Worded the other way, the set of strings that the grammar accepts is empty.

The way the regulations are worded... gambling was an honour violation only if it took place during duty hours.

And what is really important is that we assume not just that T1 and T2 are identically distributed.

If that subtly nudges you to feel about them identically, that's going to make it easier to save.

If, on the other hand, you speak a futureless language, the present and the future, you speak about them identically.

And quite frankly, I think if Colonel Sanders was to be careful how he worded it, he could actually advertise an extra piece.

Keeping track of resources this way gets rid of that computational or exponential explosion of looking at different combinations by just treating all of the same resource identically.

It says if you have an identical asset and it's being managed identically, which it is in this case, they will generate an identical amount of operating profit.

If you look at this as a probabilist, you're given data, and we interpretively assume the data is IlD, which means identically distributed and independently drawn from the same distribution.

What's the probability that all 4 of those flips give us the same result, no matter what it is, assuming that each one of those has identically an equally distributed probability of coming up heads of the half?

But that would, as we already talked about, most of the time, we would have very little change, very little variation, and whatever variation does occur because of any kind of noise being introduced into this kind of budding process where I just replicate myself identically, most of the time it'll be negative.