Activation in MS Office and other products is so onerous it -- and this is unfortunate -- makes this great suite undesireable.'
Summary: http://trailfire.com/danielgoldberg/trailview/51140
Activation in MS Office and other products is so onerous it -- and this is unfortunate -- makes this great suite undesireable.'
get your printer back from Judy; get your clipboard emptied and keep p/o's of important pages. Leaving electronic notes may be cool, even fun, but life's a business run inside a theater, eh?
I am probably in (large) error but I have a thought. And I think you can tell me what is wrong with this ideas (just don't "beat me up" for stupidity if this thought of mine is ridiculous, please.)
OK. Here's the though: something about this graph, the first two axioms that you state I think, call to mind a bell curve. And if you mentally rotate the linear scale graph (1st graph) upside-down, so to speak, you get a shape very bell-curve-like. Is this graph an "inverted" bell curve? What function() would I use on my TI-83 to plot this "fundamental" curve? Just curious.
Another thought I have is that the n=n+1 ordinality (?) of the first graph v. the double-log (btw, can you explain the concept of dbl-log -- it is not known to me) of course inflate the sagging, if you will, curve on the left with its larger numbers (log spaces not n=n+1 (but n=log n or something like that)). Both are regular, i.e., orderly, too, because of the plots' scales. Whatever, I am free-associating a bit. Pardon me. I'm an interested by-stander -- a HS English teacher, actually -- so forgive any RTFB (B=blog) or 1D10T (one D ten T) errors.
