*WDEshleman@aol.com*

*Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:31:44 EST*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 975] Re: [time 974] Re: [time 970] LaTex version of my paper"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 973] Re: [time 969] Sharpened form of Riemann hypothesis and TGD"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 972] Re: [time 969] Sharpened form of Riemann hypothesis and TGD"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 975] Re: [time 974] Re: [time 970] LaTex version of my paper"

Hitoshi,

Thanks for the time. there is now a fixed version at,

http://members.tripod.com/~EshlemanW/dlpage.htm

Sometimes I have to laugh at myself, the way I let wrong stuff

remain although I read and reread it without noticing the mistake.

f_{n+1}/f_n is my symbol for relative change...

most of the f_n's found elsewhere

should be replaced by my variable h. Please keep reading, the

paper is a plea for fixing up my reasoning...

not even an opinion, only a suggestion.

Sincerely,

Bill

In a message dated 11/3/99 8:46:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,

hitoshi@kitada.com writes:

*> 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 975] Re: [time 974] Re: [time 970] LaTex version of my paper"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 973] Re: [time 969] Sharpened form of Riemann hypothesis and TGD"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 972] Re: [time 969] Sharpened form of Riemann hypothesis and TGD"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 975] Re: [time 974] Re: [time 970] LaTex version of my paper"

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