Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chinese Remainder Theorem/Introductory"

 
(More Info)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This is an experiment with writing style rather than anything else. I'd like to know whether such a style is acceptable, or you prefer something more formal (like Statement-Proof-Discussion format), or you would like to see some more "introductory" material. Please, share your opinions :).--[[User:Fedja|Fedja]] 17:17, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
 
This is an experiment with writing style rather than anything else. I'd like to know whether such a style is acceptable, or you prefer something more formal (like Statement-Proof-Discussion format), or you would like to see some more "introductory" material. Please, share your opinions :).--[[User:Fedja|Fedja]] 17:17, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
 +
 +
== More Info ==
 +
 +
The writing style is fine, in my opinion.  However, I'm not sure that this covers the entire CRT; I'll try to add some more stuff.  There was a nice discussion of this in the SC forum. --[[User:Mysmartmouth|Sean]] 23:29, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:29, 22 June 2006

This is an experiment with writing style rather than anything else. I'd like to know whether such a style is acceptable, or you prefer something more formal (like Statement-Proof-Discussion format), or you would like to see some more "introductory" material. Please, share your opinions :).--Fedja 17:17, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

More Info

The writing style is fine, in my opinion. However, I'm not sure that this covers the entire CRT; I'll try to add some more stuff. There was a nice discussion of this in the SC forum. --Sean 23:29, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Invalid username
Login to AoPS