Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0

From: "*** T. Winter" <***.Winter@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 03:12:02 GMT

In article <92tq839tck0ltbh9694dt1svatftca5q6f@xxxxxxx> G. Frege <nomail@invalid> writes:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 02:59:35 GMT, "*** T. Winter" <***.Winter@xxxxxx>
wrote:

....

I do not know, as I have not yet seen a consistent definition. But
clearly you are unwilling to provide definitions of the things you are
using.

The following is a reasonable definition of "path bunch". (Since *I*
introduced WM to that notion in the first place, I should know.)

I started this with the definitions from his book which are conflicting.
Apparently he did not understand your definition at all.
--
*** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
.

References:
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
  - From: *** T. Winter
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
  - From: G . Frege

Prev by Date: Re: exercise on group rings
Next by Date: Re: Some Thoughts on the Four Color Theorem
Previous by thread: Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
Next by thread: Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread