Re: Latest version of glossary
- From: "x" <x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:01:14 +0200
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:etnsv156l9e6g3n17i2k9fhapehqr8dgrj@xxxxxxxxxx
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
Do you think this set of points
http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Fractals/fractal-4/fractal-4.00.html
should be characterized as flat ?
P.S. Interesting opinions about math and teaching at the same site:
http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/Schmath/questions.html
http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/Schmath/Jerry%20Uhl%27s%20favorite%20quotations.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Latest version of glossary
- From: Mark Johnson
- Re: Latest version of glossary
- References:
- Latest version of glossary
- From: dawn
- Re: Latest version of glossary
- From: Mark Johnson
- Latest version of glossary
- Prev by Date: Re: Latest version of glossary
- Next by Date: Re: Design question regarding data typing
- Previous by thread: Re: Latest version of glossary
- Next by thread: Re: Latest version of glossary
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|