by David C. Ullrich <dullrich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
May 6, 2008 at 04:40 AM
On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:00:37 -0700, William Elliot
<marsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 May 2008, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
>> >Theorem.
>> > Connected and locally path connected S ==> S path connected.
>> >Use the chain rule.
>>
>> What do you mean by "chain rule"?
>>
>See my May 5th reply to amu in the thread "topology" of this news group.
A curious reply coming from someone who throws a fit if he needs
an Up button to make sense of a post.
>> (The phrase "chain rule" usually refers to the theorem/technique
>> for differentiating a function defined as the composition of
>> two functions...)
>>
>Not so when we's talking topology.
>
>A chain is a linear ordered subset of an ordered set.
>
>Riddle of the day. Why won't that chain rule work on chains?
Better question: Why don't you simply answer the question:
What do you mean by "chain rule" here?
(And whatever it is you mean, is "chain rule" standard
terminology for it or something you just made up?)
David C. Ullrich
