Timeline for Name for "lower/upper bounds" of arbitrary relations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | vote | accept | mathymathy | ||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | vote | accept | mathymathy | ||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | |||||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | vote | accept | mathymathy | ||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | |||||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | vote | accept | mathymathy | ||
| Jan 25, 2010 at 17:02 | |||||
| Jan 23, 2010 at 23:49 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | In a lattice order, the meet and join are the greatest lower bound and least upper bound, yes. But in the context of the question, the OP seems to entertain non-unique upper bounds, whereas I think meet and join usually imply uniqueness. | |
| Jan 23, 2010 at 23:31 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these called meet and join? If we only require the meet and join to be partial functions won't that give us a good enough definition? | |
| Jan 23, 2010 at 22:51 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | But perhaps you didn't intend that D and D' are disjoint, and in this case, your relation may not be a strict partial order. | |
| Jan 23, 2010 at 21:48 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 |