Way back on 9/30/03 says me:
> "Elderly Man River", in which Freburg attempts to sing Steven Foster's
> "Old Man River"...
s/Steven Foster/Jerome Kern/
s/Old/Ol'/
Drat.
I'm completely lost on this thread, and I suspect a lot of other
people are. I never entirely understood what your initial problem was,
and the subsequent bickering is getting ridiculous. (not to mention
that it's going nowhere)
I would like to politely request that you state your problem cl
Colin Watson wrote:
> I only did one year of maths at Cambridge, but in the conventionally
> agreed terminology there the set of natural numbers was definitely not
> defined to include zero. Peano's first axiom is "1 is a natural number",
> not "0 is a natural number".
It's an Emacs vs. vi issue.
J. Tarrio's valiant keyboard replied:
> > Deja vu. Could it be that you stopped reading my uninteresting
> > post after finishing the first paragraph? I included K's formula a
> No, just after your second attempt to argue with the dictionary.
"The" Dictionary. "A" dictionary or "some" diction
O Martes, 30 de Setembro de 2003 ás 18:26:18 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía:
> >developers using a mathematical formula. It is later compared to a
> >natural number, "number of developers"
> Deja vu. Could it be that you stopped reading my uninteresting
> post after finishing the first paragraph? I
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 06:23:52PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> Mr. A. Suffield says:
>
> >> The constitution is in prose, and because prose is different from
> >> math, ts norms and standards are different. Sometimes very
> >> different.
>
> >Which is why we discuss numbers using mathematical te
Mr. A. Suffield says:
> The constitution is in prose, and because prose is different from
> math, ts norms and standards are different. Sometimes very
> different.
Which is why we discuss numbers using mathematical terminology, as is
standard for technical prose.
Is a constitution technica
J. Tarrio says:
K is only a real number which is computed from the number of
developers using a mathematical formula. It is later compared to a
natural number, "number of developers"
Deja vu. Could it be that you stopped reading my uninteresting
post after finishing the first paragraph? I in
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:25:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> and, ``integer'' like any _english_ (or american, take your pick) word,
> can have multiple meanings. sometimes with respect to technical usage,
> sometimes with respect to local convention.
What you just said is an english pa
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 07:02:35AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:21:46PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> > > Integer has more than one meaning
> >
> > Only if you're an idiot. Integer has precisely one meani
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:21:46PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> >
> > Integer has more than one meaning
>
> Only if you're an idiot. Integer has precisely one meaning, and it is
> a synonym of "whole number". The set of integers is the union of the
> set of natural numbers
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:21:46PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> > Integer has more than one meaning
>
> Only if you're an idiot. Integer has precisely one meaning, and it is
> a synonym of "whole number". The set of integers is the
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:21:46PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> > > The correct meaning can be deduced, but it's awful prose.
>
> > It is standard math.
>
> The constitution is in prose, and because prose is different from math,
> its norms and standards are different. Sometimes very different.
O Domingo, 28 de Setembro de 2003 ás 15:21:46 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía:
> Something is being rounded, and the resulting quantity enumerates
> developers. But is 'K' the number of developers?
K is only a real number which is computed from the number of developers
using a mathematical formula
Alfie Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A. Suffield says:
>
> > No he didn't. He said that 4 > 3.141592. That is not "rounding". It is
> > merely the case that the lowest natural number which equals or is
> > greater than 3.141592 is 4. That does not change the value of K in any
> > sense.
>
A. Suffield says:
> No he didn't. He said that 4 > 3.141592. That is not "rounding". It is
> merely the case that the lowest natural number which equals or is
> greater than 3.141592 is 4. That does not change the value of K in any
> sense.
Good old 'gdict' says of the adjective 'round':
4.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 03:06:43PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> J. Tarrio said:
> > When K=3.141592 (to set an example), "At least K" means effectively "4
> > or more", since 4 is the lowest natural number which equals or is
> > greater than 3.141592.
>
> Well of course, but the text says "Q and K
J. Tarrio said:
> When K=3.141592 (to set an example), "At least K" means effectively "4
> or more", since 4 is the lowest natural number which equals or is
> greater than 3.141592.
Well of course, but the text says "Q and K need not be integers and are
not rounded.", or in singular form that wo
O Venres, 26 de Setembro de 2003 ás 04:20:33 -0400, Alfie Costa escribía:
> By such mathematical standards, press flubs like "Squad Helps Dog Bite
> Victim", or "Red Tape Holds Up Bridge"** are perfectly correct, since
"At least K other Developers" is perfectly clear even if K is fractional.
L
M. Srivastava said:
> I would strongly oppose such a GR. We do not need to bring in
> confusion about rounding up or rounding down -- right now, there is
> no confusion, mathematically speaking, about the comparison.
By such mathematical standards, press flubs like "Squad Helps Dog Bite
Vict
20 matches
Mail list logo
