User talk:R.e.b./archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] En dashes
We are now being told that we need en dashs to separate names in titles, so that it is the Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for example and that can be parsed uniquely to two people. This is a bit of a nuisance really, but the en dash is at least available in the symbols below the edit box. The GHRR theorem is therefore giving ample scope for trouble. Charles Matthews 20:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've dealt with GHRR and redirects now, so Todd class does link. Charles Matthews 22:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Boolean-valued model
Thanks for adding the section on Boolean-valued models of set theory. The construction part looks good. The last paragraph, on the metamathematics, has some problems, though. V and V^B are proper classes; we don't "prove they exist"; rather, we use them as predicates. I'll think about this a little bit before trying to fix it. --Trovatore 17:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- On reflection, I think maybe that para should just come out, and the metamathematical discussion deferred until a section on applications, like the currently-outlined "Relationship to forcing" section, or possibly a separate section on "Uses in independence proofs". After all, it's not relevant to the construction, which is what the section now seems to be about.
- What is relevant to the construction, and is currently not treated, is how to code the individual elements of VB by sets, rather than (as they would be if the construction were done carelessly) proper classes. --Trovatore 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, this last doesn't look like a problem here. Not quite sure what I was thinking of at the moment. --Trovatore 17:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Allowing V to be set"
I don't agree with your word choice here. Of course we can create Boolean-valued models from set models, but then we would normally denote the set model as M rather than V (and we would have to note in the construction, at successor stages, that we're accepting only functions that live in M--and it gets even worse if we're not requiring M to be a transitive model; then we have to relativize the ordinals, too). There's really not much advantage to starting with a set model, though--if you're going to do that, then you might as well make M countable and transitive, and just force over it rather than using BVMs. The real conceptual advantage of BVMs is that you don't have to start with a countable transitive model, and you don't have to tell these awkward stories about generic objects that "don't really exist" (as you do when you force over V). --Trovatore 19:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've added some language to reflect the case where you start with a model M. --Trovatore 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] truth values
We ought to standardize the notation for the truth value (or "probability") of a formula, which right now is inconsistent between two sections. Looking at my refs, Bell uses Failed to parse (unknown error\llbracket): \llbracket\phi\rrbracket , which I guess is not available in Wikipedia (unless there's a Unicode for it somewhere). Jech uses ||φ||, like you. I think Bell's notation is a little nicer, but mainly we should be consistent, so if you wanted to change the notation in the earlier section that would be fine with me. --Trovatore 20:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- There is a Unicode. It would look like 〚φ〛. How well does that show up for you? I have to admit it's not exactly what I had in mind anyway. --Trovatore 20:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The unicode 〚φ〛 works fine on my browser, but llbracket just produces an error message. The trouble with obscure unicode is that it may not work on all browsers, and the problem with two ['s is that it is a pain explaining to wikipedia that it is not a hyperlink. I vote for || || on the grounds that it is easy to type and does not cause problems. R.e.b. 20:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're right; sounds good to me. --Trovatore 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mathematical HTML
I moved this page to Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols and removed the libk to it from HTML as this article does not belong in article space. Cheers, —R. Koot 18:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mathematical HTML
I moved this page to Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols and removed the link to it from HTML as this article does not belong in article space. Cheers, —R. Koot 18:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] zero what?
Hi R.e.b., in List of large cardinal properties you added something called 0+. Is this supposed to be zero-dagger? I don't think the superscript plus sign really gets that across. --Trovatore 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the dagger symbol does not work on my browser, and this is the best I could do. R.e.b. 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] list of first order theories
I really liked that article. Thanks for writing it! -lethe talk 13:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foundational status of arithmetic
Hello. Given your interest in mathematical logic, maybe you can contribute not only to the article titled foundational status of arithmetic, but to the discussion about whether it is worth keeping. Michael Hardy 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It does not look like an article I can contribute anything useful to, and I dont want to upset its author by giving my opinion of it. R.e.b. 15:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
OK -- I take it that means you probably largely agree with the comments. The author was a math professor some decades ago who had some respectable publications, but had what seems to me to be a somewhat weird obsession with this topic. Michael Hardy 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] impredicative
Hello. Have you noticed this stub article? Michael Hardy 23:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Looks like a reasonable stub. Why do you ask? (If you are hinting that I might expand it, the problem is that I have never managed to figure out exactly what the word means, though the definition given in the stub sounds about right.)R.e.b. 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might be able to contribute something to it since I thought I saw you mentioning or at least linking to that concept in one of your recent edits. Michael Hardy 02:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 22/7 and all that
Hello. Could you please vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_22_over_7_exceeds_π?
Some people are actually saying any article devoted to a partiucalar mathematical proof is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted! Or that all articles primarily for mathematicians, that the general reader will not understand, should be deleted. Michael Hardy 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lie Groups
Just to say I like the improvements you've made recently to the Lie group and related pages. Well done. --Salix alba (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics which is where the mathematician congregate. --Salix alba (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your article American Institute of Mathematics
[edit] AfD Nomination American Institute of Mathematics
I've nominated the article American Institute of Mathematics for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that American Institute of Mathematics satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Institute of Mathematics. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of American Institute of Mathematics during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. -- Masterpjz9 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
