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 ]
 David Hartley Posts: 463 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: The Rado paper -- a possible further simplification
Posted: Nov 8, 2013 6:24 AM

<pepstein5@gmail.com> writes
>I think I can offer a tiny further improvement in your simplification
>as follows. In contrast to Rado, the set on which we show canonicity
>is B(4) rather than B(2). Your lemma 1 can then be used unchanged
>because B(4) is a subset of B(2). This approach lets us omit the step:
>[Replace X and X' by X_0 and X_1 from [B(4)]^r such that (X,X') =
>(X_0,X_1)]
>
>Does this work as a further simplification or does it simplify too
>much, and thereby introduce an error?

I think that would work. Rado's "PQ lemma" needs to proved for all B',
my lemma for B = B(2) and then the final result in B(4).
--
David Hartley

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