Re: Back to basics - or musings of an old bore

[Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    > [Jim Reeds:] Manly did not claim a solution. I have his 1931
    > Speculum paper in front of me. [...] I have read several
    > solution claims, and this is not at all like them. [...] I don't
    > think there is anything in this paragraph that Stolfi (say)
    > would disagree with.

Agreed 100%. (All my speculations about Manly were based on Karl's
glancing remark.)

    > and indeed, this paragraph touches many of the issues discussed
    > on this list all the time: what language could it be in, and the
    > need for photocopies.
    
Sigh. Put it that way, it does seem that there has been no progress
in the last 70 years...

All the best,

--stolfi