Dr E D F Williams wrote:
All DNA is subject to mathematical constraints resulting from geometries of
the molecules making up the DNA which are in turn dictated by the
mathematics of the geometry governing their individual atoms which is in
turn the result of several of these universal
23:13
Aihe: Re: OT: Numbers and the Golden Section
Hi, Bob,
You know, I think that quote kind of sums up all of these threads that have quite
exploded here in the last several days. (which I've enjoyed immensely, btw, even
though much of it goes over my flat head)
Kelvin was a scientist. He
How on earth this relates to Pentax products is to me a much greater
mental
challenge.
Pentax is the only camera maker whose name relates to a number.
Coincidence? (X-files music begins. . . .)
Personally, I have an old quote hanging in my office from Lord Kelvin.
You know, the guy who invented the Kelvinator, the early models of the
home refrigerator.
Did these refrigerators keep your food at absolute zero?
Well, very nearly absolute zero. g Bob S.
It might fog part of one frame, it would probably be recorded as a point
source. Unless the rules of optics in particular and physics in general
have been re-written recently, and I didn't get the memo, I'd just laugh at
him.
At 03:39 AM 12/31/2002 +0100, you wrote:
At 13:50 2002-12-30 +0200,
Web wizard, or so he thinks, they think they're wired and to them that's
all that counts.
At 10:32 PM 12/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Hi, Geir,
What's a nethead? I don't think we have them here in Toronto. Or if we
do, I'm
not hip enough to know what or who they are g.
Just curious...
thanks,
So long and thanks for the fish.
At 08:08 AM 12/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
No, silly, 42 is the answer!
T Rittenhouse wrote:
12 is the answer.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
And thank you for the new earth.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
So long and thanks
AM
Subject: Re: OT: Numbers and the Golden Section
Personally, I have an old quote hanging in my office from Lord Kelvin.
You know, the guy who invented the Kelvinator, the early models of the
home refrigerator.
Did these refrigerators keep your food at absolute zero?
--
Mark Roberts
:
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do not.
Mathematics has
therefore always existed. Because you may have no language to
describe
something does not mean it doesn't exist. The symbology
]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent 'nothing'. You can't put a value on something
Obviously, you have never had to deal with imaginary numbers.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent
, 2002 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do not. Because you
may have no language to describe
something does not mean it doesn't exist. The symbology of mathematics is
the tool, not mathematics itself. Valence? Valence
Well stated! Also, the eye is trained or brainwashed from an early
age. Some of us have been trained to read from left to right, for others,
the opposite is true.
In the case of a portrait, do our eyes prefer the subject looking to our
right? Which side of the photograph should the
://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 23:34
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
It is clear that we are not communicating. I have no idea why an object has
the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 23:41
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Blathering
PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 0:01
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
It's who he is. I think I'm just growing to accept it. Actually it's
becoming amusing.
He knows EVERYTHING so he needs nothing from us.
He has no actual advice to give.
He misconstrues everything
: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent 'nothing'. You can't put a value on something that does not
exist, yet we do. It means
]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 12:05 PM
Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
To know about numbers is mathematics.
In an earlier post you wrote about languages (with reference to Hayakawa).
Try to think mathematics as a language - a system of description. Objects
exist whether
Math and numbers are a precise language used to describe nature and ideas.
It is no accident that those trained in the biological sciences are arguing
here with those trained in modern physics (most of engineering). The
biological sciences are not worked out far enough to be precisely
Correct.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 15:23
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
-
Lähettäjä: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 14:45
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Mike wrote:
Sorry, Bob, but I'm with Dr. Don on this one. What he's said about six times
is perfectly correct and I think
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:14:16 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
David Hume to the white courtesy telephone, please!
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
but Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just a sloshed as Schlegel.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Hume is famous for a reason. (My own view, however, is probably more in
line with Kant's reply to Hume.) But this also fits well with the
modern scientific approach to human understanding. By this I mean
that what we think is a product of the brain which is a physical object
that works by some
/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 16:31
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Hume is famous for a reason. (My own view, however, is probably more in
line with Kant's
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!
- Benjamin Franklin
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
What you are
saying is EXACTLY
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[nonsense skipped]
---
Mr Blakely,
How can you connect (1) below, with (2)? By what logic?
(1) All mathematics is counting - (2) things exist or they do not.
Binary mathematics.
These two statements are not
: Numbers and the Golden Section
Well, ok, but since thoughts of a possible ET arose in the mind of man
mathematics has been described by scientists and science fiction writers
alike as the only universal language with which we might begin
communication. The contact plate placed aboard the voyager
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not know who you are but it is obvious that you do not know very much
about the philosophy of science.
I'm Robert C Blakely, BSM, BSE, MSE
Actually, it's clear that you do not recognize the classical philosophies of
math and physics. These same
It was Einstein. He continued, I do not know if mathematics is the language
of the universe. He was referring to classical thought regarding
mathematics as essentially the language of God in which the Universe was
written.
Regards,
Bob
Don,
Then your arguement is a philosophical one, like If a tree falls in the forest does
it make any noise? Nature does have rules and order and symetry, but mathematics is
irrelevant until we try to explain this to others?
(And if I still remember correctly, Maxwell's equations don't have
D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Don
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Nope. Its absolutely clear what I mean. There is nothing philosophical
about
it. I hold that Mathematics
Pentax.
Perhaps some topics can be taken to private emails? Just a suggestion.
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I am essentially a good-natured
Mike wrote:
What I said is that mathematics is a human invention.
Of course it is. But does it matter as long as it describe real things? Graphic
relationships in an image can easily be described by mathematics.
Pål
to boing old Pentax.
Perhaps some topics can be taken to private emails? Just a suggestion.
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I am essentially a good
: Numbers and the Golden Section
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Nope. Its absolutely clear what I mean. There is nothing philosophical
about
it. I hold
and the Golden Section
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Nope. Its absolutely clear what I mean. There is nothing philosophical
about
it. I hold
. joulukuuta 2002 21:22
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
Hmm, I would have said Platonist.
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: John Whicker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, ok, but since thoughts of a possible ET arose in the mind of man
mathematics has been described by scientists and science fiction writers
alike as the only universal language with which we might begin communication.
Personally, I have an old quote hanging in my
I especially like the exclamation point! Raimo wouldn't be Raimo without it!
cheers!
frank!
(I mean no disrespect, btw, Raimo. Just fooling around. And I ~really~ do
like your excamation point.)
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Brad, Brad, Brad :-(
We love, All the best!
--
The optimist thinks
viesti-
Lähettäjä: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 21:22
Aihe: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
Hmm, I would have said Platonist
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 30. joulukuuta 2002 22:36
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not far off - but Plato´s theory was about ideas of things, not numbers.
Ah no! Plato's theory was about ideas *themselves*! Foremost among
12 is the answer.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Well, ok, but since thoughts of a possible ET
Hi, Mark,
I didn't say that numbers don't have their place, or that they're not necessary to
describe certain
things - of course they are. If I want to describe a certain number of things that is
more than 41,
but less than 43, I think I'd likely use 42. g
(Kind of reminds me of the Holy
Frank,
I like Kelvin's quote too, in part because when I try to express myself in art or
philosophy or... photography I am reminded that my 'Knowledge' is so 'meager and
unsatisfactory'. vbg
Regards, Bob S.
In a message dated 12/30/2002 5:08:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 12/30/2002 5:27:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Theriault wrote:
Which is why we have scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and
artists. And which is why the lines between these disciplines
are often very blurry, because when you
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't say that numbers don't have their place, or that they're not necessary to
describe certain
things - of course they are. If I want to describe a certain number of things that
is more than 41,
but less than 43, I think I'd likely use 42. g
(Kind
Not making sense, Frank? Your post made more sense, in less space, than
most of the recent long-winded pontificating. Thanks for your $2 worth.
Pat White
Bob wrote:
Mozart's music was perfect. Mathematicians have spend many lifetimes trying
to discover his secrets. Was there a Golden Section in his music?
Surely! Music is pure mathematics. Reseach has even shown that matematic skills
improves if listening to music; particularly complex music.
Not being a Hitchhikers geek, I wouldn't have known that. I'm a Python geek.
However, I know many who are both! vbg
cheers,
frank
Mark Roberts wrote:
erm...I was just making a Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy joke.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
--
The
and the Golden Section
Here we go again - another Pythagorean.
