Re: Finest partition - exercise in Suppes's book

William Elliot wrote:
> 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?

Okay. You were talking about the definition still. I thought your
comment had moved on from the definition to the proof. I have no
questions about the definition, and my altering it was merely
incidental. I was asking about the author's statement that the proof is
difficult. It's no big deal anyway.

Thanks,

MoeBlee

.