And, while I'm at it (ie the subject of forwarding)...
I'd *really appreciate it* if y'all'd send the *decent* jokes (like the recent "Bread Statistics) to the chat *directly*, for the next few months (till early November), instead of sending them to me for "laundering" first. That's mostly because of my "new! improved!" signature... :) Its barf to appreciation ratio seems to be running at a steady 2:1. Avital has accepted my (cogently logical, I'd like to think <g>) argument on why it ought to be permitted at all, but we both agreed that there was no reason at all, for me to *ram* it down everyone's throat 7 times a day... So, I have self-imposed a limit; no more than 2 messages a day on lace, and no more than 4 on chat.
When you send a message to me to forward, for whatever reason (usually a disaffection with Arachne; you read, but you won't post), you clip one of the slots I permit myself for that day. If I forward *your* message (and parade my sig to everyone's indignation in the process), I do not feel as free to forward someone else's.
Several of my "sources" are totally outside the "*Arachne* loop" (never mind *chat*); when they come up with something really funny, I do want to share it with y'all (as long as it's half-decent; otherwise, it goes via the "subterrenean route"). But, I *can not*, if I'd already expended my "day's ration" on forwarding stuff that nobody could/would have objected to (if it weren't for *my* sig)...
I'll continue to forward jokes, to chat (and elsewhere) from the non-chat people, as long as I'm on chat. I'll even continue to forward the ones which you're not sure about (somewhat risquee) and will accept the blame for those. But I will no longer forward, to Arachne, *perfectly acceptable* messages from the members of Arachne.
And, anyway, I'll be "outa here", for 5 weeks, beginning June 21. Some of you will *hafta* learn to live without the umbilical cord... <g>
From: M.A.
From 45+ years ago, I seem to remember that there was a term when things moved in the 2+2+2 order (arithmetical progression?) And a different one when they moved in a 2x2x2 fashion (geometrical progression?) I need *both* those terms. I think... :)
From about the same era, I remember it too:
If a series is formed by always adding the same number, it's called an arithmetic progression. E.g. 1, 3, 5, 7 ... ; or 4, 9, 14, 19 ...
If a series is formed by always multiplying by the same number, it's a geometric progression. E.g. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ... ; or 2, 6, 18, 54 ...
Doesn't matter what number you start with, it's the process which is important for the naming of the progression.
So you and I have remembered the same thing; and so we're probably right.
Until one of the other mathematicians on the list comes up with some
new-fangled idea <G>.
BTW, that "'and' is the same as 'times', 'or' is the same as 'plus'" works
in logic and in binary arithmetic (ask Danek) but not in common-or-garden
everyday sums. I always maintained that arithmetic (sums) are not the same
thing as mathematics. I can do mathematics - sums take a little longer.
--------------------------------------------
A lawyer was well into a lengthy cross-examination when he stopped and said:
"Your honor, a juror is asleep."
The judge ruled: "You put him to sleep; you wake him up." --------------------------------------------
--- Tamara P Duvall http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) Healthy US through The No-CARB Diet: no C-heney, no A-shcroft, no R-umsfeld, no B-ush.
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
