MathGroup Archive 2007

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: RandomComplex documentation

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg80245] Re: RandomComplex documentation
  • From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:26:39 -0400 (EDT)

On 8/14/07 at 7:09 AM, akoz at (Andrzej Kozlowski) wrote:

>On 13 Aug 2007, at 10:32, Bill Rowe wrote:


>>I conclude there is simply an error in the tutorial

>Hmm ... you seem to have reached as your "conclusion" what for me
>was an "implicit assumption"  (too obvious to bother to state). Let
>me then restate myself. My real question was:  is anyone going to do
>anything about it? And another thing: the question was (is)
>addressed only to people who are in a position to do something about

If the question was only intended for those who can fix errors
in the documentation, why post the question here? Most posters
here are clearly in no position to fix errors. And there is no
reason to expect those that can to react to posts in this forum.
The only way to be sure an error is on the list to be fixed by
those that can would be to submit something to support at

>(Perhaps I will have to learn to use these silly smileys, but
>unfortunately I don't know of   any that indicate "irony", which
>seems to be a weak point of this forum. Obviously the triple
>question mark did not work as I intended) .

Triple question marks are open to interpretation. There really
isn't any way to indicate "irony" Short of specifically writing
something like "It is ironic that...". Posts simply don't have
enough bandwidth to communicate things not explicitly stated.
To reply via email subtract one hundred and four

  • Prev by Date: Re: How does Solve works ??
  • Next by Date: FindFit NMinimize and Nelder-Mead Optimization
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: RandomComplex documentation
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: RandomComplex documentation