3 Counterexample to Theorem 2.2 (part (1)) for card (E)> d See [39]
We observe immediately the restriction 
(recall 
for the existence of the extension 
in Theorem 2.2 (part (1)). Is this simply a “technical issue”? The answer to this “optimistic” guess is no.
The 
sufficient condition for the existence of the extension 
turns out to be deeper than merely “sufficient” as a tool. In fact, under the geometry of 
given by Theorem 2.2, the extension 
does not always exist for 
> 
. In this chapter we will provide the required counterexample. In fact, the > case under the geometry of the finite ...
Get Near Extensions and Alignment of Data in R(superscript)n now with the O’Reilly learning platform.
O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.
