FOM: fom good?, thank you
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Tue Mar 10 16:09:13 EST 1998
Lou writes (12:22PM 3/10/98):
>Good point! -Lou-
Wow!!!!!!! Maybe the fom is good for something. Has such a response ever
been made anywhere by anyone about delicate conceptual issues in any such
>Faltings proof *does* provide (with a bit of extra work) a bound on the
>number of exceptions (as does Roth's proof of his theorem), although not
>a bound on the size of the exceptions. (I mean a bound effective in the
>I would like to point out that in the case of Roth's theorem there are
>effective bounds on the number of exceptions (but not on their size).
Thanks to Kohlenbach and Lou for correcting my misstatement. Of course, the
point I was making there about classical and intuitionistic mathematics
remains unaffected (3/9/98 21:36).
I threw that mistake in to see if anybody was reading my fom postings.
(Just kidding - it was a gneuine substantive error due to a failure of
More information about the FOM