04/26/2021, 10:24 AM
(04/26/2021, 01:28 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: Hey, MphLEE!
... not as a method of proofIt was entirely supplemental. I apologize if they're not to your standard though, lol. As far as I used them, was as a visual aid. Which, was essentially how Milnor was to me.
Thanks though, for giving the paper enough of a time of day to reply to. I hope the paper seems, at least intuitive, if not rigorous to you. By which, if you can't corroborate the technical aspects; at least, I hope the motions make sense, lol.
Thanks again, James
Don't worry, I got the goals of your diagrams and I wasn't asking for standards to be respected. When I'll have time to go thru it, I'll automatically convert to category theory everything that can be "diagrammed" anyways hahaha (that's how my mind works). Also I got that atm this is as far into diagram as you can go, just like the the formal definition of limit is as far as I can go in epsilon-delta proofs xD.
The paper is not totally intuitive to me only because I need more exercise in the parts about convergence, but its my fault of course. I still have to find some time to put into it in order to get used to how the pieces fit together. Overall, the motion of the argument still makes sense.
ps: lately got really slow on all of this since the more I worked in polishing the Sup.Func.Sp.ces' paper and the more I fell into rabbit holes.
Mother Law \(\sigma^+\circ 0=\sigma \circ \sigma^+ \)
\({\rm Grp}_{\rm pt} ({\rm RK}J,G)\cong \mathbb N{\rm Set}_{\rm pt} (J, \Sigma^G)\)

It was entirely supplemental. I apologize if they're not to your standard though, lol. As far as I used them, was as a visual aid. Which, was essentially how Milnor was to me.