affiliate@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 year agoaddition rulelemmy.worldimagemessage-square20fedilinkarrow-up1208arrow-down10
arrow-up1208arrow-down1imageaddition rulelemmy.worldaffiliate@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 year agomessage-square20fedilink
minus-squareaffiliate@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up25·1 year agoit’s the “order type” of a well ordering on a set. so, given a set X with a total ordering R, type(X,R) is the unique ordinal isomorphic to (X,R)
minus-squarebort@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up11·1 year agowhat’s with the square at the end? isn’t that usually for proofs?
minus-squareaffiliate@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up15·1 year agoyeah but sometimes when the textbook authors are feeling particularly mischievous they’ll just put them in random places. and sometimes they’ll even skip the proofs but keep the square.
minus-squareLem Jukes@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up8·1 year agoGive it up for op actually out here answering questions like a real live teacher.
it’s the “order type” of a well ordering on a set. so, given a set X with a total ordering R, type(X,R) is the unique ordinal isomorphic to (X,R)
what’s with the square at the end? isn’t that usually for proofs?
yeah but sometimes when the textbook authors are feeling particularly mischievous they’ll just put them in random places. and sometimes they’ll even skip the proofs but keep the square.
Give it up for op actually out here answering questions like a real live teacher.