Re: Finest partition - exercise in Suppes's book


William Elliot wrote:
> 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?

I thought you were agreeing that the proof is routine. But the author
of the book writes that the proof presents a special difficulty. My
purpose was just to verify that my routine proof is indeed correct,
since, from the author's commentary, one would expect that a routine
proof is not correct.

Thanks,

MoeBlee

.