Re: Re[3]: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic

From: David (Thor) Maxfield (thor@peak.org)
Date: Wed Feb 03 1999 - 08:44:36 EET

Next message: Alain BERNARD: "Re: accuracy comparison"
Previous message: Chris Cramer: "Re: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology (Refined)"
Maybe in reply to: tom@paramountind.com: "Re[3]: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic"
Next in thread: Glyn Churchman: "Re: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic"
Reply: Glyn Churchman: "Re: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> Yes, but you just missed by an RCH.

Ah Yes! In the good old days, before RP and PC, there was no more highly
accepted standard than to be within one RCH of the target. dimension.

David Maxfield
Incre, LLC

For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/

Next message: Alain BERNARD: "Re: accuracy comparison"
Previous message: Chris Cramer: "Re: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology (Refined)"
Maybe in reply to: tom@paramountind.com: "Re[3]: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic"
Next in thread: Glyn Churchman: "Re: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic"
Reply: Glyn Churchman: "Re: Ambiguous Measurement Terminology, slightly off topic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:50:53 EEST