Sigh

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 12 Jan 2011, 18:45 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:45:17 -0800
Subject: (urth) Sigh
In-Reply-To: <7310ded3d0425cfab52101ca6e23017a at imap.io.com>
References: <SNT123-W3771004317774F4FF580E4CFF10 at phx.gbl>
	<4D2D1A56.3020001 at io.com> <4D2D2A35.8030805 at io.com>
	<4D2D39D9.3000707 at io.com> <4D2D45B1.5050804 at io.com>
	<4D2DCCC2.20100 at io.com>
	<7310ded3d0425cfab52101ca6e23017a at imap.io.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTink0LajEJseoVmmDCo9ASFQONws4JXvFZ_5rUzW at mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Adam Thornton (IO) <adam at io.com> wrote:

>>> But, in fact, to an arbitrarily good approximation, *all* integers are
>>> bigger than that.
>>
>> Really? I would've said a bit less than half.
>
> I'm positive.
>
> Or rather, I should have specified positive integers.

Not necessary -- "big" can mean "of great magnitude," in which case
the large negative integers are "bigger than that" also.


-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net