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

*Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:42:29 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 976] Re: [time 975] LaTex version of my paper"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 974] Re: [time 970] LaTex version of my paper"

Dear Bill,

I saw your new version of Nov. 4. I still have a question on section 2:

The second equation for f_n:

df_n/dt = h f_n (2)

is equivalent to

f_n = c exp(th) with c an arbitrary but fixed constant. (2)'

Namely this gives the general solution for (2).

But unlike you say there, f_{n+1} = f_n exp(th) is not the solution of (2)

because by (2)' we have

f_{n+1} = f_n exp(th) = c exp(2th),

which satisfies

df_{n+1}/dt = 2h f_{n+1}.

I wonder why you need subscript n, which, I assume, takes integral values 1, 2,

3, ...

I think you need just two quantities, say f_0 and f_1 that satisfy, e.g.,

f_1/f_0 = 1/(1-x)

in the case of relativistic/objective notion of change at the bottom of page 4.

In the case of exponential function case, this would become

f_1/f_0 = a constant,

if f_1 should satisfy the same equation (2) as for f_0. Namely the exponential

case is the extremal case where there is no substantial change between

subjective and objective values. And you seem to attempt to find some

non-extremal but more moderate case/view to the subjective change in your

present paper...

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 976] Re: [time 975] LaTex version of my paper"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[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
*