HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - NewScientist Article
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mineral Products, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:20:30 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.023025.20353@dmp.csiro.au> lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:

>>No flames please -                        
>>I'm blindly going with the majority view on Albian's attempted theory.
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^

>     Don't blindly do it.  Realize that a physical theory must 
>     have some connection with the physical universe.  Since his doesn't,
>     it isn't even a theory.

Even if I could get a plain English version of this attempted
theory, would it being worth it?                         
This already seems to have wasted quite a few working
hours for a theory that is not generally regarded
even as an attempted theory.

As I got on to this thread late, I still have trouble
differentiating the attempted theory with the
slagging match that is going on.  Re:-

"STATUS QUO" "RESISTANCE TO CHANGE" "RAVING LOONY" etc etc.

How do you differentiate the abuse from the
theory?

One thing to be said for this discussion is the
intensity of the posts.  Anti MS vs UNIX vs NT vs DOS vs
Santa Claus vs Easter Bunny flame wars just don't
seem to compare to this.  Goto sci.physics and some posts just
seem to reach out and step on your brain.
Some people waste money on drugs to get this effect!!

DISCLAIMER (after sci.physics I now take no risks) :-
I only partake in this discussion in respect for the
ammount of time and tax-payers money it is wasting.
What do I care? I'm a chemist not a physics boffin.
This theory is your problem - let them (sci.physics) eat cake.

Bring on the carcinogens and toxic waste - WE PARTY ALL NIGHT

NB: Use of carcinogens and toxic waste at parties is
not recommended without parental supervision.

With regards and failed humour,   Lachlan.
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                    v 
Xref: sparky sci.math:17043 sci.math.symbolic:3295
From: nitin@Ingres.COM (Nitin Borwankar)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic
Subject: Re: SIMTEL-20 symbolic mathmatica software
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:49:57 GMT
Reply-To: nitin@Ingres.COM (Nitin Borwankar)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

I believe ( and I may not have this exact to the letter ) that the commercial
use of the Internet is within the original goals of the NSF *as long as it
supports research and education*.
Very loosely speaking products supporting research and education could be
discussed and still remain within the original guidelines.
Clearly discussion of symbolic mathematical packages is of interest primarily
to students, academics and research scientists and engineers.

Given this, There doesn't appear to be a problem with discussing either
SymbMath or Maple or even letting everyone know of its features when someone
asks for it.

The fact that there is a *free* version of some such package is definitely
worth knowing. If the developer is available for comments via the net, all
the better. This definitely serves research and education.

If there is something personal the original poster has against the developer
of SymbMath he should address it personally by e-mail, rather than start
a flame war here.

The original tone of the complaint about commercial posting had an edge to it
that did appear a bit attacking.

Let's focus on helping each other and if someone blatantly begins advertising
without being solicited for info, they are likely to be negatively affected
rather than positively, since people tend to stay away from them.

Speaking for myself, I did find all the above messages valuable.

Nitin Borwankar,
nitin@ingres.com
*** visualize whirled peas ***
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Factor 69 digit integer
From: dane@nermal.SantaRosa.Edu (Dane Jasper)
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:24:37 PST
Organization: Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa, CA

In article <101618@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.132040.1186@walter.cray.com>, slow@ferrari (David Slowinski) writes:
>>> Please help me.  I need the prime factors of 
>>>  132686104398972053177608575506090561429353935989033525802891469459697
>
>Looks like homework to me!
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Looks like someones messing with RSA to me!  Best 'o luck - that's a BIG
number.

Dane Jasper
Computing Services, Santa Rosa JC
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Guide to Linear Algebra for "Beginners"
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:22:52 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Dec10.213959.24148@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:
>  Cambridge University Press has a book "Introduction to Numerical
>Linear Algebra and Optimisation" by Ciarlet, which seems pretty good.

The standard book on numerical linear algebra seems to be Golub and
van Loan's _Matrix Computations_, with honorable mention to Hanson
and Lawson's _Solving Least Squares Problems_ and deference to the
venerable Wilkinson's _The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem_.

