Marc writes: << Well maybe just a hint? Maybe. I puzzled for quite a while over the article, and really don't grok it, but I *think* the author's "mu-strategy" *might* be paraphrased as follows: . . .
Well, that may well be how they "do it". But my conviction is that, regardless of how they try to do this, there is no such thing as predicting, in any sense, an *arbitrary* function f : R -> S (where R = reals and S is any given set with |S| >= 2), in the sense of determining anything at all about f(x) for x >= t from the information given by f(x) for x < t . Or put the endpoint t in the right-hand set; either way. (And I happen to accept the Axiom of Choice per se; that part isn't a problem for me.) --Dan _____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele