Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

2
  • $\begingroup$ I suspect you are right that (106) in his truly great paper is the nearest Dedekind gets. But is that really enough to warrant attributing Dedekind the generalization to [what we now call] any poset? Perhaps not ...? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2014 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterSmith - I agree; with insight, it is very easy to "generalize" it --- now that we have one hundred years of development of set theory and abstract algebra (due also to Dedekind). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2014 at 20:20