Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert Wagner (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 03/24/05
- Next message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Who's that :-)"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:11:11 -0600
robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
>>
>> Negative integers too?
>
>
> Yes and zero too. Divisibility by 2 is all that matters.
Daryl's phrase was 'multiple of 2', which by my understanding
could not be negative. I would have preferred 'divisibility by
2' to keep signs straight.
-- "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." - -- Tolstoy
- Next message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Who's that :-)"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|