Skip to main content

Timeline for Zorn's lemma via Zermelo theorem

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 22, 2015 at 1:17 comment added Ashutosh Also, why -5 (2 more to go?)?
Feb 21, 2015 at 22:05 review Low quality posts
Feb 21, 2015 at 22:55
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:53 comment added Ashutosh Maybe, because this amazing website doesn't let newbies to comment.
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:49 comment added Noah Schweber Wait, if there's nothing to answer here, why did you answer it?
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:36 comment added Sheman I do not believe there is a real question here hence there is nothing to answer. Thank you all.
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:32 comment added Todd Trimble Sheman, why don't you rewrite your answer, using the argument you just gave in a comment? (BTW, I didn't see that Fedor was being impolite; I believe he was asking an innocent question.)
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:25 comment added Sheman A well ordering allows you to choose a witness to the non maximality of the current member of the poset. At limit stages you take an upper bound using the assumption of Zorn's lemma. Please show some politeness. Thanks.
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:21 comment added Fedor Petrov You have a (partial) ordering coming from Zorn's lemma condition (which may be not a well ordering); and by Zermelo's theorem you have a well ordering of the same set, which probably has nothing to do with initial ordering - and so what?
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:11 comment added Sheman Once you have a well ordering of your poset the construction of a maximal element is a simple transfinite construction. I don't know what more is being asked for here.
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:07 comment added Todd Trimble You didn't read the question carefully, which explicitly says shorter than the proof you just named.
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:07 review First posts
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:11
Feb 21, 2015 at 21:03 history answered Sheman CC BY-SA 3.0