I was really unsure about tagging this question.
The misconception behind the OPs question lies in the area of (not every order has a well-defined concept of a "successor") and he was obviously (inference from the naiveness) referring to or .

However, the original wording didn't realize that the question was regarding orders and the question asks about a particular property of a particular order The tag wiki features this:

Questions about properties of orders, general or particular, may fit into this category

But that leaves me a little inconclusive. Looking at the questions tagged with didn't shed any more light either. Is the question on-topic for ?


The way I understand tag, it would fit any question which is mainly concerned with partially ordered or linearly ordered sets. For such questions could also be suitable. (And sometimes .) Tagging of questions about (partially) ordered sets was also briefly discussed in chat some time ago.

The question you link seems to be closely related to the notion of successor and existence of successor in a totally ordered sets. So, in my opinion, seems like a good fit for this question.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reference :) That was my thought process as well but since I don't consider myself an expert of order-theory by any means, I wanted to confirm by looking at the /tagged/ list - wich lead to my confusion. $\endgroup$
    – AlexR
    May 30 '15 at 19:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .