You appear to be describing a different paper, probably this one by the same author. The paper cited by endoself doesn’t have a page 4 (its pages are numbered 0..3), has no theorem on its page 3, doesn’t use the notation you describe, doesn’t contain a Definition 1, and in fact seems to have little in common with whatever it is you’re talking about.
You are correct! The two papers are both by Peter, and have nearly the same titles. I’ll look at this earlier paper; but I expect the later paper, which I am responding to, is a generalization of it.
You appear to be describing a different paper, probably this one by the same author. The paper cited by endoself doesn’t have a page 4 (its pages are numbered 0..3), has no theorem on its page 3, doesn’t use the notation you describe, doesn’t contain a Definition 1, and in fact seems to have little in common with whatever it is you’re talking about.
You are correct! The two papers are both by Peter, and have nearly the same titles. I’ll look at this earlier paper; but I expect the later paper, which I am responding to, is a generalization of it.