
Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 6:53 AM


In message <108bdb66f2204d28991e5318f87ffcb9@googlegroups.com>, Paul <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes >Thanks very much for this correction. I will use this corrected >version of L and attempt to understand the rest of the paper. I agree >that this corrected L gets past the blockage I initially complained >about. I look forward to reading the rest of the paper and I hope that >correcting L in this way doesn't cause problems further on in the proof.
It was getting late last night and I didn't look any further. Having had a quick glance now it looks like the second part of the proof uses the original definition of L. I'll look more closely tonight but at the moment it looks like the proof can't be saved by redefining L.
 David Hartley

