Timeline for answer to Did Dedekind prove this lemma about posets (or an equivalent)? by Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 18, 2014 at 20:20 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | @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). | |
| Nov 18, 2014 at 20:08 | comment | added | Peter Smith | 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 ...? | |
| Nov 18, 2014 at 16:46 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2014 at 13:48 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2014 at 13:39 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2014 at 13:30 | history | answered | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |