On Monday, November 4, 2013 11:53:42 AM UTC, David Hartley wrote: > In message <email@example.com>, Paul > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. > >
Agreed. The redefinition of L leads to problems soon after (3) of page 3. Furthermore, assuming an error in a paper should be a last resort. An author is far more likely to omit steps of reasoning than to make an elementary logical error. My initial post merely shows that the equality I'm complaining about doesn't follow _immediately_. However, just because an assertion doesn't follow immediately doesn't mean that it doesn't follow. To show that it doesn't follow, we would need a counter-example and I haven't seen one.
Many thanks for your help. I'll be delighted when this is resolved.