All the best!
John
Geez, guys, stop it! I'm blushing - I really didn't mean to be profound or nothin'.
It was quite
accidental, I assure you.
-frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/30/2002 5:27:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Theriault wrote:
Which is why
If it made sense to you, Pat, I'm glad. That, however may be more of a
comment on you, than it is on whether my post made sense or not! g
-frank
Pat White wrote:
Not making sense, Frank? Your post made more sense, in less space, than
most of the recent long-winded pontificating. Thanks
Which may be why exposing children to classical music at a very early age (as infants)
may well have an effect on their mathematical abilities as they
grow. Which of course doesn't explain me, as my father listened to The Classics
constantly, and I'm a mathematical idiot! g
That being said,
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Numbers and the Golden Section
Geez, guys, stop it! I'm blushing - I really didn't mean to be profound
or nothin'. It was quite
accidental, I assure you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I
don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value
represent
Hi,
Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 11:48:43 AM, you wrote:
I'm glad you said that. It needed to be said.
At 06:07 AM 12/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Zero is not a number, it is a place holder. Funny thing is that without it
mathematics is very difficult.
you're confusing the value with the
1.Pickup your camera
2.Count the numbers
3.Add the numbers
4Divide the sum by the number of numbers.
5You now have the Mean Average for your camera.
Other than that? Hell, I don't know!
Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: Geir Aalberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How on earth
At 13:50 2002-12-30 +0200, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
In some parts of the world, we have recently been told, the act of taking a
photograph of a person (with a Pentax camera?) removes a part of his or her
'soul'. One must assume, using the same logic, that this 'part' is somehow
incorporated into
Hi, Geir,
What's a nethead? I don't think we have them here in Toronto. Or if we do, I'm
not hip enough to know what or who they are g.
Just curious...
thanks,
frank
Geir Aalberg wrote:
Interestingly enough I just recently tried to take a picture (alas with a
Leica IIIf, not a Pentax)
I repeat for the nth time: Nature does not obey, nor conform in any way to
Mathematical rules. We can only observe what happens and try to understand it
using whatever tools we have.
Don,
Methinks we are jousting with mystics here. It's clear what Bob's saying,
but his view is essentially
It only leads to the 'Golden Section' because you want it to Herb. Nature
does not obey numbers! There is nothing special about those numbers at all.
But there may well be something very special about a thing they may have
been used to describe.
There are many ways in which a picture may be
Below...
Regards,
Bob
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!
- Benjamin Franklin
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It only leads to the 'Golden Section' because you want it to Herb. Nature
]
Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 17:38
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Below...
Regards,
Bob
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!
- Benjamin Franklin
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
Below...
Regards,
Bob
and the Golden Section
In case anyone hasn't noticed this yet, it's impossible to resolve this
argument, as people are operating from two different world views. I'm
actually with Don on this one, as I believe mathematics is a tool, a
language, and essentially a set of metaphors that we use
Sunday, December 29, 2002, 8:14:08 PM, Bob wrote:
BB This sounds like an intriguing argument meant for discussion around a hearth
BB and with brandy.
[...]
BB As I said, this is all very philosophical and requires brandy, or at least a
BB consultation with the Reverend Jack Daniels.
BB Regards,
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do not. Mathematics has
therefore always existed. Because you may have no language to describe
something does not mean it doesn't exist. The symbology of mathematics is
the tool, not mathematics itself. Valence? Valence is a counting of charge.
In a message dated 12/29/2002 2:02:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are no recognised 'basic constants of the universe'.
A, come on, you're overlooking the spiral.
Wasn't there a book once about how often the spiral occurs in nature from micro to
macro (sea
, December 30, 2002 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
You mean it doesn't???
At 07:47 PM 12/29/2002 +0100, you wrote:
It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been
observed in the nature. Lots of numbers can be found in the observations
of nature
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do not.
Mathematics has
therefore always existed. Because you may have no language to
describe
something does not mean it doesn't exist. The symbology
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Well, I saw a Seven running around in the woods the other day.
Or maybe it
was those mushrooms I et.
My wife is a 9.2.
William Robb
and the Golden Section
You mean it doesn't???
