Difference between revisions of "Talk:Set"
(aotd) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{AotD tag|November 25th}} | ||
This article could use an introductory level definition, along with the definition of [[element]]s of a set, and how to count them.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 02:55, 5 August 2006 (EDT) | This article could use an introductory level definition, along with the definition of [[element]]s of a set, and how to count them.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 02:55, 5 August 2006 (EDT) | ||
I don't think that's a very good explanation of why the power set has the size it does -- there is a much more direct counting argument to arrive at that result, and as currently presented it's totally unclear what that sum has to do with anything. Also, I think that explanation would be better in the article on [[power set]] rather than here. --[[User:JBL|JBL]] 14:10, 12 November 2006 (EST) | I don't think that's a very good explanation of why the power set has the size it does -- there is a much more direct counting argument to arrive at that result, and as currently presented it's totally unclear what that sum has to do with anything. Also, I think that explanation would be better in the article on [[power set]] rather than here. --[[User:JBL|JBL]] 14:10, 12 November 2006 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 21:48, 2 December 2007
| AoPSWiki Article of the Day | ||
|
| ||
This article could use an introductory level definition, along with the definition of elements of a set, and how to count them.--MCrawford 02:55, 5 August 2006 (EDT)
I don't think that's a very good explanation of why the power set has the size it does -- there is a much more direct counting argument to arrive at that result, and as currently presented it's totally unclear what that sum has to do with anything. Also, I think that explanation would be better in the article on power set rather than here. --JBL 14:10, 12 November 2006 (EST)
