posted and e-mailed. On 22 Feb 2003 11:01:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Warner) wrote:
> Rich Ulrich did you a good turn, and complete. - thanks - [ snip, some] > > I am not as clear as Rich on how to handle the zero outer case. ... [ snip, rest ] I hope I was "clear" but I hope I did not seem complacent, that I had a perfectly fine solution, or the only solution. This reminds me, that when people read reviews of their papers or of proposals, they sometimes imagine that the reviewer's mildest suggestion is intended as the *last word* instead of being a *suggestion*. If I say, "That is wrong," or "Every precedent says .... " -- then I'm being serious. More commonly, my review comments intend to have the subtext, "Here is where I failed to understand what you were doing; is my guess, <whatever>, right?" (I can say that explicitly, too.) So, I hope I wasn't *too* clear, if that would mean to the reader that I figured the problem was done now. For the zero-case, in particular, I suggested a neat (IMHO) possibility which could be all wrong. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
