On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> VictorMiller wrote:
>> To do this correctly in full generality one needs to get into
>> "cyclindrical algebraic decomposition" -- a set in R^n has a
>> cylindrical algebraic
>> decomposition if it is written as a finite union of sets of the for
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Simon King wrote:
> On 10 Dez., 23:15, William Stein wrote:
> [...]
> > __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ f := x < y
> >
> > > f*(-3)
> > > ;
> >
> > __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -3 y < -3 x
> >
> > > f*z;
> >
> > __
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2:49 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> >> At this point, I'm just throwing some remarks out, not saying that we
>> >> should
>> >> do anything in particular.
>>
>> >> I'm curious
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> At this point, I'm just throwing some remarks out, not saying that we should
>> do anything in particular.
>>
>> I'm curious -- who multiplies equalities by a scalar *except* high school
>> students or college students taking entry level coll
