1. At the opening of the proof of Theorem 4.23, where it says “By Corollary 4.19”, it should have been “By Corollary 4.12”.

2. Later in the proof of Theorem 4.23, where defining the ordinal $\Lambda$, the function $\lambda_2^k$ should have been $\lambda_2$ (the extra superscript is only relevant to the proof of Case 2 of Theorem 4.21, and is redundant here).]]>

–Charlie Sitler

]]>So I don’t regard this as a “typo”. But perhaps I’m missing something?

(Meanwhile, I have corrected the link; thanks very much for that.)

]]>Accepted, July 2019.]]>

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11856-018-1677-1]]>

Accepted, January 2019.]]>

Accepted, December 2018.]]>

The book by Hindman&Strauss has a section on filters and compactifications in a later chapter — that might be suitable for 2).

]]>Possibly relevant is my October 2004 sci.math post “Generalized Quantifiers” (URLs below). FYI, the Math Forum version has a lot of strange formatting errors. See also Brian Thomson’s 1985 book “Real Functions”, and see Thomson’s earlier 2-part survey Derivation bases on the real line (which contain examples and side-detours not in his book).

google sci.math URL:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/rhZEhXynVLQ/MI0MJ0ZQIvoJ

Math Forum sci.math URL:

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3556191

Regarding Moving around every few years for postdocs would be exhausting

, I wholeheartedly agree! Every such decision has pros and cons. They are usually not obvious at the outset. Moreover, they change over time. The lesson I learned though my own course is that every decision is right, at least at the time you make it, and there is never any point regretting it later on… Just keep on doing what you do best all the time!

We went on to look at the paradoxical situations that arise when someone gets a positive test result for a rare disease. Should they be worried? If the test is 99% accurate, but the disease occurs in say, 1 in million, then a positive result is not so worrisome: in million people, there will be about 1 true positive result, and about 10,000 false positives, since 1% of a million is 10,000. So the odds that you’ve actually got the disease, given that you tested positive, is 1 in 10,000.

But your situation is completely different! It would be as though we had calculated the odds of getting HHHTTT, and then when I actually flipped the coin on stage, i actually got the same pattern HHHTTT. Totally weird! And very unlikely. But you know, if it wasn’t that, it would have been some other totally unlikely thing, like getting all green lights, or all red lights, or getting the serial number 123456 on your receipt at Starbucks.

]]>