Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
Replies: 44   Last Post: Nov 10, 2013 12:23 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Paul

Posts: 463
Registered: 7/12/10
Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado

Posted: Nov 4, 2013 6:10 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, November 4, 2013 11:00:04 PM UTC, David Hartley wrote:
> Working a bit further on I've hit another problem. The proof of the
>
> lemma about the sets P,P',Q and Q' also seems flawed. The definition of
>
> g is sufficient to give the desired result if P and P' are disjoint. E
>
> is presumably included to extend that to the case where they intersect,
>
> but I can't see how it does. g still only addresses disjoint subsets of
>
> P u P' u E. I think that can be worked round by altering the definition
>
> of g. Instead of listing the ways in which each set of size 2r can be
>
> split into disjoint sets of size r with the same image under f, it
>
> should give the ways in which it can yield two not necessarily disjoint
>
> sets of size r with the same image under f. The sets B' and B derived
>
> from this new g by Ramsey's theorem will still have any properties
>
> required for the rest of the proof, as the old g will be constant on any
>
> set that the new g is constant on.
>
>
>
> And now I think I may see a way around the original problem.
>
>
>
> Suppose D(x,y,i) but fx = fy. By the P/Q lemma, fx=fz for any other z
>
> such that D(x,z,i) [P = P' = x, Q = y, Q' = z]
>
>
>
> There's a possible problem if x_i < y_i but z_i < x_i. The lemma as
>
> stated won't apply but the proof of it will extend to cover this case.
>
>
>
> Now looking back at a rho not in L. By the definition
>
>
>
> there exist distinct x,y such that D(x,y,i) and f(x) = f(y)
>
>
>
> By the P/Q lemma, for all x,y such that D(x,y,i), f(x) = f(y)
>
>
>
> which is what we needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> So it seems the problem step can be justified using a lemma from later
>
> in the paper and, unless I've gone astray, that lemma can be proved if
>
> we modify g. That's all I have time for tonight.
>
> --

Thanks a lot.

Ironically, my whole purpose in going to this paper was the belief that it simplified the original Erdos-Rado proof of the same theorem.

I will go back to the original Erdos-Rado theorem and see if I can patch any gaps there. I hope so -- Erdos usually wrote very simply.

Paul Epstein



Date Subject Author
11/3/13
Read Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
Paul
11/3/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/3/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
fom
11/3/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
fom
11/3/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
fom
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
fom
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Peter Percival
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/5/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/5/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/5/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/5/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/5/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/6/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/6/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
Paul
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
David Hartley
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
Paul
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
David Hartley
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
Paul
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
David Hartley
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
David Hartley
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
Paul
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
David Hartley
11/8/13
Read Re: The Rado paper -- a possible further simplification
Paul
11/8/13
Read Re: The Rado paper -- a possible further simplification
David Hartley
11/7/13
Read Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
Paul
11/7/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
fom
11/8/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/8/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
David Hartley
11/10/13
Read Re: Possible major blunder in Rado's version of Canonical Ramsey
Theorem that goes far beyond omitting proof steps
Paul
11/10/13
Read Re: Possible major blunder in Rado's version of Canonical Ramsey Theorem that goes far beyond omitting proof steps
David Hartley
11/10/13
Read Re: Possible major blunder in Rado's version of Canonical Ramsey
Theorem that goes far beyond omitting proof steps
Paul
11/10/13
Read Re: Possible major blunder in Rado's version of Canonical Ramsey Theorem that goes far beyond omitting proof steps
David Hartley
11/10/13
Read Re: Possible major blunder in Rado's version of Canonical Ramsey Theorem that goes far beyond omitting proof steps
David Hartley
11/10/13
Read Re: Possible major blunder in Rado's version of Canonical Ramsey
Theorem that goes far beyond omitting proof steps
Paul
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Paul
11/4/13
Read Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper
by Rado
Peter Percival

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.