Re: Uncle Al's missing logic.
From: Igor (thoovler_at_excite.com)
Date: 08/16/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: More readable prime counting function"
- Previous message: Lorenzo: "Re: HOW CAN I SOLVE THIS EQUATION SYSTEM ?"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: Uncle Al's missing logic."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Aug 2004 03:50:09 -0700
"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<vGRTc.16$yB.3@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> "Phil Holman" <philjud@earthlink.not> wrote in message
> news:bCRTc.23316$9Y6.5274@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:opRTc.11$yB.1@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > > Uncle Al never responds to actual factual material, so please (y'all)
> let me
> > > know how it can be correct in one single, continuous, 'logical'
> derivation
> > > process to assert:
> > >
> > > a=bc, a=dc, a=-dc, -d < b < d, d > 0, c >= 0.
> > >
> > > Meaning that b and d can independently take any of the values in the
> > > specified ranges.
> > >
> > > thanks
> >
> > If c = 0 then for a=bc, a=dc, a=-dc, a = 0 with values of b and d in the
> > specified ranges.
>
> Thanks and oops. Also true that c can indendently take any of the values in
> its specified range.
>
> So, what I mean by those statements is that the process is to derive an
> equation that applies to any and all values of b, c, d.
>
> Sorry.
>
> eleaticus
>
> > PH
> >
> >
Actually c can't be anything but zero, since a = dc = -dc sets a = 0,
but d > 0, so c = -c = 0.
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: More readable prime counting function"
- Previous message: Lorenzo: "Re: HOW CAN I SOLVE THIS EQUATION SYSTEM ?"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: Uncle Al's missing logic."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
