|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ([[User talk:Azjps#Discussion|Re]]) Good point. There’s really no pros or cons to having separate categories, so I took them out from the other [[:Category:Succession templates|succession templates]]. <font style="font-family:Georgia,sans-serif">[[User:Azjps|Azjps]] ([[User talk:Azjps|<font color="green">talk</font>]])</font> 20:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | Send me a PM if you want to talk to me. Or you can try writing here. |
| − | | |
| − | == 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. [[User:Temperal|Temperal]]<span style="color:red"><small><sup>[[User Talk:Temperal|xy]]</sup></small></span> 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. [[User:Temperal|Temperal]]<span style="color:red"><small><sup>[[User Talk:Temperal|xy]]</sup></small></span> 17:28, 26 November 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Re:Caps ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | See [[A:NAME]] for my opinion. [[User:Temperal|Temperal]]<span style="color:red"><small><sup>[[User Talk:Temperal|xy]]</sup></small></span> 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.
| |
