Page 87 of Introduction to Set Theory

Click For Summary
Page 87 of "Introduction to Set Theory" by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech is missing from an electronic version, replaced by page 105, which disrupts the understanding of "Complete Linear Orderings." The user seeks a scanned copy or alternative access to this crucial page. They mention obtaining the book from a website offering a .DJVU format but cannot recall the specific site. The discussion highlights the importance of this page for foundational mathematics. Assistance in locating the missing content is requested.
sujoykroy
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Page 87 of "Introduction to Set Theory"

Sorry, if this post doesn't fit into this forum, but i had no other choice.

I got a electronic version of "Introduction to Set Theory" by "Karel Hrbacek" and "Thomas Jech". It is a magnificent book which opens up every window of understandings of fundamental mathematics.

I was reading the book thoroughly until i completed page 86. The next page, page 87 is missing, it is replaced by page number 105. This page 87 is very important as it covers basic understanding of "Complete Linear Orderings". Can anybody provide a scanned/else copy of this page?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Where'd you get the book that it has a missing page?
 


CRGreathouse said:
Where'd you get the book that it has a missing page?

I can't remember the website. It is a .DJVU version. I was searching for a good book on set theory and landed up with it.
 

Thread 'Hypothesis testing: Defining H0, HA hypotheses so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense'

The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Axioms of Set Theory .... and the Union of Two Sets ....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Understanding H&J's Section 3 on Invertible & One-to-One Functions: Q&A
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Antisymmetry & Partial Orderings - H&J Ch.2 Section 5 | Peter's Help
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is the sample space not a set under ZFL?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Which textbooks are you currently working through?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Studying Skipping Chapters in Stewart’s Calculus? (Pearson's Edexcel IAL Background)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
601
What are some books on set theory that use formal logic?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Undergrad Two recent tests of loop quantum gravity theory
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
MHB The Category of Pointed Sets .... Awodey Example 1.8, Page 17 ....
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Looking for good books for self-study
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K