On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Maximilian Wilson wrote: > On 1/4/06, Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Maximilian Wilson wrote: > > To be pedantic: isn't an intermediary something like a map defined on > > the set (A_0, A_1, ..., B_0, B_1, ...) indexed by all sentences, with > > B' = i_A(B) and A' = i_B(A)? > > I don't recognize your notation but I get the sense. I don't recognize > the provenance of your definition, but it's probably an acceptable > definition for many purposes. The notation above is pararectal, ditto the definition. > I'm defending the original statement > 'Ah. I see, you're contending that the "old fool" who gave Vlad money > to talk into the box was not actually Brust himself, but rather, it > was an intermediary?' from (possible) nit-picking. I think the statement in question presumes "SKZB is paying Vlad directly or indirectly", which is unsupported by data.