
Re: Surprise at my failure to resolve an issue in an elementary paper by Rado
Posted:
Nov 5, 2013 7:10 PM


In message <86eb8927154a4ad2906f759e79de59d9@googlegroups.com>, Paul <pepstein5@gmail.com> 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 Lcanonical. 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 Lcanonical, only Lcanonical on B, presumably he means here Lcanonical 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

