Timeline for Zorn's lemma via Zermelo theorem [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2015 at 11:58 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Feb 22, 2015 at 15:48 | |||||
| Feb 22, 2015 at 11:42 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | I would like to save it, not because of question itself, but rather due to the interesting answer by Noah. | |
| Feb 22, 2015 at 11:39 | vote | accept | Fedor Petrov | ||
| Feb 21, 2015 at 23:23 | history | closed |
Andrés E. Caicedo Emil Jeřábek Ramiro de la Vega Alex Degtyarev Eric Wofsey |
Opinion-based | |
| Feb 21, 2015 at 22:07 | answer | added | Noah Schweber | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 21, 2015 at 21:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 21, 2015 at 23:25 | |||||
| Feb 21, 2015 at 21:32 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | The usual proof using transfinite recursion takes like three lines. How do you expect it to get any shorter, and how do you define “essentially shorter” anyway? | |
| Feb 21, 2015 at 21:21 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Well-orders for themselves are relatively useless. The main strength they have is transfinite recursion. And you want to take that away from them... | |
| Feb 21, 2015 at 21:03 | answer | added | Sheman | timeline score: -5 | |
| Feb 21, 2015 at 20:56 | history | asked | Fedor Petrov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |