Timeline for Set theoretic question about real valued functions
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2010 at 21:05 | vote | accept | mathahada | ||
| Dec 20, 2010 at 13:35 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 18:55 | answer | added | Stefan Hoffelner | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 17:25 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | @oktan, @mathahada: you don’t need to throw constant functions in; if the finite set of functions is presented as an infinite sequence, as the question specifies, e.g. $f_1, \ldots f_k, f_k, f_k, \ldots$, and if again we’re careful to take the question literally and look not at whether sets of functions are infinite but at whether subsequences are, then it’s clear that this list doesn’t satisfy the property. | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 15:55 | history | edited | mathahada | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 113 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2010 at 15:53 | comment | added | mathahada | @Joel - yes. I have not even considered that option :) @oktan - You are totally right, but that's easily fixed by extending the list to an infinite set consisting of constant functions | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 15:45 | comment | added | Stefan Hoffelner | Do finitely many $f_1,...f_n$ not always satisfy the desired property? | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 15:39 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | If CH fails, it is impossible, by taking any uncountable $K$ of size less than $\mathbb{R}$. Perhaps you want $K$ of size continuum? | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 15:30 | history | asked | mathahada | CC BY-SA 2.5 |