Timeline for Deficiency of necessary conditions
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2010 at 1:41 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | As for your addendum, there are all sorts of reasons why the divisibility graph is not the random graph: for example, whenever 4 divides a number, then 2 also does; this violates the random graph property that for any two disjoint finite sets of nodes, there is a node connected to every node in the first set and none in the second. Any property that the divisibility graph has and the random graph does not prevents them being isomorphic, and the minimal such property is equivalent to the disjunction of all such properties, or just "Not isomorphic to Rado". (logically OK, but again not useful.) | |
| Feb 22, 2010 at 1:30 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | If you exclude this answer, then I'm not sure you have a sensible notion, since all minimal defects will be logically equivalent to it. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 13:23 | comment | added | Hans-Peter Stricker | Concerning minimality I agree: Q -> P which together with Q implies P is of course the minimal "defect", but trivially so and telling nothing about Q and P. So it should sensibly be excluded in the definition. Please see the addendum to my question. | |
| Feb 20, 2010 at 4:09 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 193 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2010 at 3:59 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 390 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2010 at 3:41 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 |