At 9:16 PM -0400 10/28/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
>
>I'll comment more on this from another note of yours.  I
>think you're probably right, but that we need to figure out
>how to really nail that argument down, which means
>specifying exactly what's meant by ``close to an inverse,''
>or whatever.

I have some ideas on this, based on the earlier note, but I think I 
should take some time and write them up more formally.

Arnold Reinhold

Reply via email to