On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:56:50 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
Let me explain to you the difference between your mere equivalence and
a definition.

Hi Gene,

You admittedly don't have the skills (which is evident in the single
sentence quote above). And further, you say nothing responsive to the
post, instead, yet again repeating, ad nauseum, the same poor quality
of scripted response.

You are out of your element and terribly devoid of communication
concepts that go beyond a cut-and-paste philosophy. Your knee jerk
response to label any intelligent response as being offered by a fool
is no retort of substance here. I willingly embrace such a title of
fool. You can easily consult Google to the matter, but I will repeat
it for you:
"Considering how many fools can calculate, it is surprising that
it should be thought either a difficult or a tedious task for any
other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.

"Some calculus-tricks are quite easy, Some are enormously
difficult. The fools who write the text-books of advanced
mathematics - and they are the most clever fools - seldom take the
trouble to show you how easy the easy calculations are. On the
contrary, they seem to desire to impress you with their tremendous
cleverness by going about it in the most difficult way.

"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach
myself the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools
the parts that are not hard. Master these thoroughly, and the rest
will follow. What one fool can do, another can."
Silvanus P. Thompson, F.R.S.

If this seems a little dense in its meaning, it suggests the totality
of your intellectual achievement in 3000+ posts can be contained in a
handheld calculator with that calculator's added benefit that it won't
back sass the operator. :-)

C'mon now Gene, we both know that any perceived admission to your
inestimable authority would deflate you immediately into the
depression of not being the focus - merely the period ending a
lengthy, but trivial unread footnote. The web is littered with
similar academic wannabees.

Your one note opera doesn't even need the fat lady.

Curtain.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"Silvanus P. Thompson, F.R.S."

Anyone who can present a subject so simply and logically as Thompson
does in "Calcus Made Easy", Second Edition Enlarged, The Macmillan
Company, 1951, for the 21st printing, October 1914 for the 2nd edition
release, truly understands his subject.

Thompson also says:
"There are 60 minutes in the hour, 24 hours in the day, 7 days in the
week. There are therefore 1440 minutes in the day and 10080 in the
week."

This leaped off the page for me after the 12 pence to the shilling, 20
shillings to the pound, etc in an earlier posting.

Different names and unit sizes for the same item. It`s the same for
baloney. No matter how thin you slice it it`s still baloney. Kilograms
and pounds are also different names and unit sizes for the same items,
mass and force. Kilograms and pounds readily exchange when using the
proper rates.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI