Timeline for Generalized height of elements in abelian groups
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2016 at 17:29 | comment | added | Jeremy Rickard | @tj_ It's nothing to do with the axioms of set theory. All I'm saying is that there is one case in which the generalized $p$-height is not an ordinal, and in that case we call the $p$-height $\infty$ and deem that to be greater than all ordinals. If you prefer, we could just say that it's not defined, and make the necessary but annoying adjustments to all statements about the ordering of generalized $p$-heights. | |
| Jun 28, 2016 at 14:28 | vote | accept | Ilan Barnea | ||
| Jun 28, 2016 at 14:19 | comment | added | tj_ | Is the existence of $\infty$ compatible with axioms from set theory ? For example why can't one define $\infty + 1$ ? | |
| Jun 28, 2016 at 9:04 | history | edited | Jeremy Rickard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor rewording
|
| Jun 28, 2016 at 8:41 | history | answered | Jeremy Rickard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |