| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
P-1788:
Do I have a second to this motion?
Baker
P.S. Nate: Your motion seems to be written in a tutorial
style. My own understanding is that what you are advocating
is replacing "infinity" with "overflow," and that most
of the paper deals with rationale, rather than the
actual motion. You may wish to re-write the motion with
a succinct and clear actual motion, followed by the rationale,
prior to the beginning of the voting period (that is, of course,
if the motion is seconded).
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 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
overflow.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document