Prev: Number of digits in factorial
Next: Number Representation Problem
From: Bill Dubuque on 24 Jan 2010 15:05
Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:37 pm, Bill Dubuque <w...(a)nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> See my post [1] for links to some of JHCs posts on such, e.g. [2]
>>
>> [1] http://google.com/groups?selm=y8z8xq2x1o0.fsf%40nestle.csail.mit.edu
>>
>> [2] geometry.research, Sep 2 2000, -1 as a prime
>> http://google.com/groups?threadm=8o6dh8$8o7$1%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net
>
> [2] confirms my guess.

But the "real" reason is much deeper than your guess.
See said references for such.
From: Richard L. Peterson on 24 Jan 2010 07:49
Thanks Bill
From: spudnik on 26 Jan 2010 22:59
if you tell you-know-who about this,
we'll have to kill you,
then de-finite-ly ourselves!

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Number of digits in factorial
Next: Number Representation Problem