[time 974] Re: [time 970] LaTex version of my paper

Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:31:44 EST

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


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.



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
> 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
> role it does play in your argument.
> Best wishes,
> Hitoshi

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