From owner-fx-prFrom owner-fx-propose@alien.kumo.com  Tue Oct 15 21:10:09 1996
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by alien.kumo.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA29500 for fx-propose-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:09:28 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: alien.kumo.com: majordom set sender to owner-fx-propose using -f
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 23:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610160309.XAA17925@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@cs.columbia.edu>
To: fx-propose@ideosphere.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961015155815.13957B-100000@cnj.digex.net> (message
	from James Jones on Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:58:55 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'OPNRes'
Sender: owner-fx-propose@kumo.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fx-propose@ideosphere.com

 
 >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
>From: James Jones <jjones@cnj.digex.net>

>On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>> >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
>> >From: Vinay Kumar <vinayk@nautilus.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
>> 
>> >On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Ken Kittlitz wrote:
>> 
>> >> long:
>> >> There will be a proof showing the nonexistence of odd perfect numbers 
>> >> or a proof showing the existence of an odd perfect numbers
>> 
>> >Nitpicking, but that should be "an odd perfect number"
>> 
>> Bleah; that's what happens when you change wording midstream.  Either "an
>> odd perfect number" or "odd perfect numbers"; plural probably makes more
>> sense.

>I disagree. What if someone finds ONE odd perfect number but can't prove
>that there are more of them?

An interesting fine point of English idiom.  I think it is common to say
things like "Aha!  I have found a five-leafed clover!  So they DO exist
after all!  There ARE five-leafed clovers!"  Even though there's only one.
But OK, I'll switch to "an odd perfect number."

~mark