On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:11:53 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
>> of the part relative to the whole.
> 
> Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by
> infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes
> me. But I am not a native speaker.

That was how I read it - "part" doesn't necessarily imply a definitive 
whole, just "less than 100%".

Jim

Post a reply to this message