Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- From: "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:39:51 -0700
tchow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1156564386.008543.306640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Rupert <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, your proof works as well. Also, {<x,x>|x in X} is always a partial
ordering on X, so the result really is trivial.
Isn't it even more trivial than that? Surely the empty set is always a
partial ordering on X.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
It depends whether you mean a sharp partial order or a blunt partial
order. Blunt partial orders are reflexive, sharp partial orders are
irreflexive.
.
- References:
- Every set can be ... ordered?
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- From: tchow
- Every set can be ... ordered?
- Prev by Date: Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
- Next by Date: Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
- Previous by thread: Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- Next by thread: Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
- Index(es):