Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof
From: José Carlos Santos (jcsantos_at_fc.up.pt)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: Grant Frisken: "Re: Protection via activation / product registration keys"
- 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: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:12:06 +0000
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> I'm in a weird mood today so I'm answering a lot of these posts.
I didn't know that some times you were in non-weird mood. I guess that
you never post here in those occasions.
> First off, my post actually includes a theorem, which comes in at the
> end, not stated at the beginning, which is just a convention.
What does this theorem asserts?
> I say, if you wish to make a challenge to my proof, then challenge the
> proof.
How can I challenge a proof when I do not know what does it intend to
prove?
> Chatter is a waste of time here.
Then you loooooooooove to wast time.
Best regards
Jose Carlos Santos
- Next message: Grant Frisken: "Re: Protection via activation / product registration keys"
- 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: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