>Fred Chapman
>Linear Algebra Fanatic

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

(Also Linear Algebra Fanatic)
From: koc@rize.ECE.ORST.EDU (Cetin Kaya Koc)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: what is the number ..
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:58:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1gqm51INN9n
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: rize.ece.orst.edu


Whose sum of the factorials of the digits is the number itself.

1, 45,

and also 40585.

-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FUO9&5R;B!#;W5R:65R.WT*7&UA
M<F=L,3(P"EQM87)G<C$R,`I<<&%R9%QT>#$Q-3)<='@R,S`T7'1X,S0U-EQT
M>#0V,#A<='@U-S8P7'1X-CDQ,EQT>#@P-C1<='@Y,C$V7'1X,3`S-CA<='@Q
M,34R,%QF,%QB,%QI,%QU;&YO;F5<9G,R-%QF8S!<8V8P(%P*"EQP87)D7'1X
M,%QT>#$Q,C!<='@R,C0P7'1X,S,V,%QT>#0T.#!<='@U-C`P7'1X-C<R,%QT
M>#<X-#!<='@X.38P7'1X,3`P.#!<='@Q,3(P,%QT>#$R,S(P7'1X,3,T-#!<
M='@Q-#4V,%QT>#$U-C@P7'1X,38X,#!<='@Q-SDR,%QT>#$Y,#0P7'1X,C`Q
M-C!<='@R,3(X,%QF8S!<8V8P(%=H;W-E('-U;2!O9B!T:&4@9F%C=&]R:6%L
M<R!O9B!T:&4@9&EG:71S(&ES('1H92!N=6UB97(@:71S96QF+EP*7`HQ+"`T
8-2Q<"EP*86YD(&%L<V\@-#`U.#4N"GT*
`
From: allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Would Pi repeat, were it expressed in a base other than 10?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 18:20:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: torment.ugcs.caltech.edu

Dave Dodson <dodson@convex.COM> writes:

>>>Of course, pi to the base pi is 1.000000000....
>>Not to nitpick, but it's 10.00000.... ;-)

>Combining this with a previously-beaten-to-death result, we see that
>pi to the base pi is 9.999... .

The second statement is the only true one, if we take 9=1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1,
as I tend to. (Cross-thread with "Numbers and sets", I guess! : -8 )
In this case the number mentioned by D. Dodson is much larger than pi.
An instructive related fact: in base 5, 5 = 10 = 4.44444.....
								Allen K.
Xref: sparky sci.math:16818 comp.edu:2198 misc.education:5214
From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH)
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.edu,misc.education
Subject: Re: Student attitudes
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:27:46 GMT
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1g6gsjINNou3@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell) writes:
>>I realize that it's probably unrealistic to expect math departments to
>>include more physics-related examples in their calculus courses, because
>>most of the students _aren't_ physics majors, after all.  We really
>>should spend more time on the math in _our_ courses, but that means
>>lengthening the courses or omitting physics material to make room for the
>>math.  We already do that to some extent here: the first half semester
>>of our junior Electricity & Magnetism course is devoted to vector calculus.
>
>One solution, if you could get past the politics, would be to have the
>math dept and the physics dept jointly design and jointly teach a course
>for physicists that would be both mathematically and psysically
>respectable.  I mean, make the calculus course and the physics course
>one single course, maybe with twice the usual class hours, but able to
>spend all of those hours on physics this week and math next week, if
>that turns out to be appropriate.

I've heard of things like this done, but it seems that in a large number
of cases as soon as a physics department makes noise about teaching its
own math courses, turf wars erupt with the math faculty.  Disguising it
under the name "Mathematical Physics" might be an option...

>Is intro physics for physics majors the same course as intro physics
>for engineers?  If so, the demand for this course might actually make
>it economically feasible.

