Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:07:20 -0600
In article <1174052522.429305.221420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 15 Mrz., 15:33, "William Hughes" <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:13 am, mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 15 Mrz., 12:31, "William Hughes" <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:12 am, mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
. If we want to find the Waft Maximum of a set
of lines or paths, then we must use the projection such that the lines
or paths are transversal
Note that we cannot determine the Waft Maximum of
U(T(n)), because the paths in U(T(n)) are
not transversal.
Are you joking?
No. We need to make the paths transversal. We can
make a path in any T(n) transversal, but we
cannot make a path in U(T(n)) transversal.
We are talking about the set of all finite path. In the U(T(n)) there
cannot be an infinite path, because a set of finite elements cannot
contain an infinite element.
Then the set of all finite paths is irrelevant to the set of infinite
paths, which can, and does, exist in a CIBT.
But your second assertion is also wrong. We can determine the WM of an
infinite path or a set of them very well. It is aleph_0.
According to my recollection of WM's WMs, a WM on some set of objects
like lines must be a member of one of the objects.
Of which infinite path is aleph_0 a member?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- References:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Prev by Date: Re: Proof Attempt For Fermat's Last Theorem
- Next by Date: Re: sets inclusions
- Previous by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|