Re: Finest partition - exercise in Suppes's book

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, MoeBlee wrote:

> William Elliot wrote:
> > Oh, yes yes, I suppose.
>
> So you agree that it is utterly routine. So I don't understand why the
> author shrouds it with an aura of mystery. Oh well, no biggee. I just
> wanted to make sure I hadn't overlooked something.
>
Huh?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Finest partition - exercise in Suppess book
    ... > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, MoeBlee wrote: ... >> William Elliot wrote: ... I thought you were agreeing that the proof is routine. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: 1/0
    ... On Nov 27, 2005 5:38 AM CT, William Elliot wrote: ... > On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, David Kastrup wrote: ... I'm not quite sure what frightens me more, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: uniquely determined
    ... On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, William Elliot wrote: ... bijection though I suspect with fuller context, it could be interpreted to mean that the function f is an injection. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: denoting the dimension an implicit equation is plotted in
    ... On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Alex Hunsley wrote: ... > William Elliot wrote: ... > I see what you mean, but the point is that I want to attach the amount of ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: question on set operations...
    ... On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Robert Low wrote: ... > William Elliot wrote: ... >> You cannot by counterxeample ...
    (sci.math)