In a fair number of schools the intro physics courses are lumped into
the "Physical Sciences and Engineering" and the "Life Science and Other
Schnooks" versions.  Often the latter loses the calculus basis.

-- 
 Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) | Wishing I were an emaciated chihuahua. 
 "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"
From: jcrw@fmg.bt.co.uk (Jeremy Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Square root of a matrix
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:32:27 GMT
Organization: British Telecom
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Jeremy Wilson (jcrw@fmg.bt.co.uk) wrote:
: 
: In fact every matrix with all its eigenvalues equal and non-zero  can be written  as a product of a scalar matrix and an upper unitriangular matrix.
:  It is easy to show by induction on the matrix size that  the 
:  unitriangular matrix has only one square root which is unitriangular 
:  so we now seem to have enough using Jordan normal form  to determine all 
:  square roots, except those with zero eigenvalues.  A matrix with all its
:   eigenvalues zero, however, cannot have a square root  unless it is 
:   the zero matrix, as far as I can see. 
: 



Sorry! Slight correction! only one unitriangular square root!! 


+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
! Jeremy Wilson			  !	email: jcrw@fmg.bt.co.uk           !
! Room 3-07                       !     Telephone: 0473-227822             !  
! BT Development and Procurement  !     International: +44 473-227822      !
! Bibb Way			  !     Facsimile: 0473-210182             !
! IPSWICH                         !     International: +44 473-210182      !
! Suffolk  IP1 2EQ                !     Telex: 987705                      !
! United Kingdom                  !     International: +51 987705          !
!  				  !     				   !
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
From: hdev@dutiag.tudelft.nl (Hans de Vreught)
Subject: Re: Factor 69 digit integer
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:15:58 GMT

eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

>In article <101618@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>   In article <1992Dec10.132040.1186@walter.cray.com>, slow@ferrari (David Slowinski) writes:

Keep the credits right! David Slowinsky (the one who has the current Mersenne
prime record) posted this for Linda Bonanno (lbonanno@vnet.ibm.com) who works
for IBM. Thus, Linda Bonanno writes:

>   >> Please help me.  I need the prime factors of 
>   >>  132686104398972053177608575506090561429353935989033525802891469459697

>   Looks like homework to me!

>I didn't know Cray Computer gave their employees homework ...

And the same is true for IBM employees ...
--
Hans de Vreught                          | John von Neumann:
hdev@dutiba.twi.tudelft.nl               | Young man, in mathematics
Delft University of Technology (TWI-ThI) | you don't understand things,
The Netherlands                          | you just get used to them.
From: edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Function Terminology
Date: 12 Dec 1992 08:45:15 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math.
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu

In article <1gaq3tINNg9q@uwm.edu> radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe) writes:
>Suppose I have a function f: A --> B, and C is a subset of B which
>contains the image set of f.  I define a function g: A --> C by
>setting g(a) = f(a) for all a in A.  Usually, f and g can be considered 
>as the same function, but sometimes the distinction is important.
>
>Is there a standard term or notation for this?
>

g is the astriction of f to C .
-- 
  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
  Columbus, OH 43210             -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
From: dmc@sjfc.UUCP (Cass Dan)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Forcing f(x) to have horizontal asymptote at +infinity
Keywords: none
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:14:25 GMT
Organization: St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY

The function f(x) = ln(x) has its derivative 1/x approaching
zero as x --> +infinity, yet f(x) itself has no horizontal
asymptote.  Even though the curve gets arbitrarily flat, nonetheless
it never levels out.

For comparison, the function f(x) = arctan(x) has its derivative
1/(1 + x^2) approaching zero as x --> +infinity, but this time
f(x) *does* have an asymptote, namely y=pi/2.

My question is: what conditions must be imposed on the derivative
f'(x) of a function f(x) in order to cause it to necessarily have
a horizontal asymptote as x --> +infinity ?

Maybe a condition on both f'(x) and f''(x), since the latter is
related to curvature....

