Re: qvalue *

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

>> Oh, you found a plausible meaning for non-zero and smaller
>> than *.  That is good, so far I assumed that this _must_ be
>> erroneous.
> But you did get the meaning of q=0 and smaller than *?

Almost too late to ask that question, I fear it was in the
direction of:

"0 means I do not want it.  Anything else means I want it
 to some degree, and if I want 'anything' at some level it
 is pointless to want something specific at a lower or the
 same level."

I completely missed the concept to *not* want something at
non-zero levels.  


Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 02:52:48 UTC