Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>>[1] 
>>
> http://www-lti.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~clu/papers/archive/lutzdiss.pdf
> 
> I don't think I have time to read 225 pages ... :(
> 
> Is there a shorter version of the central argument?


Jeremy,

This is a well known proof method called "proof by intimidation" :-)

Frank.
    ----

Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 06:15:44 UTC