On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:54 AM UTC, Frederick Williams wrote: > email@example.com wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, March 18, 2013 7:29:57 AM UTC, William Elliot wrote: > > > Clearly, I've added a phrase OP overlooked. > > > > > > I don't get this at all. What did I overlook??? David Ullrich got confused, misremembered a previous thread, posted an obnoxious question resulting from his memory lapse and then tried to cover this up by insulting me further with sarcasm. > > > > > > (Fortunately, his later posts did provide meaningful contributions.) > > > > Apology, sarcasm _and_ meaningful contribution? That sounds like good > > value for money. > > Couldn't agree more! Sci.math needs contributions from research mathematicians. My impression is that very few maths academics are regular contributors, but this is just a guess. If my impression is right, then Ullrich is a valuable exception. In particular, it would be good if I would actually read his text (I bought it but barely opened it). I'm sure I'd have lots of questions and that would open up a great multilogue (meaning a dialogue but extended to more than two views) At the moment, I'm reading simpler and more foundational stuff though, so there haven't been that many actual maths questions on my end. So I'm posting about the actual maths environment and how mathematicians express themselves, and use vocabulary etc.
His valuable contributions don't imply (to me) that I shouldn't criticise him when he gets obnoxious.