Talk:Without loss of generality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Some regard without any loss of generality (WALOG) as a more grammatically correct expression."

Could anyone please explain to me what is grammatically wrong with "without loss of generality"?

--Huppybanny 17:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more or less "grammatically correct" but it does seem to be used, so I've put a reference back in the article. A Google test shows 20,000 results for "without any loss of generality"; some are copies of old versions of this article, but others are genuine mathematical uses. Possibly the "any" version would be even less common in published papers but it is at least used informally. I've also added "WOLOG" which is given as an alternate abbreviation in the MathWorld article. Andy Smith (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary

I don't think it makes sense to move this page to Wiktionary. It is not merely a definition; it explains why in some cases no generality is lost by simplifying assumptions and reports that that fact is often useful in writing mathematical proofs. Michael Hardy 00:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Dominus 15:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)