Re: controversial paper
From: Mxsmanic (mxsmanic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/30/03
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: controversial paper"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: Paper - impossible to prove P=?NP"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: Bryan Olson: "Re: controversial paper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:05:32 +0200
Mok-Kong Shen writes:
> But to know their counter-arguments is anyway a knowledge
> gain, isn't it?
I heard their counterarguments years ago.
-- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: controversial paper"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: Paper - impossible to prove P=?NP"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: controversial paper"
- Reply: Bryan Olson: "Re: controversial paper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]