Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!att!ima!dirtydog!karl
From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: class-sic. [Re: On whether C has ...]
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.052804.13833@dirtydog.ima.isc.com>
Date: 11 Jan 91 05:28:04 GMT
References: <20021@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <24547:Jan822:05:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <20058@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <27942:Jan902:20:0791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <27770.278aef90@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Jan10.185427.6416@dirtydog.ima.isc.com> <5692@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@dirtydog.ima.isc.com (NEWS ADMIN)
Organization: Interactive Systems
Lines: 18

chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>>kinnersley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bill Kinnersley) writes:
>>>Never in my life have I seen two mathematicians spend more than five
>>>seconds worrying about the "official" definition of anything.
>
>>Apparently you haven't been following the "what is 0^0" thread in sci.math.
>
>Do you have any evidence that the people arguing there are mathematicians?

Oh good, now we get to argue over the official definition of "mathematician".

Seriously, at least some of the people who've at least contributed to the
discussion are well-known mathematicians.  I joined the thread late, when
nearly everybody was already sick of it, so I haven't noticed whether any of
the known mathematicians spent any significant time debating it.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@ima.isc.com or uunet!ima!karl), The Walking Lint