Timeline for Higman's lemma and a manuscript of Erdős and Rado
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2019 at 22:31 | comment | added | Salvo Tringali | I see, many thanks for the details. The "strictly" in (a) is a mistake from my side, I'll edit the OP to fix it: Higman in his paper writes of "an infinite ascending subsequence." Edit. You posted your comment while I was editing mine (and I had to delete mine, since the edit came too late). | |
| Aug 25, 2019 at 22:24 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | @SalvoTringali OK. Now that "strictly" is gone, my argument works even when sequences are allowed to have repetitions. But I think I'll leave my answer as it is, since the last paragraph (in parentheses) might be useful for some readers. | |
| Aug 25, 2019 at 21:59 | history | answered | Andreas Blass | CC BY-SA 4.0 |