[25322] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 7567 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Dec 24 11:10:51 2004
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:10:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 24 Dec 2004 Volume: 10 Number: 7567
Today's topics:
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <nospam@nospam.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <nospam@nospam.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <nospam@nospam.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <nospam@nospam.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <torkel@sm.luth.se>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <nospam@nospam.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <nospam@nospam.com>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dseaman@no.such.host>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <dummy@dummy.net>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <torkel@sm.luth.se>
Re: Is zero even or odd? <a.newmane.remove@eastcoastcz.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:33:31 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <5a9os0t9les5m53dr9rfpb596t01j41e1m@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:14:23 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>This form of Euler's equation is particularly timely, because this is
>the season to get pie-eyed from too many wine-gums and square eyes from
>watching too much TV. (;-)
Your reference to Euler's blindness shows your usual poor taste. His
equations were more beautiful than anything produced in UK, including
the amusing wrong guesses of Newton. Wrong on nature of light. Wrong
in imaginary description of `force', `mass', and `space/time'. His
crowning clueless guess was on nature of `gravity'. Almost as
pathetic as Einstein who `borrowed' his first wife's work and spent
the rest of his life struggling to come up with something that would
top it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:41:36 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <ffaos0dpm0j3d4p3v23dmlm794pnavale9@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:48:08 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:
>I'm lost.
Then you have come to the right door! Come in and join the others.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:44:25 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <okaos01g7o6q3b1mct57bmpnlhovecrmsh@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:18:14 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
> Although it's called aleph-one, no-one knows whether it is
>the *next* infinity after aleph-null, or whether there are other
>infinities in between.
I know, but I'm not about to share that information with nitwits who
post here.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:46:30 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <iqaos0de6ddlv5kb3mhu503sevpptjrclt@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:00:35 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>the question is, is 2^{aleph_0} the next infinity after aleph_0? (And
>generally, is 2^{aleph_{alpha}} the next infinity after aleph_{alpha}?)
No, to be or not to be is the question.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:52:23 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <m0bos0l2amoi3409hl86n2h0b9u7po27rm@4ax.com>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:21:39 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:
>The latter part of the paragraph seems to support the view that
>c = continuum = cardinality of the reals = aleph-0 ^ aleph-0 = aleph^1
>which you claim in the first two sentences to be false.
>
>Dazed and confused again.
That is the usual outcome when one follows the abstract creations of
the mind such as mathematics too far. A sip of reality may sober you
again.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:59:24 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <1hbos01odh9f29kt75en3p4bbm4idfrhdc@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:18:24 +0100, Michael Mendelsohn
<invalid@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de> wrote:
>If in measuring a resistor, we find 0.0A at 0.0V, is the resistance 1
>Ohm, then?
Er...how many resistances have you really measured? Did you read the
instructions carefully?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:58:51 GMT
From: Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41CC2E97.7070201@nospam.com>
vonroach wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:40:32 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Wrong- where do you get off saying (2*0)/0= 2*(0/0) ?
>
>
> (2 x0)/0 = 2x(0/0) . there now is that better?
You must be an idiot- we have just finished telling you that 0/0 is not
a number- it is a set. You and that other idiot are merely saying that
if it's a number then it must be a set. Why don't you try demonstrating
some intelligence by showing how the assumption of it must be a set
leads to the conclusion that it must be a number? You won't find one
with your mindless geek symbol manipulation, "nitwit".
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:02:37 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <nlbos0hm0cgcpjo4l553gmsv7s3l3git10@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:56:18 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:
>Value of the resistor = 1 new ohm.
Illustration of the ability of the abstract brain to cope with
foolishness.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:04:56 GMT
From: Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41CC300F.3040201@nospam.com>
vonroach wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:37:35 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>
>>>Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alfred Z. Newmane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John Sefton" <john@petcom.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>0 can't be divided by itself,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure it can: 0 / 0 = 0 * (1 / 0) = 0 * infinity = 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It works if the only three numbers in the universe are
>>>>>>0, 1, and infinity -- A number system that seems very
>>>>>>suited to usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Except for the fact that: 0 / 0 = undefined
>>>>>
>>>>>Or actually more correct: n / 0 = undefined
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>0/0={ SET OF ALL INTEGERS }
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>n/0= NULL SET for n<>0
>>>>
>>>>It is very well-defined.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it isnt.
>>>
>>>Kevin Aylward
>>
>>You apparently have stumbled on something else you know damn little
>>about. In case you need help with this , you might note that "/" is NOT
>>an operator on the integers, it is the "inverse" of a multiplication
>>operator. Inverse is a well-defined concept but not necessarily a
>>function, it is a set theoretic mapping. E.G. m/n={ q: m=q*n} by
>>definition, so that m/n which is actually a set which can be empty, a
>>singleton, or infinite. In the case of m/n, it is then m/n = F^-1(m)
>>where F(x)= n*x. Your reasoning would lead one to believe /: I x I -> I
>>is a function, which it isn't.
>
>
> Ah, the inverse , like 1/0 is inverse of 0/1? Is 0/0 the inverse of
> 0/0? And 1/1, the inverse of 1/1.
Inverse in the sense of function preimage, sherlock, and that is a set.
This so-called division operator is really an association of singleton
preimage sets with the number they contain. You can go ahead and make it
an operator if you want, but then you must exclude those Cartesian pairs
with 0 in the denominator- so that "undefined" literally makes sense now.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:06:22 GMT
From: Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41CC3067.4060709@nospam.com>
vonroach wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:18:14 +0000, John Woodgate
> <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>
>
>>Although it's called aleph-one, no-one knows whether it is
>>the *next* infinity after aleph-null, or whether there are other
>>infinities in between.
>
>
> I know, but I'm not about to share that information with nitwits who
> post here.
Really? You are the arrogant bastard- and I'm not quite sure what you
know because the non-existence of infinity strictly between countability
and first uncountability ( power set of countability) has been shown to
be equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:07:38 GMT
From: Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41CC30B2.3020903@nospam.com>
vonroach wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2004 07:02:45 -0800, merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L.
> Schwartz) wrote:
>
>
>>This is a troll. *Negative*? Can I have some of the drug you're
>>smoking? :)
>
>
> That's no good Randy, no matter how much you buy, you still have
> nothing. Coincidentally with constant use the measurable IQ approaches
> zero as a limit.
For once I agree with you- several living examples extant here.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:11:23 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <00cos056obb3o2aqlh8lkm6mfr05sh5oac@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:16:15 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>In truth, the E in
>
> E
> R = ---
> I
>
>refers to the voltage _across_ the resistor, (a shunt, was it?) which
>you didn't measure. What you measured was the voltage from the low
>side of where the resistor was supposed to be to ground, which gave
>you zero volts which corresponded, also, to zero amps. Had you
>measured the voltage _across_ where the resistor was supposed to be
>you would have measured the entire supply voltage minus what was being
>dropped across the load by the current flowing through the meter and
>you would have concluded that by subtracting the meter current that
>you would have had:
>
> E E
> R = --- = --- = oo
> I 0
>
>Which would have been right!
>
There you go spoiling the fun by really measuring something. But can
resistance ever be infinite? Is it truly 0 even at absolute 0 temp or
there about? Is there no limit on the accuracy of the equipment used
to measure it? I hesitate to add, making the instrument `infinitely'
accurate?
------------------------------
Date: 24 Dec 2004 16:13:35 +0100
From: Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <vcbllbn6868.fsf@beta19.sm.ltu.se>
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
> ... because the non-existence of infinity strictly between countability
> and first uncountability ( power set of countability) has been shown to
> be equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.
You're mistaken about this. Why these ill-informed exchanges in all
these unrelated groups?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:13:44 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <nfcos05viggi2lb79l553cuqtg4p4ub4k0@4ax.com>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:17:14 +0100, Michael Mendelsohn
<invalid@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de> wrote:
>
> E 0
> R = --- = --- = 0
> I I
>
>This leads to a contradiction when E=I=0.
Of course. E = MC^2
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:16:56 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <vkcos0tovv3h7r0s317j9007tcsjmss5j7@4ax.com>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:20:53 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:
>The circuit wasn't connected. Therefore no measurement was being
>made. V = IR has no relevance. R < oo to close the circuit and
>for the equation to apply.
Sorta like N/0 - irrelevant nonsense.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:22:55 GMT
From: Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41CC3447.1080403@nospam.com>
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>
>
>>... because the non-existence of infinity strictly between countability
>>and first uncountability ( power set of countability) has been shown to
>>be equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.
>
>
> You're mistaken about this. Why these ill-informed exchanges in all
> these unrelated groups?
>
Are you saying this has not been established yet?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:25:09 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <eqcos01cpcn13ed0sldj2h4pbe07orchkq@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:40:31 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:
>1 apple, 2 apples ... but sqrt(-1)apples, why that's only
>in your imagination.
I'm afraid so. If you can't see that you are brainwashed . An apple is
an apple is an apple - furthermore each is unique. We dream up
numbers for handling them when 2 or 3 are encountered together. We can
imagine 0 apples and infinite apples - abstractions too. Why did you
think we would have trouble with imaginary or irrational apples?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:20:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqhc35$ht$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:06:07 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Dave Seaman wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:02:20 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>>>> Gordon Weast wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Another is renormalization theory in QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).
>>>>> There are several infinities in the theory that appeared to make
>>>>> the results nonsense. However, if you keep track very carefully,
>>>>> you can get the infinities to cancel and come up with predictions
>>>>> that match measurements very accurately.
>>
>>>> And physicists think it an ugly bodge.
>>
>>> Actually, I think the physicists think its just a bit annoying, its
>>> the mathematicians that think its the ugly bodge.
>>
>> No, not at all.
> Nope.
>>It's not a function in the ordinary sense, but a
>> generalized function.
> Ho hum. What isn't a function? We are discussing QED.
