Timeline for Is the covering efficiency relation transitive?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2016 at 7:13 | vote | accept | Dominic van der Zypen | ||
| Dec 5, 2016 at 22:20 | answer | added | Pace Nielsen | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 21:53 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | @TonyHuynh Thanks. For some reason I was thinking finite sets. | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 21:01 | comment | added | Tony Huynh | @PaceNielsen I guess it is not exactly the same thing. For example, take $X=\mathbb{N}, P=\{1,2\}, \{3\}, \{4\}, \dots$, and $Q=\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \dots$. Then $P < Q$, but $P$ and $Q$ have the same cardinality. | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 18:53 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | Since $P-Q=P-(P\cap Q)$ and $Q-P=Q-(P\cap Q)$, what you are really saying is ${\rm card}(P)<{\rm card}(Q)$ (since you are taking the same number of parts out of both partitions, namely ${\rm card}(P\cap Q)$). Or am I missing something here? | |
| S Dec 5, 2016 at 18:44 | history | suggested | Rahman. M |
tags editing,
|
|
| Dec 5, 2016 at 18:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 5, 2016 at 18:44 | |||||
| Dec 5, 2016 at 17:19 | history | asked | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |