|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 62 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 50 of 62:
| 
May 4 07:19 UTC 2002 |
Can't imagine how #46 could have been clearer. If a set doesn't have
a least element, then it's clearly not well-ordered.
|
jp2
|
|
response 51 of 62:
|
May 4 07:27 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 52 of 62:
|
May 4 07:30 UTC 2002 |
Oh my god.
|
jp2
|
|
response 53 of 62:
|
May 4 07:38 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 54 of 62:
|
May 4 13:03 UTC 2002 |
Well, for starters, you need to sort out the difference between
"least element" and "lower bound".
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 62:
|
May 4 15:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 56 of 62:
|
May 4 17:57 UTC 2002 |
{x | x > 0} doesn't have a least element; the most you can conclude from the
fact that it is bounded below is that it has an *infimum*, that is, there is
a maximum lower bound: 0. But 0 isn't in the set, so it can't be the
minimum value of the set.
|
remmers
|
|
response 57 of 62:
|
May 4 22:43 UTC 2002 |
Right. In any case, I still can't imagine a clearer demonstration
of the fact that it has no least element than was given by flem in
#46.
|
aruba
|
|
response 58 of 62:
|
May 5 00:35 UTC 2002 |
Indeed.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 59 of 62:
|
May 5 02:27 UTC 2002 |
John, will you quit arguing with Jamie? Don't you know he's a Math Expert?
|
jp2
|
|
response 60 of 62:
|
May 5 18:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 61 of 62:
|
May 5 21:32 UTC 2002 |
I'm less confused, in any case. Thanks, flem.
|
jp2
|
|
response 62 of 62:
|
May 5 22:12 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|