Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <4e3ee8fa.6080...@bcs.org.uk>, on 08/07/2011
at 08:35 PM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said:
But you seem to be saying that, unless I can cite from your book the
chapter and verse that supports my argument, my argument is false.
No, neither I nor the others have said that. What we said was that you
were wrong, period, and that in the case of software it is the
documentation that determines how things are supposed to work. The
fact that you were also wrong about how it actually works was gravy.
As far as credibility is concerned, do you remember saying that my
proof that 0.999...<recurring ad infinitum> is equal to 1 was false
- and that, when I pointed out that this was not my proof but that
taught by my university, you said my university was wrong (or words
to that effect)?
No, but it's common for the mathematically naíve to make errors when
attempting to construct a proof.
Gimme a break. I am not mathematically 'naïve' and my proof was in fact
correct. End of discussion.
The University of Liverpool is renowned worldwide as a leading
authority in mathematics.
Sturgeon's law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
