The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

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

Topic: A canonical form for small ordinals
Replies: 12   Last Post: Jan 19, 2014 2:35 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 780
Registered: 7/12/10
Re: A canonical form for small ordinals
Posted: Jan 19, 2014 5:37 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:48:13 PM UTC, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> William, Elliott, quasi, or Dr. Quasi or whatever it is these days,
> please explain what you see as the significance of the result you
> have proven.


I think the answer to that question is rather obvious. It occurred as an unproved assertion in a paper I was reading. I requested help in understanding why this was true and others on the thread (including quasi and William Elliot but others made useful comments, too) made contributions with the (successful) aim of helping me understand what I was reading.

Paul Epstein

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.