> On considering that story in a little more depth, it seems to be > almost ENTIRELY falsehood (or, at least, EXTREMELY strange):
I'm willing to believe that she wrote this rather quickly and as a consequence didn't say exactly what she intended, but I also think it's fair for others to comment on what she actually wrote rather than guess at what she might have intended. In my case, I made my original comments because I thought Courant's calculus text might not be very well known among the readers of math-teach and thus they might not realize that she *wasn't* talking about one of the standard U.S. college texts on the market.
Regarding my comments (implied elsewhere in this thread) about those in scientific fields often not having an appropriate awareness of the technical backgrounds of those not (or not yet) in such fields, the following will be of interest. See especially the last comment (my comment) in my answer to the poster's question.