As long as we can put an upper bound on gayness (or more specifically on each totally ordered subset of people under the is-gayer-than relation) this follows from Zorn’s lemma.
It’s also true by virtue of the fact that the set of all people who will have ever lived is finite, but “the existence of a maximal element in a poset” just screams Zorn’s lemma.
Sure, there may be a maximal element, but not necessarily a maximum (there might be multiple people of equal and maximal gayness, not just one person).
Also, not relevent to the logic here per se, but last time this went around the conclusion was that a spectrum implies a total order, not just partial.
I’m only familiar with “spectrum” from linear algebra (spectral theory), but I’m not sure that’s how people intend to use the word “spectrum” in this context haha.
As long as we can put an upper bound on gayness (or more specifically on each totally ordered subset of people under the is-gayer-than relation) this follows from Zorn’s lemma.
It’s also true by virtue of the fact that the set of all people who will have ever lived is finite, but “the existence of a maximal element in a poset” just screams Zorn’s lemma.
I think it’s better to avoid the axiom of choice in discussions about sexuality, as it seems to upset the conservatives.
Sure, there may be a maximal element, but not necessarily a maximum (there might be multiple people of equal and maximal gayness, not just one person).
Also, not relevent to the logic here per se, but last time this went around the conclusion was that a spectrum implies a total order, not just partial.
I’m only familiar with “spectrum” from linear algebra (spectral theory), but I’m not sure that’s how people intend to use the word “spectrum” in this context haha.
Thanks, I’m gonna have to take a closer look at this later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorn’s_lemma