Re: Latest version of glossary

"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote:

>"Mark Johnson" <102334.12_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:etnsv156l9e6g3n17i2k9fhapehqr8dgrj_at_4ax.com...
>> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>> >flat: an object which by any definition could be considered as 2
>> >dimensional might informally be called flat.

>> I would think so. It poses certain problems, which may not seem so
>> great to those in the flat-land. But they could not be flat, at all,
>> with less than two dimensions.

>http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/Schmath/questions.html
>http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/Schmath/Jerry%20Uhl%27s%20favorite%20quotations.htm

Well, I was just saying that a one-dimensional 'flatlander' couldn't exist.

As for these, I suppose it might relate to the RM, and the real 'theory':

"The problem, of course, is that curricula often end up focusing on specific techniques, rather than on the underlying habits of thought that led to their discovery"

But at any rate, I agree that people can read those pages and maybe say - that could be me, those could be my words and concerns if I'd gotten around to something like that. I don't know if that's your page, or not. But it's useful to question things. I know that a few people don't appreciate my doing that, here. But it's useful, if done in a reasonable and systematic fashion, as perhaps is done there. Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 10:32:23 CET