Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Paul Posts: 780 Registered: 7/12/10
Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper

Posted: Nov 5, 2013 5:20 PM

Of course, the below is irrelevant to understanding the proof. However, I am completely mystified by the page 1 sentences: "We now show that f is L-canonical. We shall apply the definition of f repeatedly without referring to this fact." It's only the second of those sentences that confuses me. The first sentence is given for context.

What is the "fact" in question. If the fact is that f is being applied, then of course when you write fP, you're applying f. Why on earth would this need to be pointed out? If the fact is that f is L-canonical, that also makes no sense at all. The statement of f being L-canonical is one half of an A implies B statement. So, for half of the result, we clearly assume it. And for the other half, we deduce it rather than assuming it.

Do you have any idea what is meant here? (Again, I realise that this is a very minor point, but I would like to understand the paper in its entirety. It's also possible that this confusion on my part points to a hidden subtlety that I'm not seeing).

Thank you very much for shedding light on these remarks.

Paul Epstein

Date Subject Author
11/3/13 Paul
11/3/13 David Hartley
11/3/13 fom
11/3/13 fom
11/3/13 fom
11/4/13 fom
11/4/13 Paul
11/4/13 Paul
11/4/13 Peter Percival
11/4/13 David Hartley
11/4/13 Paul
11/4/13 David Hartley
11/4/13 Paul
11/4/13 David Hartley
11/4/13 Paul
11/5/13 Paul
11/5/13 David Hartley
11/5/13 Paul
11/5/13 David Hartley
11/5/13 Paul
11/6/13 Paul
11/6/13 Paul
11/7/13 Paul
11/7/13 David Hartley
11/7/13 Paul
11/7/13 David Hartley
11/7/13 Paul
11/7/13 David Hartley
11/7/13 David Hartley
11/7/13 Paul
11/7/13 David Hartley
11/8/13 Paul
11/8/13 David Hartley
11/7/13 Paul
11/7/13 fom
11/8/13 Paul
11/8/13 David Hartley
11/10/13 Paul
11/10/13 David Hartley
11/10/13 Paul
11/10/13 David Hartley
11/10/13 David Hartley
11/10/13 Paul
11/4/13 Paul
11/4/13 Peter Percival