05/30/2021, 07:14 PM
Let me start with a provocative note.
The argument is so sharp that I can't see it.
Let me explain. I can't see the logic of the argument and I see at least three critical logic steps that invalidates the proof (both in your and in Galidakis's).
The structure of a proof is a matter of logic. Logic has as one of its main goals that of communicating and checking arguments in a "universal" way. I can not recognize your argument as a proof. The options are two: the argument needs to be improved because it is wrong or, the exposition of the, valid, argument has to be improved.
Since I'm not a specialist in analytic extensions it can be the case that for an expert in the field those three lines are enough and she/he can easily fill the trivial gaps.
I'm not a specialist but I eat a fair amount of logic daily and I can not recognize the structure of the proof as valid.
Can you expand on this filling the missing details?
The argument is so sharp that I can't see it.
Let me explain. I can't see the logic of the argument and I see at least three critical logic steps that invalidates the proof (both in your and in Galidakis's).
The structure of a proof is a matter of logic. Logic has as one of its main goals that of communicating and checking arguments in a "universal" way. I can not recognize your argument as a proof. The options are two: the argument needs to be improved because it is wrong or, the exposition of the, valid, argument has to be improved.
Since I'm not a specialist in analytic extensions it can be the case that for an expert in the field those three lines are enough and she/he can easily fill the trivial gaps.
I'm not a specialist but I eat a fair amount of logic daily and I can not recognize the structure of the proof as valid.
Can you expand on this filling the missing details?
Mother Law \(\sigma^+\circ 0=\sigma \circ \sigma^+ \)
\({\rm Grp}_{\rm pt} ({\rm RK}J,G)\cong \mathbb N{\rm Set}_{\rm pt} (J, \Sigma^G)\)