Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 26 at 6:40 history edited Jukka Kohonen
tag fix (order lattices)
Jan 10, 2023 at 0:27 vote accept Rafał Gruszczyński
Jan 4, 2020 at 20:54 answer added KP Hart timeline score: 5
Dec 23, 2019 at 19:23 history edited Rafał Gruszczyński CC BY-SA 4.0
added 5 characters in body
Dec 23, 2019 at 14:10 history edited Rafał Gruszczyński CC BY-SA 4.0
added 99 characters in body; deleted 5 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body
Dec 23, 2019 at 13:27 comment added Rafał Gruszczyński Maybe it woube more reasonable to say $\mathcal C$ covers $\mathcal D$ and reserve the coinitiality for mutual covering?
Dec 23, 2019 at 13:21 comment added Rafał Gruszczyński My use of coinitial is the same as this one: en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/coinitial To be honest I have never encountered a different notion, but this may be my ignorance of course.
Dec 23, 2019 at 13:18 comment added Rafał Gruszczyński Yes, according to my definition one of the chains may happen to converge a larger (smaller) intersection than the other. And one-element chains are excluded. By the definition and by dependent choices every such chain is infinite.
Dec 23, 2019 at 12:56 comment added Joel David Hamkins Your definition of strictly descending seems to rule out a chain with only one element.
Dec 23, 2019 at 12:54 comment added Joel David Hamkins Your definition of co-initial seems strange to me, since it would be that $\mathcal{C}$ is a chain converging to a much smaller intersection than $\mathcal{D}$, but this isn't usually what is meant by "co-initial". Usually, co-initial would imply that the limit is the same.
Dec 23, 2019 at 12:10 history edited Rafał Gruszczyński CC BY-SA 4.0
added 11 characters in body
Dec 23, 2019 at 11:56 history asked Rafał Gruszczyński CC BY-SA 4.0