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?
>
> 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.
>
I wasn't. I skipped the proof giving a direct definition of what
ever it was that's the now forgotten topic of discussion as it
wasn't included in the subthread you started. So I don't see
what the hell-a-boo is about, as a direct definition sufficed,
did it not?
.

Loading