Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'OPNRes'

Author: Mark E. Shoulson
Conversation: Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'OPNRes' ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-propose ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: James Jones's post
Date: Thu Sep 22, 2022 07:09 pm

Mark E. Shoulson

>Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
>From: James Jones <>

>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."



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL