Re: Motion 35 -- New levels 1 and 1a (amendment)
Earlier I wrote:
> Page 4, extension of FTIA into IRbar. When the interval hull (1) is
> redescribed as { f(x): x \in X_f } with X_f = X \intersect D_f (5)
> for *any* X \in Ibar¬n, we lose the a-prioriness of X_f, and
> now inf and sup may not exist anymore, so the definition is
> essentially incomplete.
Nate pointed out to me that infimum and supremum DO exist in IRbar,
so I take this back, as well as
> Page 5, Proposition 1: "... as defined in (5)". But (5) is broken!
It is the minimum and maximum that may not exist in (5).
This however reinforces my comment about the "simply" in (1), where
minimum and maximum were used to describe the infimum and supremum.
Michel.
---Sent: 2012-05-18 16:06:43 UTC