-
So if you're not in this 77%, let's quickly go over why, in fact, this is the correct answer, . 9 times 10 to the negative 18 joules.
如果你们不在这77%中，让我们快速的来看一看为什么，这个是正确答案，0，9乘以10的负18次方焦耳。
-
Similarly,suppose we thought that the body view was the correct view and we imagine, again,some sort of case of complete amnesia.
同样的，假设肉体理论是正确的，我们再次想象这个完全失忆的案例。
-
But it turns out that on Macs and if you have the right software on PCs, you can kind of get a teaser of what this environment tends to look like and be forewarned, what you're about to see is intentionally very underwhelming.
事实上，它是运行在苹果机上的,如果你在电脑上有正确的软件，可以去看看这个环境大致是怎么样的,提前说下，这个程序不会让你印象深刻,我是故意这样做的。
-
I'll let you chase it through, it does work. What I want to look at is, what's the order of growth here?
我会让你们去运行这个方法的，确实能得到正确答案，我想问的是，这个解决问题的方法的增长率是什么？
-
The pressure is going to decrease along the way, but it's going to have to do more work So the majority in this case is right.
根据这个式子，做的功,因此多数派是正确的。
-
If the units are supposed to come out in meters per second and you get seconds per meter, what do you figure the chances of that problem being right are?
因为如果单位本应该是米每秒,但你写的是秒每米，你认为这个题目,还有正确的机会吗？
-
Are we right to assume that people are rational?
人是理性的这个假设是否正确
-
That doesn't mean that consensus is correct.
但这并不意味着这个统一的观点是正确的
-
I know this is the right answer, because if I now find the acceleration, I find it's mg divided by m and I get -g as the answer for all bodies.
我知道这个等式是正确的,因为现在如果我要求物体的加速度,用 mg 除以 m,我就得到 -g,这个结果对所有物体都成立
-
So, I'm inclined to think that the right position here is a kind of moderate one, a modest one.
所以，我倾向于认为,这个问题正确的观点是一种适中的，适中的观点。
-
So the right question to ask is, what's the probability, not that June had 48 babies, but that at least one of the 12 months had 48 babies.
所以正确的问题是，不是去看这个6月,有48个宝宝出生，而是去看至少有一个月的出生人数。
-
This list is sorted and that is, you know, stupid to say but it's very much correct.
这个序列是有序的，虽然有点愚蠢,但却是正确的。
-
- So now we have three conditions -- three forks in the road -- and this program is in fact correct, at least hopefully.
现在我们有三个条件--三岔路口-,然后这个程序的确是正确的，至少我希望是。
-
And then perhaps the right thing to say is the person no longer exists, so they no longer exist as a person, even if the body is still alive.
也许正确的说法应该是,这个人已经不存在了，他们作为人的身份已经消失，即便肉体还是活着的。
-
So this code is, in fact, correct.
所以这个代码实际上是正确的。
-
And that claim far from being false is true.
这个结论肯定是正确的。
-
Harmony is not invisible in the relevant sense, so it could still be true that invisible things can't be destroyed, since the soul is invisible in that sense, it would follow the soul can't be detroyed.
和声在这个意义上不是无形的，所以无形的东西不能毁灭,仍然可以是正确的，因为灵魂在这个意义上仍是无形的，你可以得出灵魂不能毁灭的结论。
-
My argument must be wrong because it goes against the lesson of the class and the lessons of the class are gospel right, they're not wrong ever, so what's wrong with that argument? Yes, Ale Well because you have to be able to agree, you have to be able to speak to them but we aren't allowed to show our partners what we wrote.
这个说法肯定有问题,因为这和我们的结论刚好背道而驰,结论是绝对正确的,结论没错,那这个说法错在哪,艾尔,因为你必须要能够达成一致,你需要和他们谈判,但是我们不允许同伴看到我的选择
-
At the end of the first round, I've got the smallest element at the front. At the end of the second round, I've got the smallest two elements at the front, in fact I got all of them sorted out. And it actually runs through the loop multiple times, making sure that it's in the right form.
看看发生了什么，在第一轮结束后,我把最小的元素移到了前面,第二轮结束后，我把最小的,两个元素移到了前面，实际上,所有的元素都排好序了,实际上，这个算法运行了几次循环，确认下这是正确的形式。
-
I'm not inclined to believe that the bold claim is right.
我并不倾向于相信这个大胆的观点是正确的。
-
So we're to assume we can get to any piece of data, any instruction in constant time, and the second assumption we're going to make is that the basic primitive steps take constant time, same amount of time to compute. Again, not completely true, but it's a good model, so arithmetic operations, comparisons, things of that sort, we're all going to assume are basically in that in that particular model.
因此如果我们假设在恒定的时间内,我们可以取得任何一块数据,任何一种数据结构的话,我们要做的第二个假设就是,基本的原始操作计算花费的时间是恒定的,这个假设也不是完全正确的，但这个模型其实挺不错的，因此算法操作，比较，这一类的事情，我们在这个特定的模型中都假设是基本的,操作，花费的时间是恒定相同的。
-
But it's the really correct way to specify that this function takes no arguments is to actually write this key word "void."
但是这的确是正确的方法来指明,这个函数是没有参数,实际上是写了这个关键字“void“
-
In C, the truly correct way is to be very pathantic and say, ; nothing is coming into this function; void so I'll explicitly say, void here.
在C语言中，正确的方法是说明，没有任何东西进入到这个函数中来;,所以我明确地在这里指明。
-
And then I run a loop in which I read something in, I check to see if it's the right type, if it is, I change that variable to say it's now the correct type, which means the next time through the loop, I'm going to say I'm all set and I'm going to bounce out.
因为我还没输入，然后我运行一个循环,循环内部我输入一些东西,然后看看是不是正确的类型,如果是的话我改变input，Ok为真，来证明输入数是正确的类型，这就意味着下一次运行这个循环的时候,就可以跳出循环继续执行了。
-
If he went to Troy, he would die, but his memory as the greatest of the Achaeans would be immortal forever. Well, you know the choice he took and you know that it turned out to be right.
如果他去了特洛伊,他可能会战死,但他将被作为最伟大的雅典人受万世颂扬,而获得永存,你们知道了他的选择,也知道最终这个选择被证明是正确的
-
So it's an address, it's a pointer, address pointer, synonyms for now, so it's the address of a char so this makes sense because s1 is also the address of a char so if I wanted to make a copy of that address this is absolutely the right syntax.
是一个地址，是一个指针，地址指针，也就是，char型数据的地址,这是有意义的，因为s1也是一个char型数据的地址,所以如果我想要复制那个地址,这个绝对是正确的语法。
应用推荐