Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!feeder.news-service.com!216.196.110.142.MISMATCH!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:30:12 -0500
From: Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: linear programming
References: <12e289fe-86ca-4bd3-b391-9a1a4005476f@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com> <itmpgv$5qc$1@dont-email.me> <527d07f5-0d08-4e29-9c58-8c87b2b18e89@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <itnctg$lad$1@dont-email.me> <51a740f2-8558-46ad-95fa-cc879b6af75c@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> <slrnivuoss.kk5.pino@mud.stack.nl> <23a38e00-f9bb-4aa5-a8d8-4620364e4514@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <slrnivv7ij.kk5.pino@mud.stack.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:30:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87mxhbvjj2.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MlqdSyrKDMFE97h8EBkZsNVteu8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 19
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lPMcCIJcs2VxWaafmkKn+rO0kWhp7IaFNBuZToj7Q4SMoIPCO467cXwnh+3P9UibZ7NdLJ998YGW5mr!Klk5c9T2zLETpGcsRlRWog9ujtuVitHk7NeFSlJZz8e5lDkHOSx41K5j1eAe6hFCaqE=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2120
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:6990

Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> writes:

>> Anyway, go find one of the numerous mathematicians of your
>> acquaintance and ask them what the definition an "unbounded linear
>> program" is. Then ask them what the definition of "unbounded feasible
>> region" is.
>
> Irrelevant. I didn't question the validity of that statement. I questioned
> the validity of your "argument".

You don't understand what "we say" means in this context.  That's OK.
It's not your first language, and its not your field of expertise. You
made an entirely forgiveable mistake.

But please have the humility not to "correct" someone for whom it *is*
there first language, in their field of expertise, and then accuse
*them* of being full of themselves.

Because that is *not* a forgiveable mistake.