Well, I was demonstrating the initial case. Projections and further proof are left as an exercise for the reader. 8-)
-----Original Message----- From: "Phil Smith III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU" <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> Sent: 5/3/07 4:38 AM Subject: Re: QUERY CAPABILITY question David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After all, 1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. Hmm, the way we learned it was "2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2"...I guess we were studying higher math!! ...phsiii
