Timeline for Is There an Induction-Free Proof of the 'Be The Leader' Lemma?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 12:23 | comment | added | Ketil Tveiten | @Joshua This discussion has been had before: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 23:58 | comment | added | Joshua | @Acccumulation: Sounds like infinite regress. | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 23:04 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @Joshua Did you produce a proof that if a proof that proof of X must exist must exist exists, then X must exist? | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 19:30 | comment | added | Joshua | My professor was not pleased when I was asked to "prove X must exist" I rather produced "proof that proof of X must exist must exist" and then said since the proof must exist, so must X. | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 16:22 | history | edited | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 9, 2019 at 16:12 | history | edited | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 748 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2019 at 15:58 | comment | added | Will Sawin | Note that this proof uses each hypothesis "$y_i$ is the minimizer of $F_i$" exactly once, on the $i$th line. This suggests the proof can't be simplified, as we can't avoid using any of the hypotheses as then the lemma is false. | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 15:56 | history | answered | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |