Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Catherine Woodgold)
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" (jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> A good policy. And the only reason Tim and I disagreed with you
> is that you seemed to be suggesting that 'r' was a symbol that
> hadn't yet been defined. In the current context, it has been
> defined. (Perhaps too often!)
I think I hadn't seen the definition, that's the trouble.
Still not sure that I've seen a definition of r in this
newsgroup. My memory isn't perfect, that's another problem.
If there's a reasonably precise usually accepted definition
of r, I'll try to remember to use a different symbol
(R, perhaps) if I use a different definition.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.
.
- References:
- Underestimating 'r'
- From: Tim Tyler
- Underestimating 'r'
- Prev by Date: Re: Most important paper in evolutionary biology
- Next by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Previous by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
