I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you and ashamed to admit that I'm 
"throwing in the towel". This is an idiom used in professional boxing; when a 
coach decides that his fighter can't take anymore punishment, he ends the fight 
by throwing a towel into the ring. I simply don't have the sort of mind that 
takes to juggling letters, numbers and symbols in increasingly fine-grained, 
complex arrangements. I think that in any endeavor, when we struggle towards a 
goal, there should be some satisfaction...some sense of 
each step along the way. But in this quest, I find each step to be difficult 
and unrewarding in and of itself. Sometimes the goal is so compelling that we 
force ourselves to overcome huge impediments to reach it; but in this case, I 
already know what the goal is, and I am only motivated by the desire to 
understand how it is proven. Well, I must be content to leave verification of 
the proof to people who are far better able than I to follow its intricacies. I 
trust they have checked it accurately and will point out inconsistencies in 
this open forum if such exist. Meanwhile, I'm happy to take it on faith. I 
shall certainly continue to lurk here gleaning what I can from the 
philosophical debates whose endless probing of the foundations of existence is 
a source of constant fascination. Best,
      marty a.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruno Marchal" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: The seven step series

> On 21 Aug 2009, at 01:24, meekerdb wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal<>  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I give the solution of the first of the last exercises.
>> ...
>>> This motivates the definition of the following function from N to N,
>>> called factorial.
>>> factorial(0) = 1, and factorial(n) = n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3) * ... *1, if
>>> is n is different from 0.
>>> Note this: if n is different from 0, for each n we have that  
>>> fact(n) =
>>> n*fact(n).
>> Of course you meant fact(n)=n*fact(n-1).
> Yes, indeed.
> Note that later we will see stronger form of recursion, but here it is  
> just a "typo" mistake.
> Bruno
> >
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to