|
|
![[parent]](http://images.planetmath.org:8080/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Correction to 'forcing relation'
|
"relation" by akrowne
Correction id: 1927
Filed on: 2003-05-22 12:21:40
Status: Rejected on 2003-05-22 15:42:15
Type: Meta/Minor
Correction text:
| Does this need to define "relation"? Or is a new definition needed somewhere else? (do any of the existing "relation" definitions suffice?) |
Comment from object owner Henry:
| I don't think it's necessary to define relation. The general definition isn't really that relevant (it's perfectly possible to read 'forcing relation' as an atomic term without losing anything important), and the link it eventually gives to relation is the appropriate generalization. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
