In message <email@example.com>, Paul <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes >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.
I can't make sense of it either. The whole section is rather odd. Firstly he hasn't actually defined L-canonical, only L-canonical on B, presumably he means here L-canonical on A. The actual theorem is trivial yet he devotes several lines to a proof. I assume Bulletin articles are supposed to be short, so it would have been much better to use that space for a more detailed proof of the important theorem. In particular explaining the step that had us both confused.
The idea is lovely, the presentation is not. -- David Hartley