On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0500, Michael Martinell wrote: > > On Fri, July 8, 2005 8:45 pm, Cybe R. Wizard said: > >> > > Yes, that makes perfect sense and reiterates what I have said; that if a > > thing has dropped in price 2000-fold /someone/ should now be paying me > > to use their hardware. Isn't it similar to the problem in saying that > > something costs, say, three times less than <time ago>? Isn't > > /one/ time less than what was paid equal to zero? Wouldn't we be more > > correct in saying one third the price? > > > > Cybe R. Wizard -wants to understand, not just pedantic > > Following these statements and math, one is always dividing, not > subtracting. No matter how many times you divide you are still left with > parts. If you then call each of the new parts a whole and divide it you > never end up with 0 or less then 0. Unless you divide by 0, but of course > that is an imaginary number (i).
i=sqrt(-1). If 4 feet from bar. Divide by 2 = 2 feet from bar. ... never reach bar :-(. -- Chris. ====== Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
