Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Why don't texts give a stronger version of Zorn's lemma?
Replies: 9   Last Post: Nov 22, 2013 6:12 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
James Waldby

Posts: 308
Registered: 1/27/11
Re: Why don't texts give a stronger version of Zorn's lemma?
Posted: Nov 20, 2013 11:57 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:28:17 +0000, Peter Percival wrote:
> William Elliot wrote:
>> How can it be stronger? They're both equivalent.
> I know even less about English than I know about maths, but it seems to
> me that

> They're both equivalent.

> is ungrammatical. I think it should be

> They're equivalent to each other.

> or

> They're both equivalent to <some third thing>.

No, "They're both equivalent" isn't ungrammatical. Some may see it as
slightly awkward or pleonastic but I think most native speakers will,
without remark, take it as meaning "They're equivalent" (which is what I'd
have written if it were so). In appropriate context, "They're equivalent"
has the same meaning but is less verbose than "They're equivalent to each

> I wouldn't mention it were it not for the fact that William Elliot is
> wont to make adverse comments about the English of others.
> (Better sprinkle a few smilies :-) :-) :-).)


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.