Ideosphere Forum | |||
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 Back to regular message display | |||
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL |