Difference between revisions of "User talk:Shreyas patankar"
(respond to question) |
(natural numbers) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
To comment on the talk part of an article, you can click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the article in question, and then add your comment there, like I am doing right now (be sure to sign by adding <tt><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></tt> to the end of your message!). Have fun editing, <font style="font-family:Georgia,sans-serif">[[User:Azjps|Azjps]] ([[User talk:Azjps|<font color="green">talk</font>]])</font> 10:39, 26 January 2008 (EST) | To comment on the talk part of an article, you can click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the article in question, and then add your comment there, like I am doing right now (be sure to sign by adding <tt><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></tt> to the end of your message!). Have fun editing, <font style="font-family:Georgia,sans-serif">[[User:Azjps|Azjps]] ([[User talk:Azjps|<font color="green">talk</font>]])</font> 10:39, 26 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hi, please be careful that what you add to the wiki is absolutely correct. I refer specifically to the additions you made to the page on the [[natural number]]s. In constructing the natural numbers, you assumed the existance of a set <math>\mathcal{F}</math> of [[successor set]]s, as defined on the wiki. This is problematic, because in the wiki article, you defined a successor set to be a subset of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>. After defining <math>\mathbb{R}</math>, you may perfectly well construct a set of all successor sets as a set of certain subsets of <math>\mathbb{R}</math>. But in the standard progression of things, <math>\mathbb{R}</math> is constructed from <math>\mathbb{N}</math>, so you are essentially using the natural numbers to construct themselves. You see the problem? Thanks. Cheers, [[User:Boy Soprano II|Boy Soprano II]] 11:13, 26 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 12:13, 26 January 2008
To comment on the talk part of an article, you can click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the article in question, and then add your comment there, like I am doing right now (be sure to sign by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message!). Have fun editing, Azjps (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Hi, please be careful that what you add to the wiki is absolutely correct. I refer specifically to the additions you made to the page on the natural numbers. In constructing the natural numbers, you assumed the existance of a set 
of successor sets, as defined on the wiki. This is problematic, because in the wiki article, you defined a successor set to be a subset of 
. After defining , you may perfectly well construct a set of all successor sets as a set of certain subsets of . But in the standard progression of things, is constructed from 
, so you are essentially using the natural numbers to construct themselves. You see the problem? Thanks. Cheers, Boy Soprano II 11:13, 26 January 2008 (EST)
