The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Why don't texts give a stronger version of Zorn's lemma?
Replies: 6   Last Post: Nov 20, 2013 12:09 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Why don't texts give a stronger version of Zorn's lemma?
Posted: Nov 20, 2013 12:09 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11/20/2013 6:28 AM, 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>.
> 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 :-) :-) :-).)

Apparently, the smiles did not help.


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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.