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 ]
Peter Percival

Posts: 1,219
Registered: 10/25/10
Re: Why don't texts give a stronger version of Zorn's lemma?
Posted: Nov 21, 2013 7:09 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Paul wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:06:35 PM UTC, 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.)
>>
>>

> You're totally correct that it reads oddly. This is because of the
> pleonasm, as has been pointed out.
>
> However, the problem in the phrasing is not of a _grammatical_
> nature, so there is no grammatical error. From the point of view of
> grammar, it wouldn't be wrong to say "they're both green" rather than
> "they're both equivalent."


A thing on its own may be green. A thing on its own cannot be
equivalent, it can only be equivalent to another thing (or itself; since
this is sci.math we must allow that "is equivalent to" is an equivalence
relation).

Am I the only person on the planet who does not understand, e.g.,
"contemporary art"? I say to myself(*) "a thing cannot be contemporary,
two or more things may be contemporary (i.e. of the same time: Cassius
and Brutus were contemporaries, neither is a contemporary of ours, etc)."

(* Or aloud, thereby getting strange looks. I said I may be mad.)


> A grammatical error would be something
> like "They both equivalent are."
>
> No one's saying that William Elliot's wording is perfect, just that
> the problem is not a grammatical one. For example, it's an error to
> say: "Magnus Carlsen is the greatest chesss player in the world."
> But this is a spelling or typing error, not a grammatical error.
>
> Paul Epstein
>
> Paul Epstein
>



--
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.



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.