I don’t really understand what issue the first reference you cite claims exists. It doesn’t seem to be what the second reference you cite is claiming.
I’m not really sure whether the parts of Wakker that I quoted are the parts that the first cite is referring, either—it could be that the first cite is talking about something completely different. That was the only part in Wakker that I could find that seemed possibly relevant, but then my search was extremely cursory, since I don’t really have the time to read through a 500-page book with dense technical material.
I’m not really sure whether the parts of Wakker that I quoted are the parts that the first cite is referring, either—it could be that the first cite is talking about something completely different. That was the only part in Wakker that I could find that seemed possibly relevant, but then my search was extremely cursory, since I don’t really have the time to read through a 500-page book with dense technical material.