Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:57:19 -0700
On 17 Mrz., 20:27, "William Hughes" <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 17 Mrz., 16:12, "William Hughes" <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:18 am, mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
How about
4.1 Each element of P_I corresponds to an endless sequence of
elements of P_F
<snip>
[No, I will not agree to that]
How about
4.2 Each element of P_I corresponds to a sequence of
elements of P_F
If "what the projection does" with an element of P_I and with the
corresponding sequence of elements of P_F is the same, then it could
be that you are right. It is not necessarily so, but it could not be
excluded.
If "what the projection does" with an element of P_I and with the
corresponding sequence of elements of P_F is not the same, then there
must be a reason for this difference, or not?
Again: If WM(A) = WM(B) then A = B cannot be excluded. (We have to use
other means to investigate the case.) If WM(A) =/= WM(B), then A =/=B.
Reason: If A = B ==> WM(A) = WM(B).
Do you understand this logic?
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- 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: 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.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Linear Algebra
- Previous by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|