Comments on: 187 – An unequal relationship?

By: Another Emily

Another Emily — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:27:18 +0000

When i first glanced at this I was really confused b/c my usual username is emilycat27….

but lol.

By: math expert

math expert — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:29:37 +0000

neither of you are ever getting laid

By: JWill

JWill — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:43:59 +0000

Not sure which came first, but this is on qdb: http://qdb.us/299631

By: somebody

somebody — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:54:22 +0000

… you definitely need more than just a metric (there is a natural metric on C, that induced by the magnitude). You need to define partial order… which would be precisely an inequality.

By: Streets of San Antonio « astrofish.net/xenon

Streets of San Antonio « astrofish.net/xenon — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:43:55 +0000

[...] a silly notion. [...]

By: Nef

Nef — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:50:25 +0000

2(LOL) + i <3 !

By: Luke Surl – An unequal relationship? | Techeando

Luke Surl – An unequal relationship? | Techeando — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:32:55 +0000

[...] Luke Surl] Categories: Sarasa Tags: Comentarios (0) Referencias (0) Dejar un comentario [...]

By: fdsa

fdsa — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:12:30 +0000

hi digg

By: edythemighty's status on Thursday, 06-Aug-09 00:32:33 UTC - Identi.ca

edythemighty's status on Thursday, 06-Aug-09 00:32:33 UTC - Identi.ca — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:32:40 +0000

[...] An unequal relationship http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/916 [...]

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:43:05 +0000

I think so. http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/198 has 43 at the mo’ and I think that was the previous title-holder.