Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tove.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!qumix!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!tove!dsn From: dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Intelligence Message-ID: <267@tove.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 03:27:09 EDT Article-I.D.: tove.267 Posted: Tue Jul 9 03:27:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 15:54:19 EDT References: <456@ttidcc.UUCP> <457@ttidcc.UUCP> <1586@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 28 In article <528@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: > ... Apparently you're defining "technical subject" to >be any subject that requires calculus after first stating that calculus is >only required for technical subjects. Circular. I do consider the kinds of subjects you mentioned to be technical. Your assumption that I do so because they require calculus is incorrect. >It saddens me to see a professor with so little sympathy for those who >aren't comfortable with his subject area. ... How the hell do you get THAT out of my saying introductory calculus isn't "advanced math"? That makes me feel quite indignant. >I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I could give you a lot of reasons >why it would be a better world if everyone studied advanced psychology, but >I doubt you'd agree. ... Again I feel offended. For your information, I just finished serving on the dissertation committee for a Ph.D. student in psychology. Are you trying to get me into an argument? -- Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932