**From:** Alex Plantema (*alex.plantema@xs4all.nl*)

**Date:** Wed Jul 28 2010 - 02:23:06 CDT

**Previous message:**André Szabolcs Szelp: "High dot/dot above punctuation?"**In reply to:**karl williamson: "Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Next in thread:**Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Reply:**Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Op dinsdag 27 juli 2010 21:07 schreef karl williamson:

*> They are U+2107 and U+210E respectively. Chapter 4 of TUS seems to
*

*> indicate that neither should, since they both are operands, and it
*

*> says this property applies to mathematical operators.
*

Operands are not operators, e.g. in a+b, a and b are operands, + is an operator.

Alex.

**Next message:**Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: High dot/dot above punctuation?"**Previous message:**André Szabolcs Szelp: "High dot/dot above punctuation?"**In reply to:**karl williamson: "Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Next in thread:**Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Reply:**Murray Sargent: "RE: Why does EULER CONSTANT not have math property and PLANCK CONSTANT does?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 28 2010 - 02:26:03 CDT
*