Re: math.sci
- From: Ronald Bruck <bruck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:09:45 -0700
In article <j9dn325l7r5p95emr2cerboc8f1ut16nob@xxxxxxx>, David C.
Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.)
I think the explanation is simple enough. Usenet is divided
hierarchically, with the most generic group first, the refinements
following. sci. is the hierarchy most concerned with science,
technology, mathematics, etc.
Only if you're not aware of ANY other newsgroups could you be puzzled
as to the convention. And I dunno about the OP's newsreader, but mine
is constantly reminding me of new newsgroups.
I thought it was a troll.
--
Ron Bruck
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: math.sci
- From: David C. Ullrich
- Re: math.sci
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: math.sci
- References:
- math.sci
- From: v4vijayakumar
- Re: math.sci
- From: David C . Ullrich
- math.sci
- Prev by Date: Re: continious operator in first-countable spaces
- Next by Date: Re: dissolving Russel's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: math.sci
- Next by thread: Re: math.sci
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
