**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:46:33 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 971] Re: [time 970] Re: [time 968] Re: [time 964] LaTex version of my paper"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 969] Sharpened form of Riemann hypothesis and TGD"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 971] Re: [time 970] Re: [time 968] Re: [time 964] LaTex version of my paper"

Dear Bill,

I saw your new version a few days ago. On the section 2 A priori notions of

change that you changed in this version, I have a small question: I am not sure

about the meaning of f_n. In the first equation, f_n seems to be a constant. In

fact you differentiate exp(tf_n) and get

(d/dt)(exp(tf_n)) = f_n exp(tf_n). (1)

But if we understood f_n as in the second formula in the section, f_{n+1} seems

to mean

f_{n+1} = f_n exp(tf_n),

which depends on the variable t so that we can no more differentiate

exp(tf_{n+1}) as in (1): In this case we have to write

(d/dt)(exp(tf_{n+1})) = (df_{n+1}/dt) exp(tf_{n+1}).

Then inductive definition of f_n seems to break down.

Or in other words, my question is what the subscript n in f_n means and what

role it does play in your argument.

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 971] Re: [time 970] Re: [time 968] Re: [time 964] LaTex version of my paper"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 969] Sharpened form of Riemann hypothesis and TGD"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 971] Re: [time 970] Re: [time 968] Re: [time 964] LaTex version of my paper"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:39 JST
*