion is valid.
This assertion is valid as long as both individuals are endowed with the same health care needs Moreover, every agent with a medical disposition (min {mathcal {M}}) makes her choice with (u_{f}^{m}(c,alpha )), but she derives utility from (u_{f+t}^{m}(c,alpha )), where (tge 0).
Thus, a b c ∈ C ( t, s ) ( A ). Consequently, C ( t, s ) ( A ) is a bi-ideal of S. Therefore, we conclude that if an IFS A = 〈 x, μ A, γ A 〉 of S satisfies the three conditions (e1), (e2) and (e3), then the following assertion is valid.
It should be emphasized that the above assertion is valid for the random sum of ν i.i.d.i.d
