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: 464
Registered: 7/12/10
Re: Another not-completely-insignificant gap in the Rado paper
Posted: Nov 7, 2013 9:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:05:55 PM UTC, David Hartley wrote:
> In message <b829deeb-b331-4460-a723-5d76a8ac54d0@googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes
>

> >So far, even when I appeal to large xi terms, I don't see enough space
>
> >between the elements to be sure of obtaining the relationships of the
>
> >form [X0, X1] = [X1, X2] etc.
>
> >
>
> I've only just started to look at the rest of the proof, but here's my
>
> first thoughts.
>
>
>
> At each successive stage we're given a larger set to draw the elements
>
> of the next X_i from. B(r^(s-1)) has (r-1) elements between each member
>
> of B(r^s). That should be enough. (There could be a problem if the least
>
> element of X1 is b_0, but that can be avoided by choosing X_1
>
> carefully.)
>
>
>
>
>

> >However, I think I see the issue. As written, I don't see where he
>
> >uses the fact that B is a proper subset of B'.
>
> >
>
> >Therefore, perhaps the definition of B(t) is an error? Perhaps the
>
> >element at index j in the sequence B(t) is intended to mean the term at
>
> >index j in the C sequence where C refers to the sequence: b0, b2, b4,
>
> >b6....
>
>
>
> ... but I think you may be right there. As specified B(t) is not a
>
> subset of B for odd t.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >There does seem to be some small problem either with the paper, or my
>
> >understanding of the paper, because I see no place in the paper where
>
> >he uses the fact that he has removed the odd index elements from B'.
>
> >
>
> >Perhaps he redefined the b_i elements so that the i index now refers to
>
> >their position in B rather than in B' but he definitely needs to tell
>
> >the reader that he is doing this.
>
>
>
> The definition of pi assumes that X_sigma0^rho0 has an even index, so it
>
> seems he's still using indexing in B' but assuming the X_i are all
>
> within B.
>
>
>
> This is where he uses the fact that B =/= B'. b_(2pi+1) is not in B
>
> allows you to change X_sigma0 to Z_sigma0 as it can't already be another
>
> element of X_sigma0. But it has the same order-relationship as B_2pi
>
> with all other elements of B and so does not change the
>
> order-relationship of X_sigma0 with other X_i. In particular
>
> (X_0,X_sigma0) = (X_0,Z_sigma0)
>
>
>

> >I see that you need to remove the odd elements because I don't get
>
> >enough spacing, but the construction still doesn't seem coherent
>
> >because the [X0, X1] steps simply don't work if you follow the
>
> >definitions literally.
>
>
>
> So it seems it all works if you just change B(t) to {b_2t, b_4t,...}
>
>


David,

Thanks for your contributions. I don't see things quite the same way. I think that, as before, the author meant exactly what he said. All indexing is fine and beginning at b_0 is fine. You may need sufficient largeness of the x terms where largeness is defined in relation to the indexing of the b terms. I disagree with you that we have enough B(r^(s-1)) elements between the members of B(r ^ s). We sometimes (unless we argue further) want r instead of r-1.

The philosophy is that, whenever you find that the construction poses a problem, you appeal to the same type of argument that I (with Blass's help) found nearer the beginning of the thread.

Whenever we see a problem in the construction, we move around it by using the Blass-Epstein argument to say that, because we're working inside B', the problem (not being able to find enough B(r^(s-1) elements) is inconsistent with the assumed inequality f(x...) =/= f(x'...).

Thanks again,

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.