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: 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 ]

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Why don't texts give a stronger version of Zorn's lemma?
Posted: Nov 20, 2013 12:24 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11/20/2013 11:06 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
> James Waldby wrote:
>> 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
>> other".

> I'm happy with 'they're equivalent'; it's 'they're *both* equivalent'
> that reads oddly to me. (But I may be mad.)

What would grammarians call such a structure? A dangling relatum?

No. It is the relation itself that is dangling.

Dang relations!


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.