7 Jan
2012
7 Jan
'12
2:25 p.m.
When I posed the problem, I thought it might be an interesting diversion, but perhaps there are a couple of sequences and perhaps a paper in there. On 1/7/2012 2:49 PM, Tom Rokicki wrote:
More likely, I need to write more clearly and with fewer mistakes.
Also I don't think I actually stated the result you have on smallest seed. So no need for any apologies.
If you want to be completely correct, I owe Michael Kleber an apology for repeating something he proved, and I don't have an excuse of his writeup being unclear.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 11:17 AM, David Wilson<davidwwilson@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, then, it looks like I owe Tom an apology, he apparently preceeded me in all of my conclusions. Perhaps I need to read a bit more before writing.