RE: geometric complexity
- From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:17:09 -0400
How am i to take this other that some kind of imperious declaration?
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene W Smith [mailto:genewardsmith@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:09 PM
To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: geometric complexity
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:11:54 -0400 "Paul H. Erlich"
<PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Someone give me one good reason why the lattice geometry should be
> Euclidean.
If I'm using it for geometric complexity, it should be.
____________________________________________________________
To learn how to configure this list via e-mail (subscribe,
unsubscribe, etc.), send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line "info tuning-math". Or visit the
website: < //www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .
____________________________________________________________
To learn how to configure this list via e-mail (subscribe,
unsubscribe, etc.), send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line "info tuning-math". Or visit the
website: < //www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .
Other related posts:
