Re: The definition of weight
From: Mark Nudelman (markn_at_greenwoodsoftware.com)
Date: 06/18/04
- Next message: Chan-Ho Suh: "Re: Entire function"
- Previous message: Sailesh Kumar: "Re: A binomial series problem"
- In reply to: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Next in thread: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: David Murdock: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:22:53 GMT
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0406171842.2ca7bdb9@posting.google.com...
> Weight [w] does not, and cannot be
> w = mg, because m = w/g :: Therefore
> w = [w/g]g, and/or w = [f/a]g...
I'm trying to understand what you can possibly mean by this. By simple
algebra, w=mg is equivalent to m=w/g. They mean exactly the same thing.
How can you say that one is true and the other is not?
--Mark
- Next message: Chan-Ho Suh: "Re: Entire function"
- Previous message: Sailesh Kumar: "Re: A binomial series problem"
- In reply to: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Next in thread: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: Donald G. Shead: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Reply: David Murdock: "Re: The definition of weight"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]