- #1

lys04

- 52

- 3

- TL;DR Summary
- prove that a supremum for a set doesn't exist; relations, total order and partial order

Hello, found this proof online, I was wondering why they defined r_2=r_1-(r_1^2-2)/(r_1+2)? i understand the numerator, because if i did r_1^2-4 then there might be a chance that this becomes negative. But for the denominator, instead of plus 2, can i do plus 10 as well? or some other number thats positive

I also did some reading on Cartesian product, relations, total order and partial order.

So a Cartesian product AxB is just ordered pair (a,b) where a is an element of A and b is an element of B right.

And a relation is just a subset of the Cartesian product.

Now total and partial orders.

Total order is denoted by < and partial order is denoted by <=? I’m a bit unsure about these, please correct me if I’m wrong.

And a total order relation requires four things:

Reflexive, anti-symmetric, transitive and comparability? I’m a bit unsure what comparability is though.

And for partial order relation I think it just needs to be reflexive, anti-symmetric and transitive?

I also did some reading on Cartesian product, relations, total order and partial order.

So a Cartesian product AxB is just ordered pair (a,b) where a is an element of A and b is an element of B right.

And a relation is just a subset of the Cartesian product.

Now total and partial orders.

Total order is denoted by < and partial order is denoted by <=? I’m a bit unsure about these, please correct me if I’m wrong.

And a total order relation requires four things:

Reflexive, anti-symmetric, transitive and comparability? I’m a bit unsure what comparability is though.

And for partial order relation I think it just needs to be reflexive, anti-symmetric and transitive?