Re: Cardinality question

From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:47:05 +0200

On 4/8/2005 2:53 PM, Torkel Franzen wrote:
> Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Therefore I developed a fully equivalent but
>> irredundant analysis in IR+ instead of IR.
>
> Right! Rant away!

While you seem to have problems in accepting the possibility that
someone actually made a good job, I conclude that this indicates how
little you estimate yourself. Sorry.

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Torkel Franzen

References:
- Cardinality question
  - From: Bart Killam
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: fishfry
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cardinality question
  - From: Torkel Franzen

Prev by Date: n-parameter calculations in 2D
Next by Date: As Stakes Increase, Prime-Number Theory Moves Closer to Proof
Previous by thread: Re: Cardinality question
Next by thread: Re: Cardinality question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Cardinality question
... > irredundant analysis in IR+ instead of IR. ... Rant away! ... Prev by Date: ...
(sci.math)
Re: Cardinality question
... > of course no sensible person will rant and rave about how horrible ... resticted to past time. ... Therefore I developed a fully equivalent but ...
(sci.math)