Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.math
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Foundations of real numbers
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Michael Stemper  
View profile  
 More options Oct 11 2012, 1:28 pm
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:28:39 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Oct 11 2012 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: Foundations of real numbers
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

In article <k55n3g$pd...@news.albasani.net>, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>The problem (as I see it) with Cauchy sequences is that they are sequences,
>and hence require a mapping from N to Rationals.

Why would that be a problem?

>                  The LUB property is more
>general, in that it applies to unordered sets.

It does? I always thought that order was necessary before you could
define any upper (or lower) bounds.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google