Bruno, 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 accomplishment...in 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" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:47 AM Subject: Re: The seven step series > > > On 21 Aug 2009, at 01:24, meekerdb @dslextreme.com wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> >> 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 > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---