[FOM] Clarification of #487

[Harvey Friedman]

THIS RESEARCH WAS PARTIALLY SUPPORTED BY THE JOHN TEMPLETON FOUNDATION

*****************************************

THIS POSTING IS ENTIRELY SELF CONTAINED

*****************************************

FEEDBACK FROM FOM SUBSCRIBERS IS REQUESTED
are the many uses of "natural" appropriate?

*****************************************

INVARIANT MAXIMALITY

In http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2012-March/016336.html I wrote:

> It is natural to use mappings H:Q[0,16]^32 into {0,1}^32 which are  
> M(0,16;32) invariant in the sense that for all M(0,16;32) invariant  
> x,y in Q[0,16]^32, H(x) = H(y).
>
> We call these T the M(0,16;32) induced restricted shift functions.
>
> RESTRICTED SHIFT PROBLEM (RSP) ON Q[0,16]^32. For which M(0,16;32)  
> invariant equivalence relations E on Q[0,16]^32 is it the case that  
> every order invariant subset of Q[0,16]^32 has a completely T  
> invariant maximal square?

I meant

RESTRICTED SHIFT PROBLEM (RSP) ON Q[0,16]^32. For which M(0,16;32)  
induced restricted shift functions T, is it the case that every order  
invariant subset of Q[0,16]^32 has a completely T invariant maximal  
square?

Harvey Friedman