As for the meta-objective of identifying weaknesses in (my) usual thought processes, thanks so much for this detailed answer!
To me the most impressive part is how we misunderstood each other on a key point, despite we actually agree on this point. Specifically, we both agree that ELK specifications must be relaxed or include self-contradictions (you for reasons that I now feel kind of well explained in your original writings, despite I was completely confused just before your last answer!). But you took for grant that your unknown reader would understand that’s what’s you were trying to prove. I, on the other hand, though this need for relaxation was so obvious that it (to provide interesting relaxations) was the core of the ELK challenge. In other words, I would read your writings assuming you wanted to show the best relaxation you could find, whereas you would write while expecting me (as a surrogate for ELK evaluators) to challenge or find this conclusion surprising.
Also, it seems that we can reach a similar conclusion about the « worse case analysis »: I thought this was something we may need to demonstrate/clarify; you thought this was so obvious I wouldn’t possibly misinterpret you as suggesting the opposite.
As for the meta-objective of identifying weaknesses in (my) usual thought processes, thanks so much for this detailed answer!
To me the most impressive part is how we misunderstood each other on a key point, despite we actually agree on this point. Specifically, we both agree that ELK specifications must be relaxed or include self-contradictions (you for reasons that I now feel kind of well explained in your original writings, despite I was completely confused just before your last answer!). But you took for grant that your unknown reader would understand that’s what’s you were trying to prove. I, on the other hand, though this need for relaxation was so obvious that it (to provide interesting relaxations) was the core of the ELK challenge. In other words, I would read your writings assuming you wanted to show the best relaxation you could find, whereas you would write while expecting me (as a surrogate for ELK evaluators) to challenge or find this conclusion surprising.
Also, it seems that we can reach a similar conclusion about the « worse case analysis »: I thought this was something we may need to demonstrate/clarify; you thought this was so obvious I wouldn’t possibly misinterpret you as suggesting the opposite.
Ilove symetries. :)