Timeline for "Mächtigkeit" versus "Kardinalität"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2018 at 13:43 | answer | added | KP Hart | timeline score: 9 | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 23:14 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I'm voting to close this question just because it would be suited for HSM (not because I think it is a bad question per se) | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 8:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 17, 2018 at 15:46 | |||||
| Aug 16, 2018 at 7:17 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Looking at your recent questions, it might be worth mentioning that there is also a separate site for History of Science and Mathematics. At least some of the top ho.history-overview answerers on MO have an account also on that site; for example, Carlo Beenakker, Francois Ziegler or Alexandre Eremenko. | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 6:40 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 18 | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 5:55 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Do you mean "to Cantor", when you say "in Cantor's set theory"? Or in the broader sense of set theory as it generally stood at its beginning? | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 5:33 | answer | added | Dominic van der Zypen | timeline score: 8 | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 5:02 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | (warning: bad German ahead) Lawvere certainly seems to think that the difference between Menge and Kardinale is one that has been lost ncatlab.org/nlab/show/… . I'm not completely familiar with Mächtigkeit and Kardinalität, but I guess the former would be translated 'potency', so that sets (Mengen?) are equipollent when there is an isomorphism between them. The Kardinale associated to a Menge is a different sort of object, and so I guess that's why one could talk of the Kardinalität as something distinct | |
| Aug 16, 2018 at 2:59 | history | asked | Drew Armstrong | CC BY-SA 4.0 |