| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* Not to mention the subtleties of the <math>ugh(x)</math> function.--[[User:Jmason|Jmason]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | * Not to mention the subtleties of the <math>ugh(x)</math> function.--[[User:Jmason|Jmason]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| − | *I concur with that. The <math>ugh(x)</math> should definitely be made into standard LaTeX code. | + | *I concur with that. The <math>ugh(x)</math> should definitely be made into standard LaTeX code.[[User:Jhunsber|Jhunsber]] |
| + | |||
| + | *I also agree; without the <math>ugh(x)</math> function, mathematics would be a useless waste of time ;)! ----[[User:Gbrizend|Gary Brizendine II]] 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:54, 14 October 2008
- I think we should add "Or for those who just can't get enough of the words "nifty", "tricky", and "neat"." :) Jhunsber
- Not to mention the subtleties of the $ ugh(x) $ function.--Jmason 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with that. The $ ugh(x) $ should definitely be made into standard LaTeX code.Jhunsber
- I also agree; without the $ ugh(x) $ function, mathematics would be a useless waste of time ;)! ----Gary Brizendine II 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
