In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.981222212330.29901A-100000@tekka.wwa.com>, zenevsky@wwa.com writes >On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Barrie Snell wrote: >> If indeed you are 11 yrs old and really understand "some" of what you're >> trying to talk about, then why not branch out into other realms and >> branches of Math(s). You probably could be good if you applied yourself, >> but not, alas, in your dead-end obsession with the present thread. >Hypothesis: Nathan is indeed 11 years old -- just not in the base-10 >number system. :-) Hexadecimal "11" years old is more likely, base-30 >"11" years old even more likely. > Thesis: It doesn't matter though.
I just wish we could have something different from "Cantor woz wrong!"
-- Jeremy Boden mailto://jeremy@jboden.demon.co.uk
