Re: Overflow, New Motion

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes. If you have no procedural objections, we had intended to submit this 
paper as a motion.

Nate

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Overflow, New Motion


> Nate,
>
> Is there a formal motion associated with this paper?
>
> Baker
>
> On 05/01/2012 10:33 AM, Nate Hayes wrote:
> > Baker, P1788,
> >
> > Attached is the finished paper on overflow I had mentioned. All of us 
> > here at Sunfish apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding in prior 
> > discussion, and hope this clarifies what we meant.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Nate
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Baker Kearfott,   rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
> (337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
> URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
> Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
> (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
> Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
> ---------------------------------------------------------------