Difference between revisions of "User talk:Boy Soprano II"
(New section: Natural numbers) |
(→Natural numbers) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
It seems I am not qualified enough to add on this topic. I just gave the definition that I was taught and I hadn't questioned it then. I am not even aware that certain sets can and cannot be defined in this way. Forgive me for my erranous edit and thanks for putting it right. However, I feel that the presented definition is too intuitive and I request someone to put up something more rigorous. | It seems I am not qualified enough to add on this topic. I just gave the definition that I was taught and I hadn't questioned it then. I am not even aware that certain sets can and cannot be defined in this way. Forgive me for my erranous edit and thanks for putting it right. However, I feel that the presented definition is too intuitive and I request someone to put up something more rigorous. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Shreyas patankar|Shreyas patankar]] 02:14, 27 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 03:14, 27 January 2008
(Re) Good point. There’s really no pros or cons to having separate categories, so I took them out from the other succession templates. Azjps (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Re:Red links
Those exact topics are already thoroughly covered on the article at the third link, and aren't signficant enough to deserve their own article.
If you want, you can make them redirects to the appropriate section in the other article, but then there would hardly be a point in linking to them. Temperalxy 17:53, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- Yes I've heard about the controversy over the Axiom of Choice... perhaps that does deserve its own article. Researching the subject, the well-ordering theorem seems pretty notable, though not very significant...
Go ahead and make the article on the axiom of choice (you can just copy the material from the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms and then add a section about the controversy).
I suggest a page on set theory theorems be made for the well-ordering theorem and other such theorems, similar to the trigonometric identities article. Temperalxy 17:28, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Re:Caps
See A:NAME for my opinion. Temperalxy 13:08, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Natural numbers
This is a reply to a comment by Boy Soprano II. I hope I am putting it in the right place. (Sorry, I am new to the wiki)
It seems I am not qualified enough to add on this topic. I just gave the definition that I was taught and I hadn't questioned it then. I am not even aware that certain sets can and cannot be defined in this way. Forgive me for my erranous edit and thanks for putting it right. However, I feel that the presented definition is too intuitive and I request someone to put up something more rigorous.
Shreyas patankar 02:14, 27 January 2008 (EST)
