From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87d6zqsww6.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3C57AF73.727F8CE9@null.net>, <3C58DFD7.33AFB32B@null.net> Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [9fans] Getting started in Plan9 - help Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:35:41 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 49d1f2e2-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 DAGwyn@null.net (Douglas A. Gwyn) writes: > Non-conservation of parity is usually discussed under "CPT", > which should be in the index of many textbooks, predating the Web. > My assessment of the analytical error dates back to around 1967 but > has not been published. So the usual rule (as I was taught it) is that parity alone is not conserved, but the product of parity, time, and charge is conserved. (Perhaps I've got that slightly wrong.) Is this not actually correct? Gardner says roughly what I said. So are there references that back up what you are saying, that this is not in fact the case?