(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
*I concur with that.  The <math>ugh(x)</math> should definitely be made into standard LaTeX code.[[User:Jhunsber|Jhunsber]]
 
*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)

Alumni Liaison

ECE462 Survivor

Seraj Dosenbach