Suggestions(5)
Exact(3)
If this statement is not true, then for each positive constant l, there exists a function (x_{l}(cdot) in B_{l}) such that (N(x_{l})(cdot )notin B_{l}), that is, (|N(x_{l})(t)|>l) for some (t(l)in J), where (t(l)) denotes t that is dependent on l.
I have a lot of respect for Bill Means, but this statement is not true and is one of the main focal points of AIM's distortion of the facts.
This statement is not true.
Similar(57)
But today The Nikkei, "Japan's Wall Street Journal", is reporting that this statement isn't true.
We all know this statement isn't true.
I relate in my book's chapter entitled "Biffen's Missing Millions" that this statement was not true of the Sunday Times.
Per correspondence from LaCour's attorney, this statement was not true".
Since knowing the negation of a statement in intuitionism means that one can prove that the statement is not true, this implies that both $A$ and $\neg A$ do not hold intuitionistically, at least not at this moment.
Proof Suppose that the statement is not true, and let G be a counterexample of minimal order.
Although it has been stated that "an attempt to solve (very large problems) by subspace iterations seems futile" (H. G. Matthies, Comput. Struct.21 (1985), p. 324), we will show that the statement is not true, especially for extremely large eigenproblems.
Unfortunately, uniquely among major nations, that statement is not true for the United States, where access to health care depends on how much money you have and what your employer is willing to provide.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com