From Tampa Bay Times, October 1, 2009, page T10.
A student’s letter to tbt*
Editor’s note: On Monday, tbt* published a story describing President Obama’s desire to increase the number of days U.S. children go to school each year. A junior at a Pasco high school e-mailed the following response — with the subject line “why dose nobody ask the students’’ — to tbt*. It is printed here, unedited:
Dear “tbt” editor of which it may concern I’m a student of pasco coun ty a junior to be precise and pleas do not mistake this for a Dear Abby seg ment I am not a 40 year old women concerned about her felines. I am just appalled as a member of the student body that in ever y in other words the only article I could find of president Obahmas plan to extend the school year, school days, and e ven rumored around school of mak ing us work weekends that they have not a single students opinion on the subject.
more so that they believe that the school boards “research” should stand as good evidence of the im provement in our “higher achieve ment”. a very intelligent man once said if you obser ve you have therefor changed the out come (now notice I didn’t abbreviate that phrase as I did the other stated phrases that’s because it’s not exact not as an in sult to any of the readers but some would use this against the students to further there pointless war against other country’s grade average).
at any rate not only do I belie ve it to be unreliable research but I also believe it dose not properly address to how our mind will adjust to the added stress. now personally I don’t ge t what in heavens name these peo ple they put in these articles have to do with the students spending more time in school it’s not like there stuck in the classroom ding the e xtra work the teachers prepare to compensate for the e xtra time. are they siting first row in this teenage bomb they’re building.
the plan reducing summer well first why don’t they come clean that they all ready reduced it we’re only on vacation for two months give or take a few days and for years they lied to our faces saying we have three months vaca.
to sum it all up I just wish he pub lic the pollutions the school board the reporters would address us on things that affect US not them now granted there may have been a seg ment on the news some were that addressed students about it but if there was did you even pay attention. and let me end this by saying the subduction of certain rights in order to maintain the learning enviorment making your usage of the 1 st amend ment right lesser then you would have in normal society is the same as removing them at the front step!
(I would like to stay anonymous)
with Richard Ketchersid, mentioned in my previous 
and 
are the numbers played, and that:
and 
although there are models of 
and that 
be any partially ordered set. Then either there is an injection of the full binary tree 
into 
such that no two points in its image are 
-comparable, or else 
Then the theorem gives us:
injects into 
or else 
injects into every infinite set, and if 
or 
either satisfies 
or else it has the form 
for some set 
of ordinals.
-Borel sets. Essentially, one uses what is sometimes called code compression to obtain, given an 
local versions of this code, that are sufficiently absolute in that they compute traces of 
correctly both in small inner models of choice, and their forcing extensions. Once this is obtained, the result essentially follows from soft forcing arguments as if the original sets under consideration were Borel. 
models of the form 
where 
denotes the family of countable bounded subsets of 
One then uses the uniqueness of the supercompactness measures on 
for 
to “paste together” the smaller pieces that make up 
and two players, I and II, alternate for 
-many moves, with I moving first, so that each move of I is a countable subset of 
Player II wins if and only if the union of the finite sets covers the union of the countable sets. If choice holds, it is obvious that player II has a winning strategy. The same argument shows that, without choice, player II has a winning strategy when 
let ![X^{[2]}=\{(n,m)\in X^2:n<m\}](http://l.wordpress.com/latex.php?latex=X%5E%7B%5B2%5D%7D%3D%5C%7B%28n%2Cm%29%5Cin+X%5E2%3An%3Cm%5C%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&s=0 "X^{[2]}=\{(n,m)\in X^2:n<m\}")
. A function ![f:X^{[2]}\to{\mathbb N}](http://l.wordpress.com/latex.php?latex=f%3AX%5E%7B%5B2%5D%7D%5Cto%7B%5Cmathbb+N%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&s=0 "f:X^{[2]}\to{\mathbb N}")
is regressive iff 
for all 
in 
. A set 
is min-homogeneous for 
iff 
whenever 
and 
.
there exists 
such that if 
and 
to be homogeneous, i.e., in general ![f\upharpoonright H^{[2]}](http://l.wordpress.com/latex.php?latex=f%5Cupharpoonright+H%5E%7B%5B2%5D%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&s=0 "f\upharpoonright H^{[2]}")
will not be constant. For example, consider 
. Notice also that without loss of generality 
, since 
. It is natural to try to establish the rate of growth of the function 
that to each 
variables, Kanamori and McAloon showed:
of two variables, defined as 
. Obviously, 
and 
. The situation for 
is less clear, although it is of exponential growth.
, 
, 
, 
.
, so 
for 
.
.
hold?