More formally, can the existence/nonexistence of a horizontal asymptote
for the function f(x) as x --> +infinity be decided in terms of
	a) the values of lim [x --> +infinity] f'(x), f''(x), etc ?
	b) the asymptotic behavior of these derivatives f', f'',
		etc as x --> +infinity ?

This question could be thought of as an "at infinity" version of
the fact that, IF f' = 0 for all x, THEN f = constant [true if
f is a smooth function].  What I'm asking is: if we want to conclude
that f(x) --> constant as x --> +infinity, what limiting type 
conditions must we place on the derivatives of f?

Respond here or to dmc@sjfc.edu
--Dan Cass

/-++#: /-==+ not much of a sig
From: campbell@Aero.org (Andrew Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Function Terminology
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:26:10 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: amanuensis.aero.org

In article <Bz48w1.G5C@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec11.203802.1770@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
|> >In article <1gaq3tINNg9q@uwm.edu> radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe) writes:
|> >>Suppose I have a function f: A --> B, and C is a subset of B which
|> >>contains the image set of f.  I define a function g: A --> C by
|> >>setting g(a) = f(a) for all a in A.  Usually, f and g can be considered 
|> >>as the same function, but sometimes the distinction is important.
|>
|> >>Is there a standard term or notation for this?
|>

and Rubin replies
 
|> >While I've not heard of one, one could borrow notation used to make the
|> >analogous distinction for the integer 2 viewed as the real 2. and write
|> >f:A->B as f. and f:A->C as just f without the point.
|> 
|> The function is exactly the same.  A function, in whatever foundational
|> system is used, is something which takes arguments in a domain and
|> operates on them.  The image set depends only on f and A.  Which
|> superset of the range is used does not affect the function.
|> -- 


My view is different. A function has a domain and a co-domain. If the
codomain is changed a different function is obtained (as Pratt wants).
The term `range' is usually used (as Rubin does) for the image of the 
domain. In the given setup, I have seen the term `co-restricted' (to C)
used, in analogy to `restricted'. I believe I recall various notations 
for this, such as C\f (analogous to f/D or f|D for the restriction of f
to D, a subset of the domain). However, the solution generally applied
in situations where not too many co-restrictions are needed is simply
to name the new function "after f" and specify its co-domain. For example:
"let f':A->C be given by f'(a) = f(a) for all a in A.", or, using the
`wiggly arrow' notation, "... consider f':A --> C, a ~> f(a) ... "
-- 
 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|L. Andrew Campbell     internet: campbell@aerospace.aero.org   |
|M1-102 PO Box 92957    organization: The Aerospace Corp.       |
|Los Angeles CA 90009   telephone: (310) 336-8642               |
From: dak@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Haughty quote
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:54:27 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen
NNTP-Posting-Host: messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.183542.4613@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, kellum@sjsumcs (Ken Kellum) writes:
>>I recall seeing a very haughty quote:  A proof that the definite
>>integral from -infinity to infinity of exp(-x^2) is the square
>>root of Pi, followed by something like "to a mathematician that
>>is as obvious as two times two is four".

>>Does anyone know the origin of this quote?

>Lord Kelvin.

>It's not haughty, by the way.  Mathematicians are as capable of
>viewing the definite integral as being obvious as they are at
>obfuscating 2+2 and 2*2.
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

I have some times amused myself with trying to solve that integral
(I know substition associates this with gamma(0.5), but this is
chasing the hen by throwing eggs).

My msuings were spoilt when I accidently hit on a (very clean and simple)
derivation using double integral substitution in the TeXbook
(for those not in the know, TeX is a typesetting system especially
friends with math) as a typesetting example.
From: yates@a.chem.upenn.edu (John H. Yates)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: *graceful* numbers
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:32:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I have a user that has a bad C code for generating
graceful numbers. Does anyone have such a beast
or a reference? I can't explain what a graceful
number is, but it is evidently a mathematically
accepted and defined beast. I can't find it in
Numerical Recipes or some of Knuth's books though.

