Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry
jshsucks_at_yahoo.com
Date: 03/26/05
- Next message: grazer: "Re: What is wrong with this argument?"
- Previous message: Denis Loubet: "Re: What is wrong with this argument?"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry"
- Next in thread: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Mar 2005 15:10:44 -0800
Bump
- Next message: grazer: "Re: What is wrong with this argument?"
- Previous message: Denis Loubet: "Re: What is wrong with this argument?"
- In reply to: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry"
- Next in thread: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
