**The below is wrong!** The proof requires to be a principal filter what does not necessarily hold.

I knew that composition of two complete funcoids is complete. But now I’ve found that for to be complete it’s enough to be complete.

The proof which I missed for years is rather trivial:

Thus is complete.

I will amend my book when (sic!) it will be complete.

I have proved (see new version of my book) the following proposition. (It is basically a special case of my erroneous theorem which I proposed earlier.)

**Proposition** For , a finite set and a function there exists (obviously unique) such that for and for .

This funcoid is determined by the formula

and its corollary:

**Corollary** If , , and , then there exists an (obviously unique) such that for all ultrafilters except of and .

This funcoid is determined by the formula

I found the exact error noticed in Error in my theorem post.

The error was that I claimed that infimum of a greater set is greater (while in reality it’s lesser).

I will delete the erroneous theorem from my book soon.

It seems that there is an error in proof of this theorem.

Alleged counter-example:

and for infinite sets and .

I am now attempting to locate the error in the proof.

I have proved (and added to my online book) the following theorem:

**Theorem** Let and . Then there is an (obviously unique) funcoid such that for nontrivial ultrafilters and for

After I started to prove it, it took about a hour or like this to finish the proof.

I proved the following (in)equalities, solving my open problem which stood for a few months:

The proof is currently available in the section “Some inequalities” of this PDF file.

Note that earlier I put online some erroneous proof related to this.

I have published What is physical reality? blog post in my other blog. The post is philosophical.

1