29
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + +
→In case you haven't noticed: new section
::Who are you talking to, Economist? I take it our friends noticed that the math symbols I posted in answer to your question, months ago, came from Media Wiki, right? That the link I gave you here, which is attributed by the link, is exactly what I used? Oh, wait, they didn't....just another example of how wrong liberals typically are! :p --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 05:10, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::Who are you talking to, Economist? I take it our friends noticed that the math symbols I posted in answer to your question, months ago, came from Media Wiki, right? That the link I gave you here, which is attributed by the link, is exactly what I used? Oh, wait, they didn't....just another example of how wrong liberals typically are! :p --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 05:10, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
== In case you haven't noticed ==
The first line should be <math>g'(x) \not\equiv 0</math> not <math>g'(x) \ne 0</math>, since it can still be 0 at some places. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 08:53, 23 June 2009 (EDT)