Talk:Hausdorff Maximal Principle/Proof 1

''"This article, or a section of it, needs explaining, namely: Since each set in c is itself a chain, and hence an element of S, the union of these chains is also a chain." ''

Proof 2 was written to provide the explanation for the original article (essentially the same as this entry) for which there was a similar request. What's the point? --ratboy 09:51, 2 March 2012 (MST)


 * The point is that a page is needed to provide a proof of just that very fact, rather than just use the terminally lame approach of repeating the same boring stuff every time it crops up. --prime mover 00:59, 3 March 2012 (EST)


 * Why, then, didn't you do that? All the information needed is in proof 2. To keep posting the same proof over and over and then complaining about it is just insane. --ratboy 03:51, 3 March 2012 (MST)

With the current approach to orders, the statement of the theorem is incorrect. --ratboy 11:21, 12 March 2012 (MST)


 * How? --prime mover 15:18, 12 March 2012 (EDT)


 * Probably in that atm, a poset is primarily defined as a 'strictly partially ordered set', rather than the (AFAIK) most common usage which omits the 'strictly'. But see Definition talk:Poset. --Lord_Farin 16:11, 12 March 2012 (EDT)