dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc8c18r.uq8.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin: 
>  >
>  >Bilge, don't dodge. You know, this paper has 27 pages, not 9. But not
>  >in vain you are saying of 9 pages, as just in the 8th page of paper
> 
>   OK. Then change what I said to read:
> 
>    "Either your function is 27 pages long or I don't have to read
>     27 pages to know what it is."

You are saying what you are saying, not occasionally.
>  
>  >(p. 19 of the issue) you saw our formula (26).
>  
>   Not hardly. I looked at you index page. I didn't bother read
> any of your article.

Well then, what for do you ask me for this function if you insistently
don't want to see it?
 
>  >You saw it.
>  
>   Not unless your formula looks like a table of contents. Either post
> the function of get lost. My guess is that you wrote an article trying
> to give physical significance to an arithmetic error. If you had a
> real result, you wouldn't hesitate to post 1 function rather than
> post a lot of crap to cover for not having a function.

Go and read: page 19, formula (26).

Sergey