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: Tue May 23, 2017 06:41 pm

Mark E. Shoulson




>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

source



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