Yes, sorry. I read in the wrong context.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:28:19 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <v8dos0p8qleu3l367lgjl8qpfngf6lr5ig@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:02:27 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>It can do, but that is not the only reason for sqrt(-1). Its certainly
>not how it came about in the first place.
It just pops up in mathematic operations. A little puzzling at first
like pi and phi.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:33:17 GMT
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <5ldos0t1p3na1ghm0olfmdamq5dl1ucbok@4ax.com>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:54:20 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
>>>Clearly the infinities are
>>>failures of the theory,
>>
>>
>> Or a failure of the mathematics.
>
>Is there a difference?
That was my question.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:34:06 GMT
From: Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <41CC36E5.4030405@nospam.com>
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>
>
>>... because the non-existence of infinity strictly between countability
>>and first uncountability ( power set of countability) has been shown to
>>be equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.
>
>
> You're mistaken about this. Why these ill-informed exchanges in all
> these unrelated groups?
>
See:
Cohen,P.J., "The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis." Proc. Nat.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 50 1143-148, 1963.
My statement was based on an off hand remark by Halmos in his General
Topology, and he was almost certainly referring to this result, the date
is about right.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:31:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <cqhco5$ht$2@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:21:39 GMT, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> Referencing:
>> <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuumHypothesis.html>
> "Dave Seaman" <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote
>> It's a widespread belief (and one that is unfortunately perpetuated by some
>> popular expositions) that the cardinality of the reals is aleph_1. Not so.
>> The cardinality of the reals is 2^aleph_0, which is the same as
>> aleph_0^aleph_0. This cardinal is called c, for the cardinality of the
>> continuum. The proposition that c = aleph_1 is called the continuum
>> hypothesis, and it is known to be independent of the usual axioms of set
>> theory.
> The latter part of the paragraph seems to support the view that
> c = continuum = cardinality of the reals = aleph-0 ^ aleph-0 = aleph^1
> which you claim in the first two sentences to be false.
Perhaps I should have said that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is the
"hypothesis" (rather than the "proposition") that c = aleph_1. The final
clause says that CH is neither provable nor disprovable; that's what
"independent of the axioms" means.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:39:18 GMT
From: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <GKWyd.31849$DF3.2206@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
"vonroach" <hadrainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eqcos01cpcn13ed0sldj2h4pbe07orchkq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:40:31 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
> wrote:
>
>>1 apple, 2 apples ... but sqrt(-1)apples, why that's only
>>in your imagination.
>
> I'm afraid so. If you can't see that you are brainwashed . An apple is
> an apple is an apple - furthermore each is unique. We dream up
> numbers for handling them when 2 or 3 are encountered together. We can
> imagine 0 apples and infinite apples - abstractions too. Why did you
> think we would have trouble with imaginary or irrational apples?
How far does an apple roll if it makes two turns?
Exact answer in apple diameters, please.
Androcles
------------------------------
Date: 24 Dec 2004 16:48:31 +0100
From: Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <vcbk6r766k0.fsf@beta19.sm.ltu.se>
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
> See:
>
> Cohen,P.J., "The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis." Proc. Nat.
> Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 50 1143-148, 1963.
The independence of the continuum hypothesis has no apparent
relation to your statement. Note that the axiom of choice does not
imply the continuum hypothesis. The generalized continuum hypothesis
does imply the axiom of choice.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 07:52:38 -0800
From: "Alfred Z. Newmane" <a.newmane.remove@eastcoastcz.com>
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Message-Id: <332s8aF3qmrobU1@individual.net>
vonroach wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:07:32 -0500, Shawn Corey
> <shawn.corey@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> vonroach wrote:
>>> Then infinity is undefined?
>
> I did not write this. Please be more careful.
Yes you did.
See below.
-------------------------------------------------------
From: vonroach <hadrainc@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.math,comp.soft-sys.matlab,sci.physics,alt.math.undergrad,rec.puzzles
,sci.astro,sci.electronics.design,comp.lang.perl.misc
Subject: Re: Is zero even or odd?
Organization: n/a
Message-ID: <fa2js0pd4v6o2cp1c1j8kkn0vubhgaf7lu@4ax.com>
References: [...snipped...too...many...]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 11
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:49:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.131.126.33
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1103726985 4.131.126.33 (Wed,
22 Dec 2004 06:49:45 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:49:45 PST
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0500, "Richards Noah \(IFR LIT MET\)"
<Noah.Richards@infineon.com> wrote:
> You guys are arguing two different things. The argument that 0/0 is
the set
> of all integers/reals/whatever you are using is the set theory
response to
> the question. However, the more commonly used form is the algebraicly
> accepted argument that states that division is a function of the
forms: Z /
> Z -> Q, R / R -> R, etc. In this definition, division by 0 is
undefined for
> all Z or R, including 0. So, you are both correct, but arguing
different
> things.
Then infinity is undefined?
-------------------------------------------------------
What are you trying to pull here?
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 7567
***************************************
