test

!4712

Please note that you can see and participate in the most current discussion for this topic in our new user community area
- http://my.noteworthysoftware.com/?topic=5263 -

	Started by test on 2005-11-19 00:28:47
tttt
	Reply 1 by wefwefwef on 2005-11-19 05:31:00
wefwef test wefwef test
	Reply 2 by wufwufwuf on 2005-11-20 12:19:40
Taking wef as a number to reason about A convenient number to wef We add seven, and wef, and then multiply out By one thousand diminished by wef The result wef proceed to divide, as you wef By nine hundred ninety and wef Then subtract wefwefwef, the answer must be Exactly and perfectly wef. (or 42?)
	Reply 3 by No mathman here on 2005-11-20 13:13:25
Let wef = 8. Does this work? Is wefwefwef wef cubed, or just a string of three numbers equal to wef, for instance 888? Either way, I couldn't get it to work out using Excel... Also, can wef be greater than 9?
	Reply 4 by No mathman here on 2005-11-20 13:17:06
Can you tell it's Sunday morning?
	Reply 5 by whoops on 2005-11-20 13:43:04
No - does not work out. Wef = smurf-like. Smurf stands for anything. So don't bother - sorry about the confusion.
	Reply 6 by suggestion on 2005-11-20 14:35:15
Try the Hunting of the Snark.
	Reply 7 by No mathman here on 2005-11-20 20:22:16
"Some fancied they heard in the air A weary and wandering sigh Then sounded like "-jum!" but the others declare It was only a breeze that went by. They hunted till darkness came on, but they found Not a button, or feather, or mark, By which they could tell that they stood on the ground Where the Baker had met with the Snark. In the midst of the word he was trying to say, In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away--- For the Snark was a Boojum, you see. " Go here: http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/
	Reply 8 by Rob den Heijer on 2005-11-21 04:18:56
Exactly. Did you find 'Taking three as a number to reason about' ? One of my favourites. .. The answer must be ... three? No. Mathematically so, but the answer must be: exactly and perfectly true. (I found it, long before I even read 'Alice in Wonderland', in the Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language Algol 68, alongside such gems as: "The flowers that bloom in spring, trala Have nothing to do with the case. - Mikado.)
	Reply 9 by blue moon thursdays on 2005-11-21 15:47:08
Actually, i find there to be no constitutionary prevalence to what you add. Wef, is only a matter of taking the concept within itself and about itself to an equivocal degree. THe scientist Dr. Sezzo said, "Without conceptualizations there are no emancipation proclamations." Therefore, we cannot adhere to the fact that the relevancy to the subject is primordialy based on the concept fact.
	Reply 10 by Rob den Heijer on 2005-11-21 17:30:24
I've got one like them, but the wheels fell off. (Whew, that was a good steal.)
	Reply 11 by No mathman here on 2005-11-22 02:39:52
...took great care of his mother, though he was only three... ...you must never go down to the end of the town, without consulting me!