OK, we are aligned again. ;-)
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Correct. Just don't assume that that will make Internet searching
> any cleaner. :-)
You mean XML is not the solution to everything? ;-)
--
-
Tex TexinDirecto
Tex,
> I was with you up to this last comment.
>
> I can't think of any reason why you *would* want the constant G to match
> with values for G in word searches.
My point was that if I was looking for "G"'s, hoping to find them on
the assumption that they were encoded as "G"'s, i.e. U+0047, alo
Hi Ken,
I was with you up to this last comment.
I can't think of any reason why you *would* want the constant G to match
with values for G in word searches.
If I wanted to find the use of gravitational formulae in my database or
on the web, narrowing the search for G makes a lot of sense.
Try s
Elliotte Rusty Harold also asked:
> While hunting down the candidates I noticed that 0x2107, a Latin
> capital letter open E, is named the "EULER CONSTANT". However a quick
> Google search seems to indicate that the Euler constant is
> 0.577215... generated from a different series and is norma
Elliotte Rusty Harold asked:
> > Does anybody happen to know the appropriate
> > Unicode character for the
> > base of the natural logarithms, e?
Various people answered:
U+0065.
Stefan responded:
> Actually, this should be an italic 'e'.
Here is a complete answer.
As John Jenkins pointed
--- "John H. Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: >
> On Sunday, April 7, 2002, at 10:02 AM, Elliotte
> Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> > Does anybody happen to know the appropriate
> Unicode character for the
> > base of the natural logarithms, e? Paging through
> the Unicode spec I
> > found a numbe
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 09:02
Subject: Character for e, 2.71828...
> Does anybody happen to know the appropriate Unicode character for
the
> base of the natural logarithms, e? Paging through the Unicode spec I
> found a number of candidates in various bl
On Sunday, April 7, 2002, at 10:02 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> Does anybody happen to know the appropriate Unicode character for the
> base of the natural logarithms, e? Paging through the Unicode spec I
> found a number of candidates in various blocks including 0065, 212E, and
> 212F
Elliotte Rusty Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anybody happen to know the appropriate Unicode character for
> the base of the natural logarithms, e? Paging through the Unicode
> spec I found a number of candidates in various blocks including
> 0065, 212E, and 212F but none of which ident
Does anybody happen to know the appropriate Unicode character for the
base of the natural logarithms, e? Paging through the Unicode spec I
found a number of candidates in various blocks including 0065, 212E,
and 212F but none of which identified themselves as this number in
particular.
While
10 matches
Mail list logo
