FOM: fom good?, thank you

[Harvey Friedman]

Lou writes (12:22PM 3/10/98):

>Good point! -Lou-

Wow!!!!!!!  Maybe the fom is good for something. Has such a response ever
been made anywhere by anyone about delicate conceptual issues in any such
forum?

Lou writes:

>Faltings proof *does* provide (with a bit of extra work) a bound on the
>number of exceptions (as does Roth's proof of his theorem), although not
>a bound on the size of the exceptions. (I mean a bound effective in the
>data).

Kohlenbach writes:

>I would like to point out that in the case of Roth's theorem there are
>effective bounds on the number of exceptions (but not on their size).

Thanks to Kohlenbach and Lou for correcting my misstatement. Of course, the
point I was making there about classical and intuitionistic mathematics
remains unaffected (3/9/98   21:36).

I threw that mistake in to see if anybody was reading my fom postings.
(Just kidding - it was a gneuine substantive error due to a failure of
memory).