 | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Aha -- I think that's a key point! In numbers and divisors and factors, the isomorphic example to "simplest thing common to all" is probably the lowest common factor (always 1) or lowest common prime factor between a set of numbers. 1 would be (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: fun fun fun - new BP6 dual celeron system
|
|
(...) Well, after many hours of testing, I've decided to run these at 522 max (95x5.5). NT just doesn't seem to run too happily for some reason on this system at 550. I could probably try to tweak it out some more, but for what I'm going to be using (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
Matthew: It is refreshing to see your pedantry and stubbornness so openly on display. I don't feel quite so alone! And as for correcting what arguably is an egregious error(1), I'm not done using my lance yet, you'll have to wait your turn. In the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Oh...sorry, I left out the "limit as n approaches infinity" part. ;-) (...) I wonder that too. At first glance, they seem *very* incompatible. I'm not an English scholar, so I can't really say. But I think what may have happened is that the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Dictionaries, of course, are just tools reflecting common usage. Or supposed to be. That doesn't mean that common usage is correct. :) On another tangent, since we're in .off-topic already -- I really think the word "dumpster" has entered the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
