[FOM] Clarification of #487
Harvey Friedman
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Wed Mar 21 03:28:28 EDT 2012
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
More information about the FOM
mailing list