AbstractionOfMe
Reputation
383
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
 Feb1 awarded Popular Question Oct15 comment Completion of rational numbers via Cauchy sequences What do you mean "maybe"? Is this property somehow equivalent to transitivity as I stated above? Oct15 comment Completion of rational numbers via Cauchy sequences Why is Definition 1 property 1 called transitivity? Doesn't transitivity mean that $\forall x,y,z \in K : (x \leq y \land y \leq z) \implies x \leq z$? Sep24 awarded Autobiographer Aug26 revised Every DPDA has an equivalent DPDA that always reads the entire input string deleted 224 characters in body Aug25 awarded Informed Aug24 revised Every DPDA has an equivalent DPDA that always reads the entire input string added 14 characters in body Aug24 revised Every DPDA has an equivalent DPDA that always reads the entire input string edited tags Aug24 revised Every DPDA has an equivalent DPDA that always reads the entire input string edited tags Aug23 asked Every DPDA has an equivalent DPDA that always reads the entire input string Aug19 awarded Tumbleweed Feb4 comment Russell's Paradox in *Naive Set Theory* by Paul Halmos @GME: that helps me understand somewhat. However, I still can't see how we know that we can't assume $B \notin A$ and then contrive some other contradiction. Help? Jan26 revised Russell's Paradox in *Naive Set Theory* by Paul Halmos deleted 36 characters in body Jan26 asked Russell's Paradox in *Naive Set Theory* by Paul Halmos Jan9 revised Can we always construct an element not on a list? added 97 characters in body Jan9 asked Can we always construct an element not on a list? Jan7 comment The language of abstract algebra in $ab=a, ab=b$ implies $a=b$ I have no trouble applying this principle to objects which are somehow explicitly constructed. However, in this case, $a$, $b$, and $ab$ do not seem to me to be explicitly constructed and so I have trouble applying the principle. Jan7 comment The language of abstract algebra in $ab=a, ab=b$ implies $a=b$ So you are referring to the ambiguity between a function and the category theoretic notion of a morphism? I haven't studied category theory yet, but maybe it would help me with this problem? Jan3 comment The language of abstract algebra in $ab=a, ab=b$ implies $a=b$ I was referring to the binary operation of $G$. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Jan2 comment The language of abstract algebra in $ab=a, ab=b$ implies $a=b$ What is ambiguous about the term "map"?