Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- From: Chris Lawrence <news03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:35:03 +0000
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:40:03 +0000, Chris Lawrence
> <news03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >I find it a
> >shame that he cannot explain his articles in plan language when asked by
> >an interested party
>
> You have said that my initial article was unclear. You have not said
> yet what of it or why. If you do not ask clearly, then how can I
> answer your questions?
To recap, you posted a lot of mathemtical equations, I asked you what
was their meaning, you replied with a number of lines which did not
explain to me their meaning, I stated this and also queried the validity
of one of the lines, and then we discussed rulesets and their
applications ever since, touching upon maths and philosophy on the way.
What I was after is what might commonly be called an 'elevator pitch' in
business. Can you summarise your mathemtical post in plain english in
just a minute or so. It's not a case of not understanding the product,
it's a case of whether someone can sell the idea of their product in an
efficient and concise manner.
--
Chris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- From: Robert Jasiek
- Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
- Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- Prev by Date: Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- Next by Date: Re: Statement from GoGoD
- Previous by thread: Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- Next by thread: Re: Proofs about Pass Fights (1)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|