Re: because g?(g?¹(x)) = g(y) [1/2] Re: how

on 4/22/2024, Jim Burns supposed :

On 4/22/2024 3:40 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 22.04.2024 um 21:36 schrieb Jim Burns:

>

However, deleting context courts confusion,
as you have noticed.

>
That's why I tend to use (i.e. stick to)
standard notation and common notions
(in this context). :-)

>
Since you find that that works for you,
I would not dream of asking you to do otherwise.
>
>
My impression of WM is he is someone who
thinks that they know what these common notions are,
and who doesn't know.
>
When I tried (many times) to explain to WM
common notions in common notation,
what he read is not what I wrote,
not even if I wrote it a hundred times.
So, now I try to find uncommon ways to write them.
>
But the notions themselves are standard, I think.
I'm not an idiot, but I am not Dedekind or Frege
or Erdős, either.
>
At most, I am offering a different emphasis,
it seems to me. And the emphasis previously
encountered by WM didn't take, so why not?

It leaves me wondering exactly what common notation captures the WM set. You know, the expanding/shrinking ones that sometimes leak?