Re: the guys at Dr. Math like them...
- --- In email@example.com,
"leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@...> wrote:
> they just want me to use an alternate function insteadSo they too saw the obvious errors in your "QED" postings.
> of the *simga* so I can work around the 'monotonic' confusion.
Neither sigma nor eulerphi is non-decreasing.
Hence all your postings where you used them "again"
were patently worthless, as remarked, for example, here:
It won't help to go running randomly round 4 lists in
the hope that someone might fail to spot that you have
said nothing of value about either sigma or eulerphi.
What is worse, is that you seem to be proud of your
lack of understanding of these number-theoretic functions:
> I don't even have to acknowledge the true definitionThere are folk on the lists that you have been
> of what phi() really is
> use an alternate function instead of the *simga* so
> I can work around the 'monotonic' confusion
bombarding who could help, if you were only able to listen.
Please, Bill, try to be a bit more modest and to learn from
your mistakes. The rest of us do so and even find it quite
enjoyable to be rescued from error.