Re: math.sci

From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:55:37 -0500

On 11 Apr 2006 04:58:20 -0700, v4vijayakumar@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

shouldn't it be math.sci?

No.

(Can't explain why not until you say why it _should_
be math.sci; I can imagine a few reasons someone might
think that.)

************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: math.sci
  - From: Ronald Bruck

References:
- math.sci
  - From: v4vijayakumar

Prev by Date: Re: Q[sqr p]
Next by Date: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
Previous by thread: math.sci
Next by thread: Re: math.sci
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Accidental limit
... "David C. Ullrich" wrote in message ... > I can't imagine why. ... Clive Tooth ...
(sci.math)
Re: Accidental limit
... >> I can't imagine why. ... which doesn't _have_ a limit as n -> infinity. ... David C. Ullrich ...
(sci.math)
Re: Counting problem
... I imagine there ... >You should begin by modeling the problem, with a graph or directed ... David C. Ullrich ...
(sci.math)
Re: Help with proofs
... His rewriting of the first question makes no sense ... for the same reasons as yours made no sense. ... David C. Ullrich ...
(sci.math)
Re: Bearing in against 32 backgame
... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... Adam suggested the same play. ... the same as the reasons _I_ was going to suggest ...
(rec.games.backgammon)