Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 8th 2012

    I made some edits at well-order. I am removing a query box, having duly extracted some punchlines. These edits also forced an edit to partial function, where I added the generalization to partial maps in any category with pullbacks.

    +– {: .query} This need not exist; in particular, S aS_a may be empty. What do we really want to say here? (We could talk about the successor of a well-ordered set.) —Toby Mike: Yeah, or we could say that successor is a partial function. One definition of a limit ordinal is one on which successor is totally defined. =–

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2012

    Good; I added redirects such as partial map.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2017

    At well-order I found it non-trivial to extract the usual classical definition. (Before I reached the second-but-last bullet item that states it, I was following a dozen links to other kinds of orderings and their properties).

    For the sake of the reader, I have now given the usual definiton the first paragraph in the Definition section (I didn’t remove it from that bullet list).

    But I think some expert might still make that entry a bit user-friendly.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2017

    I linked well-order and well-quasi-order. I do wonder whether there are constructions that assume an index set needs to be well-ordered that could use the weaker notion. I don’t know the consistency of asking that every set admits a well-quasi-order, but surely it’s weaker than full AC.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2021

    There is a subtlety that I believe to be wrong.

    The page reads that “a well-order is precisely a well-founded total order”. The way a total order relation is defined in nLab, equality is allowed, and by applying the definition of well-founded relation on say the natural numbers, the empty set would be an inductive subset. So what it should read is that

    A well-order is precisely $\lneq$ for a well-founded total order $\leq$ \text{ A well-order is precisely $\lneq$ for a well-founded total order $\leq$ }

    Or one could just add the notion of a strict order (orders and strict orders are in one to one correspondence), and just say a well-founded strict total order.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzmberber
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2021
    • (edited May 8th 2021)

    Sorry I screwed up the previous comment, (EDIT: and I can’t change it because i wasn’t logged in), I meant to write

    A well-order is precisely for a well-founded total order \text{A well-order is precisely } \lneq \text{ for a well-founded total order } \leq
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2021

    Amazingly, here you can edit your comments indefinitely. Just hit “edit” at the top right.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzmberber
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2021
    • (edited May 8th 2021)

    yes but i made the critical mistake that i was not logged in, it was commented as a guest, and i can’t edit that

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2023

    Mention the Higgs set as an example of a classical well-order that’s nontrivial in constructive mathematics.

    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2023

    Zmberber’s guest comment in #5 is correct. Classically, the difference between a total order and a linear order is the difference between a weak and strict order, so that's the difference between the first two variations. Although perhaps this would all be easier to understand if we just listed the strict variations and then noted that they could all (classically) be done weakly as well.

    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2023

    What’s the Higgs set? (I don’t suppose you mean Hartogs number?)

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorʇɐ
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2023

    The Higgs object {q:Ωp:Ω.p(pq)}\{ q \colon \Omega \mid \forall p \colon \Omega . p \vee ( p \Rightarrow q) \} of Set (see https://mathstodon.xyz/@MartinEscardo/110979071875659866), I guess?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2023

    Yep, I just learnt about it from Martín's post there. (And since it's mostly discussed in the context of topos theory rather than constructive set theory, I set the link to Higgs object, much like the link just before it to ‘choice set’ actually goes to choice object.)

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2023

    It occurs to me that since choice object exists and choice set redirects to it, the link here should go to choice set, just in case we ever separate the two. But the other will have to wait until the page is made.

    diff, v47, current