At 07:47 PM 12/29/2002 +0100, you wrote:
It is the other way round. Tell me one instance when a number has been
observed in the nature. Lots of numbers can be found in the observations
of nature which describe it - but these numbers are just
: Numbers and the Golden Section
Below...
Regards,
Bob
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!
- Benjamin Franklin
From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It only leads to the 'Golden
Har! I'm not typing this!
;)
Regards,
Bob
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!
- Benjamin Franklin
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 29. joulukuuta 2002 22:07
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
I'm not sure I understand what you wrote but I'll give it a try.
Tell me one instance when a number has
: Numbers and the Golden Section
abracadabra
abracadabr
abracadab
abracada
abracad
abraca
abrac
abra
abr
ab
a
Right!
Nature obeys no numbers.
There are no recognised
: Numbers and the Golden Section
I don't know why folks are so caustic these days.
I don't know I'm so caustic these days.
Perhaps I'm just thick and don't get it, but to me constants such as pi,
universal gravitational constant, charge of an electron numbers of things
and their combined effects
It's who he is. I think I'm just growing to accept it. Actually it's
becoming amusing.
He knows EVERYTHING so he needs nothing from us.
He has no actual advice to give.
He misconstrues everything that is said.
He acts like a baby when his concepts of nature are challenged.
So why is he here?
This is quite specious! Technically, you're getting into the philosophy of
entity, which is far from a settled discipline. Just the statement things
exist is a philosophically disreputable statement.
Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? The discussion on
ghosts is about this
Bob wrote:
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do not.
Well, according to quantum mechanics some things might exist and not exist at the same
time :-)
Otherwise you're basically right. It has been proven without any doubt that there are
relationships that can be expressed by
Because something can't be represented exactly, it
doesn't or can't exist? For this fellow, knowledge of pi to beyond what is
sufficient accuracy to send landers to Mars is insufficient to conclude it
exists and is natural! Talk about silly!
Bob,
The concept or principle exists. The number
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:11:59 -0800, Bob Blakely wrote:
Interesting points. I think language is often a stumbling block even for
folks who claim to speak the same language. It sure seems to get me into
trouble.
Language is a butter knife. Some discussions require a surgeon's
scalpel.
TTYL,
O !
Yea !
T at's rig t!
(h's have a low probability of existance in t is post.)
Regards,
Bob
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!
- Benjamin Franklin
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob
No one anywhere at any time in any of these posts has claimed that it's the
way we define it_ that dictates to nature what nature must be. If you're
under the misconception that I or anyone else has, it's because you read the
words we posted through your own provincial filter to arrive at such an
. joulukuuta 2002 22:35
Aihe: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
I don't know why folks are so caustic these days.
I don't know I'm so caustic these days.
Perhaps I'm just thick and don't get it, but to me constants such as pi,
universal gravitational constant, charge of an electron numbers
Another thing that is bothering me about all these threads:
why is nobody
complaining about all these religion posts?
We're busted.
WW
Yes, a dis-information tactic that failed. Once we got surrounded (circled)
we were defeated by Pi.
for more than twenty five hundred years.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse
Subject: Re: Vs
'Y's a crooked letter that cannot be straightened.
Figure out that one ;-)
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Numbers and the Golden Section
O !
Yea !
T at's rig t!
(h's have
. Just a thought.
Brad
- Original Message -
From: Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section
Ok, That is it!
From:
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/pi/pi.html
an excerpt:
Pi is one of the few
Puff the Magic Drag Queen says it's just like Bad Spoon...
Regards,
Bob
SAVE THE PLANET - KILL YOURSELF!
From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'Y's a crooked letter that cannot be straightened.
Figure out that one ;-)
What you are
saying is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying. When I and others say
or allude to the fact that mathematics existed before the dawn of time
Sorry, Bob, but I'm with Dr. Don on this one. What he's said about six times
is perfectly correct and I think you're the one not
What you are
saying is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying. When I and others
say
or allude to the fact that mathematics existed before the dawn of time
Actually he is quite correct. You are imposing a human element to natural
occurances, which is erroneous. You are speaking about
In a message dated 12/30/2002 1:10:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
What you are
saying is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying. When I and others
say
or allude to the fact that mathematics existed before the dawn of time
Actually he is quite correct.
95 matches
Mail list logo
