a first casualty of the thesis war edit: never mind on second thought ..

in efforts to expedite thesis editing and rewriting, i elected to remove all discussion of one particular theorem from my thesis.

as for why:

1. the theorem doesn't have any implications towards other facts in my thesis. it's expendable.
   
   
2. a revision of my initial "proof" will be a rigorous proof, but the details are too many to do in one weekend, when coupled with all the other things i have to fix.
   
   on a bizarre but related note, smooth functions are overrated.
   
   
3. it's not my theorem anyway, and i've been told a good proof of it already.
   
   i had wanted to give my own proof because i couldn't find one in the published literature. it's not as good as the one i was told. however, since i was proving facts with similar tools anyway, it wouldn't have hurt.
   

in light of constraints of time, it's not worth keeping the proof i have in mind. it would have been nice -- to relate my work with the work of another mathematician -- but it's not like i lost a theorem or anything.


if anyone's curious, it's Theorem 3.3 in "Curr3nt$ in M3tric $p@ces" by Ambr0si0 and Kirchh3im. [1]


if you want to know the proof -- and are willing to read the finished version of my thesis -- then email me, and i'll write you something about it.

---

so we have one recorded casualty. i fear there may be more.

if worse comes to worse, there is one chapter that can be completely eliminated from the thesis. i had written it to motivate and to relate my theory to an existing theory ..

.. but if i have to choose between edited correctness and relevance, maybe this time i will choose edited correctness.


EDIT (@ 14:39): i spoke too soon. it's an easy fix, so i think the proof can go back in nicely. however, in order to see it, you will still have to read my whole thesis. sorry! q:


EDIT (friday @ 12:14): i re-spoke too soon. the details are more gory than i thought, and it remains not worth writing. if you want to know about it, email me.



[1] no, those aren't expletives. the title and names are obscured. among you, the experts know the authors whom i mean. i'm tired of this blog arising from google searches from which it shouldn't arise.