- #1
- 1,089
- 10
Hi, All:
Just curious:
Rudin defines order in his "Baby Rudin" book ; an order relation < in a set S, as a relation* satisfying, for any x,y,z on S:
1) Either x<y , y<x , or y=x
2)If x<y and y<z , then x<z , i.e., transitivity.
Just curious: why is Rudin only considering only total orders in his book? Isn't the partial-order relation of "is a subset of" (among others) important-enough to allow for partial orders?
* Rudin never formally-defined relation, just in case, tho let's assume a relation
on S is a subset of SxS with the above properties.
Just curious:
Rudin defines order in his "Baby Rudin" book ; an order relation < in a set S, as a relation* satisfying, for any x,y,z on S:
1) Either x<y , y<x , or y=x
2)If x<y and y<z , then x<z , i.e., transitivity.
Just curious: why is Rudin only considering only total orders in his book? Isn't the partial-order relation of "is a subset of" (among others) important-enough to allow for partial orders?
* Rudin never formally-defined relation, just in case, tho let's assume a relation
on S is a subset of SxS with the above properties.