Re: SF: Simpler derivation
From: ScottD (bubba_at_aol.com)
Date: 03/06/05
- Next message: Ilya Shambat: "R^N manifolds in Configuration Space"
- Previous message: Abraham Buckingham: "Re: JSH: That's it"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Simpler derivation"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Simpler derivation"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Simpler derivation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:18:55 GMT
<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message news:1110066575.560655.80990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
<snip>
> By tomorrow I'm sure it will be a flood, but if necessary, I can just
> factor one myself with an answer this easy.
>
> Who'd a thunk it?
>
>
> James Harris
Let me be the first to congratulate you on solving this difficult problem.
Reading all of the news stories tomorrow will be fun.
-- Scott
- Next message: Ilya Shambat: "R^N manifolds in Configuration Space"
- Previous message: Abraham Buckingham: "Re: JSH: That's it"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Simpler derivation"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Simpler derivation"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Simpler derivation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
