Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 16, 2020 at 11:42 comment added user82537 Related: there is a question on Math SE about identifying the mistake in Kelley's proof — Lamport claims there is an error in Kelley's proof of the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem. What is it?
Feb 4, 2016 at 11:28 comment added darij grinberg Related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52435/…
Aug 19, 2010 at 11:12 comment added Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya Typo in last line above: "each element y in B".
Aug 19, 2010 at 11:10 comment added Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya @Pete. Elaborating on @Russell. Using the notation from Kelley (books.google.co.in/… ) p. 28, I think his claim that "f maps A_E onto B_O" is not correct since x might already belong to the set of ancestors of x. For eg. if f is onto and g=f^{-1} then each element x in A has exactly two ancestors {x,f(x)} and each element in y also has exactly two ancestors {y,g(y)}
Aug 16, 2010 at 20:02 comment added Russell O'Connor @Pete I looked at it 5 years ago and had trouble spotting the error. But when I went to formalized Kelley's proof in Coq I found an error. It was something about neglecting the possibility of an element x being its own ancestor.
Aug 16, 2010 at 8:58 comment added Pete L. Clark Lamport's article says that there is a mistake in Kelley's proof of Schroeder-Bernstein. But he doesn't say what the mistake is (maybe he does that to reinforce his point that mistakes are hard to find, but nevertheless I wish he did explicitly identify the error). Does anyone know whether this mistake has been found and acknowledged by others?
Aug 16, 2010 at 8:36 answer added Neel Krishnaswami timeline score: 22
Aug 16, 2010 at 5:39 history edited Anthony Pulido CC BY-SA 2.5
clarification
Aug 16, 2010 at 5:30 history asked Anthony Pulido CC BY-SA 2.5