Re: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?

From: Alex Plantema (alex.plantema@xs4all.nl)
Date: Wed Jul 28 2010 - 02:23:06 CDT

Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: High dot/dot above punctuation?"

Previous message: André Szabolcs Szelp: "High dot/dot above punctuation?"
In reply to: karl williamson: "Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"
Next in thread: Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"
Reply: Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Op dinsdag 27 juli 2010 21:07 schreef karl williamson:

> They are U+2107 and U+210E respectively. Chapter 4 of TUS seems to
> indicate that neither should, since they both are operands, and it
> says this property applies to mathematical operators.

Operands are not operators, e.g. in a+b, a and b are operands, + is an operator.

Alex.

Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: High dot/dot above punctuation?"
Previous message: André Szabolcs Szelp: "High dot/dot above punctuation?"
In reply to: karl williamson: "Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"
Next in thread: Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"
Reply: Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 28 2010 - 02:26:03 CDT