2 ms·

>>> It’s one of those analogies that is brilliant if you are sufficiently familiar with all four components, but hopeless as a way to explain one in terms of th

• Jensson 5y ago
  That is his point, it was an useless analogy, that is why he said it in that way and why he tried to find another way of explaining it. He doesn't have to spell out that those conditions makes the analogy irrelevant, it is an obvious conclusion, anyone who read to that part would realize his analogy was worthless so he doesn't have to spell it out, in a math proof what he did would be the same as spelling it out. But to you it looks like he wasn't himself aware the analogy was irrelevant, because he didn't' say it straight out. But he crafted the text in precisely such a manner that you and basically anyone else reading this text would realize the analogy was worthless without him stating so, that is a part of mathematical thinking: how to communicate things precisely. Of course regular people like redundancy and repetition, which is why I repeat my self a lot when I write on forums like this, it looks like this mathematician hasn't fully realized that he can't state things just once when writing things for non-mathematicians to read.