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

Am 22.04.2024 um 23:03 schrieb Jim Burns:

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.

Yes, completely agree with you.

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.

Yes, I understand your motivation (I think), but -I'm sorry to say so- I don't think that you will succeeed. :-)

But the notions themselves are standard, I think.

Yeah, the notions maybe (I guess), but your notation is "highly" nonstandard, sorry.

I'm not an idiot, but I am not Dedekind or Frege
or Erdős, either.

Well, who is? :-P
Btw. I'm a big Frege fan.
Dedekind, Cantor: Great mathematicians, geniuses.
Frege: One of the greatest logicans ever.
(Erdős: Incredible mathematician. I had the pleasure to be tought by a mathematician with an Erdős number 3)

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?

Well, if you like it that way, what can I say.