Thanks, John
yates@a.chem.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.math,rec.puzzles
From: martin@lyra.cis.umassd.edu (Gary Martin)
Subject: Re: Marilyn Vos Savant's error?
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
	<1992Dec15.160000.3714@cs.cornell.edu>
	<BzBE0J.A6F@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
	<1992Dec15.211052.17873@cs.cornell.edu> <0_l2xhh@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:26:45 GMT

In article <0_l2xhh@rpi.edu> rogerj@aix.rpi.edu (Diversion (Jeff Rogers)) writes:

   What I didn't see in this thread ('tho I may have missed it earlier, I just
   picked up the thread) is the simple biological argument. The probability of
   any given child being a boy[girl] is 50%. Regardless of the sexes of any
   siblings. 

   Disregarding psychological implications:
   "I have 100 children, (at least) 99 of which are boys"

   The chance that the 100th child is a boy is _still_ 50%.

But this does rely on psychological implications or else you've missed
the mathematical point.  But passage from two to 100 makes it more 
convincing.  Try this:

Take a bag with a bazillion pennies and a bazillion nickels.  Randomly
draw 100 coins and put them in a much smaller bag.  Randomly draw
99 coins from the smaller bag.  Having observed that 99 of them are
pennies, what is the probability that the remaining coin is a nickel?
If it were a nickel, then 99 times out of 100 you would have seen it
already, so having seen 99 pennies would have been a freak occurrence.
But if it were a penny, then the event you just observed would be a
certainty.  We have two hypotheses to choose from: one which makes 
our observation inevitable and one which makes it a freak accident.
Which hypothesis is more likely?


--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Martin@cis.umassd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System)
Subject: Re: Difference between "show" and "prove"
Organization: Massey University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 20:50:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.195452.29610@u.washington.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes:
> A distinction between demonstration and proof can be made as follows.
> When one is working within an axiomatic system and derives formal
> consequences of the axioms, this is called a demonstration.

My answer is the opposite. When I exhibit a 3,4,5 triangle and show that
3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, I have demonstrated Pythagoras's theorem. I haven't
proved it.

As there is no formal international standard for mathematics, who is
to say who has the best answer.

Terry Moore

P.S. Devil's advocate - "prove" means "test" as in a ship's "proving
trials". I believe that an exam caused some controversy when the it
asked for a "proof" of a statement which was false. The examiner said,
"That's OK, give a counter example and show that the statement fails the test".
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: bs@linus.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Interesting Discrete Math Question
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:14:47 GMT

In article <BzFMMs.D86@unccsun.uncc.edu> sbardhan@uncc.edu writes:
>Ken writes:
>  
>This is all well and fine, except, how do you know you've found the best partition
>of those integers?  That is, how do you know there isn't some other partition Q = 

If I had not spoken in haste earlier and actually THOUGHT about the problem,
I would have found the answer to the above question in the first place.
 
I'll give a hint with a full solution later:

Consider the equivalence classes of the integers from 1 to 100 mod 3.

There are 34 congruent to 1 mod 3 and 33 congruent (each) to 0 or -1.

Another way is to look at the integers 1 to 100 written in balanced
ternary and apply the pigeonhole principle.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Xref: sparky sci.math:17036 rec.puzzles:7974
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: sci.math,rec.puzzles
Subject: Re: Naming Large Numbers (Re: Negative Zero)
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:29:15 GMT
 <1992Dec15.162324.28405@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <1992Dec15.210004.2556@hobbes.kzoo.edu> 
 <1992Dec15.215022.17520@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <DREIER.92Dec15215917@lhasa.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <DREIER.92Dec15215917@lhasa.berkeley.edu>
dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes:

> Ahh...but the point is, that to actually, accurately write down the
> number, one has to write out 3.14159... to a number of places that
> exceeds (by an immense ammount) the number of atoms in the universe.
> And it is rather hard to find a piece of paper that large.

But would it be harder to find a piece of paper that large or to make
the result last for a billion years?  :-)


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: sci.math