Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring
From: Gregory G Rose (ggr_at_qualcomm.com)
Date: 03/31/05
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: petela_at_gocougs.wsu.edu: "Re: Static version of bignum library"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 30 Mar 2005 17:59:17 -0800
In article <1112231835.576341.37190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
>Understand that it's not about opinion?
Oh, yes, I quite understand that whether it is a
theorem or not is not a matter of opinion. I just
wrote "IMHO" to soften the blow. A bunch of
equations does not a theorem make. Now back to
our regularly scheduled blather. I really only
posted at all to get in the joke about rhetorical
questions. Would you like me to explain the
joke?
Greg.
-- Greg Rose 232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: petela_at_gocougs.wsu.edu: "Re: Static version of bignum library"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Critiquing surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|