Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: Randy Howard: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:01:32 -0800
>It's a social convention to begin with the theorem being proven.
Yes, it is a very standard convention, which serves a purpose. It is good to
know up front where a proof is trying to get to. Would you please be kind
and follow that convention here? If you cannot provide a theorem up front, I
will make the conclusion that you have no idea what you are trying to prove.
- Next message: Randy Howard: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|