| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
P-1788, Do I have a second to this amendment? (With a second, we will finish the discussion on the amendment, then vote on the amendment). Baker On 05/31/2011 04:55 AM, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Folks, I move to amend this motion as follows. (1) That all mention of the bits D(f,X)+, D(f,X)-,& C(f,X) be removed from consideration on the grounds that they belong at a lower level. (2) That the names of the decorations D0 through D4 be replaced with John's 3 letter names on the grounds that the notion that D0< D1< D2< D3< D4 is also an implementation detail that belongs at a lower level. (3) That an explicit statement of just the partial ordering required for FTDIA be included so that this proof can be done without reference to these lower level details. Do I hear a second? And, Nate, believe it or not& for all my mistakes, I really am trying to make your motion more passable. I may not succeed but I am trying. Dan
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax) (337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home) URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street) Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA ---------------------------------------------------------------