- #1

- 2,255

- 1

One book actaully has A=>B as a definition but I should intepret it as A<=>B as the definition?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter pivoxa15
- Start date

- #1

- 2,255

- 1

One book actaully has A=>B as a definition but I should intepret it as A<=>B as the definition?

- #2

quasar987

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 4,783

- 18

Think about it for a second. ;)

For instance, if by "A field is a Galois field if it is of finite cardinality" me meant only that "finite cardinality ==> it's Galois", then it would be without meaning to say that a field is Galois. But our goal is precisely to be able to say "a Galois field" instead of the words "a field of finite cardinality", because it's shorter.

For instance, if by "A field is a Galois field if it is of finite cardinality" me meant only that "finite cardinality ==> it's Galois", then it would be without meaning to say that a field is Galois. But our goal is precisely to be able to say "a Galois field" instead of the words "a field of finite cardinality", because it's shorter.

Last edited:

- #3

MathematicalPhysicist

Gold Member

- 4,459

- 274

oy vei... (-:

- #4

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 964

- #5

MathematicalPhysicist

Gold Member

- 4,459

- 274

(I've been guilty of that myself, but I'm notoriously lazy! Often I sit at the computer answering silly questions when I should be workin.)

Greg doesnt pay enough for the mentorring, well you can go on a strike like the israeli lecturers it won't get you far though.

(-:

- #6

- 2,255

- 1

For those who voted no, state your reason.

Share: