Re: order on the sets
- From: riderofgiraffes <mathforum.org_am@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:59:57 EDT
Consider an order on the interval such that
[a,b] is higher than [c,d] iff b=>c.
If you ask that [a,b] <= [c,d] iff b<=c, then
you get a particular class of partially ordered
set called a semi-order.
Is [a,b] <= [r,s] when b <= r is an (partial) order
for { [a,b] | a <= b }?
... it's not reflexive.
However [a,b] < [r,s] when b < r is an irreflexive
order.
My apologies - I mis-spoke myself. I intended to
say [a,b]<[c,d] iff b<c, and to use the irreflexive
formulation of partial and semi-orders. Thank you
for your highlighting of the details.
.
- References:
- Re: order on the sets
- From: William Elliot
- Re: order on the sets
- Prev by Date: sextv1 lecteur - Free
- Next by Date: searchvids com - Free
- Previous by thread: Re: order on the sets
- Next by thread: Re: why-o-why
- Index(es):