Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- From: Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 06:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
On May 15, 10:05 pm, bill <b92...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 13, 3:27 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<58c00257-082e-4232-854c-9a032b179...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bill <b92...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I finally looked up the definition of "gibberish" My post is
NOT gibberish!-
You are right. I don't think that what you first wrote has enough
meaningful
content to qualify even as gibberish. It was just "word salad"; a
jumble
of words with no meaning at all.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- From: bill
- Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- References:
- THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- From: bill
- Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- From: Gerry Myerson
- Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- From: bill
- THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- Prev by Date: Re: x^(x^(x^(x^x^...)))....)))) = 2
- Next by Date: Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor
- Previous by thread: Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- Next by thread: Re: THE LARGEST PRIME NUMBER.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
