Reflection

Processing math: 100%

$\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{$\blacksquare$} \newcommand{\Quo}{\textbf{Quote.~}} \newcommand{\Com}{\textbf{Comic.~}} \newcommand{\Def}{\textbf{Definition.~}} \newcommand{\Exm}{\textbf{Example.~}} \newcommand{\Rem}{\textbf{Reminder.~}} \newcommand{\Hmk}{\textbf{Homework.~}} \newcommand{\Nota}{\textbf{Notation.~}} \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle} \def\aa{\textbf{a}} \def\bb{\textbf{b}} \def\cc{\textbf{c}} \def\dd{\textbf{d}} \def\xx{\textbf{x}} \def\zv{\textbf{0}} \def\rr{\textbf{r}} \def\vv{\textbf{v}} \def\xx{\textbf{x}} \def\qq{\textbf{q}} \def\rr{\textbf{r}} \def\vv{\textbf{v}} \def\xx{\textbf{x}} \def\yy{\textbf{y}} \def\qq{\textbf{q}} \def\pp{\textbf{p}} \def\eee{\textbf{e}} \def\ii{\textbf{i}} \def\jj{\textbf{j}} \def\kk{\textbf{k}} \def\nn{\textbf{n}} \newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c} #1\\ #2 \end{array}\right] } \newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c} #1\\ #2\\ #3 \end{array}\right] } \def\R{\mathbb{ R}} \def\S{\mathbb{ S}} \def\I{\mathbb{ I}} \newcommand{\lt}{<} \newcommand{\gt}{>} \newcommand{\amp}{&}$

🔗

Section 48.6 Reflection

🔗

My assumption while tinkering with

$F_E$ is that it is not

$2$ –accessible, primarily by the computer evidence in [48.7.2]. However, Theorem 48.5.1 and Theorem 48.5.4 show how easy (relatively speaking) it is for a set to be accessible, which makes me suspect the possibility that the computer evidence is a symptom of the law of small numbers. I have entertaining the idea that

$F_E$ is not

$2$ –accessible for more time then it being

$2$ –accessible. So I am again uncertain whether or not

$F_E$ is

$2$ –accessible. If I return to this problem in the summer I will spend more time approach it from the prospective that it is

$2$ –accessible, and perhaps spending more time on this angle will aid in a colouring which avoids arbitrarily long monochromatic

$F_E$ –diffsequences.