Revision as of 15:32, 7 March 2007 edit TedPavlic (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 3,736 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:04, 7 March 2007 edit undo TedPavlic (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 3,736 edits →Complete is the wrong word Next edit →
Line 73: ==Complete is the wrong word== Technically, the real numbers are not [[complete]]. Of course, the [[extended reals]] are complete. It may be better to remove the completeness requirement and leave the "i.e.". Really, all we need is what Rudin calls the "least-upper-bound property." That is, the least upper bound of any set that is bounded from above exists (and the similar claim about sets bounded from below and infimum). --[[User:TedPavlic\|TedPavlic]] 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC) : Additionally, the partition definition only makes sense if the element c is greater than or EQUAL to every element in A and less than or EQUAL TO every element in B. If c is not included in A or B, then (A,B) cannot be a partition of R. --[[User:TedPavlic\|TedPavlic]] 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's first set theory article/Archive 1: Difference between revisions