Difference between revisions of "Talk:Zorn's Lemma"
(New page: This proof is almost exactly the proof in the appendix of the Lang book I cited at the end of the article—I worked through that proof, digested it, and then typed it up here. Since ...) |
(aotd) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{AotD tag|December 19th, 2007}} | ||
This proof is almost exactly the proof in the appendix of the Lang book I cited at the end of the article—I worked through that proof, digested it, and then typed it up here. Since this would seem to be a standard proof of the lemma (for instance, Wikipedia has an article on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbaki%E2%80%93Witt_theorem Bouraki-Witt Theorem]), I assume this is acceptable. If, however, I have erred, somebody should probably delete the entire proof of the lemma. —[[User:Boy Soprano II|Boy Soprano II]] 13:46, 25 November 2007 (EST) | This proof is almost exactly the proof in the appendix of the Lang book I cited at the end of the article—I worked through that proof, digested it, and then typed it up here. Since this would seem to be a standard proof of the lemma (for instance, Wikipedia has an article on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbaki%E2%80%93Witt_theorem Bouraki-Witt Theorem]), I assume this is acceptable. If, however, I have erred, somebody should probably delete the entire proof of the lemma. —[[User:Boy Soprano II|Boy Soprano II]] 13:46, 25 November 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Okay, this argument also appears in | ||
| + | * Stoll, R., ''Set Theory and Logic'', Dover, ISBN 0486638294, | ||
| + | so I assume that this argument is public-domain enough for the wiki. —[[User:Boy Soprano II|Boy Soprano II]] 23:39, 25 November 2007 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:42, 20 December 2007
| AoPSWiki Article of the Day | ||
|
| ||
This proof is almost exactly the proof in the appendix of the Lang book I cited at the end of the article—I worked through that proof, digested it, and then typed it up here. Since this would seem to be a standard proof of the lemma (for instance, Wikipedia has an article on the Bouraki-Witt Theorem), I assume this is acceptable. If, however, I have erred, somebody should probably delete the entire proof of the lemma. —Boy Soprano II 13:46, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Okay, this argument also appears in
- Stoll, R., Set Theory and Logic, Dover, ISBN 0486638294,
so I assume that this argument is public-domain enough for the wiki. —Boy Soprano II 23:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)
