> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Arturo Magidin wrote: >> What little I have read shows that you are a lousy writer. So much so >> that it is impossible to render accurate judgments as to the quality of >> your mathematics. > > Indeed he is a lousy mathematical writer. Lousy to the extent that, as > you say, it's impossible to know if he's onto anything or if he's just a > jargon > juggler. I've offered to work with Victor to improve his voluminous tome > to where I at least, can understand it and assure the definition are > coherent and consistent. It's been futile work, as though the text is > pristine as it stands. > > I my current attempt, so far I gotten that a funciod is a filter over a > produce of sets. But wait, there's yet more to come, for as he indicated, > it's basically a filter of a product, without filling in the details or > completing the definition so I know what difference he has in mind between > being a filter and being basically a filter.
No, reloid (not funcoid) is a filter on a cartesian product of two sets.
Strictly speaking, I define "reloid" as a triple (A;B;F) where A and B are sets and F is a filter on their product AxB.
> It would also help were his text in TeX instead of pdf for TeX is easier > for > me to use when discussing his stuff with him. A TeX version however, > seems beyond the prospecting Abel prize aspirant willingness or > capabilities. > > Though the topic of his musings interests me, I yet to have my appetite > wetted.
What exactly in my writing style is bad? Is it bad English? Is it unclear exposition? Whatever? What should I do to rewrite it in a better way?
Sorry, I (despite of that in the past I was a TeX expert) use TeXmacs not TeX for mathematical writing. Converting it into good LaTeX would be much work.