Talk:Small set

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Equivalent to being small 2 This page looks like it should be three separate articles 3 Merge to? 4 linking to redirects 5 Request for Comment

[edit] Equivalent to being small

From page. Charles Matthews 09:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph needs work: A theorem by Someone gives an equivalent condition on a set S to being small: Note--it's in Goldberg's (is that his name) silver book Methods of Real Analysis.

It was I who wrote that, and I've since checked Goldberg, and can't find the theorem. So I don't remember where I saw it. I'll try and find out the statement of the theorem. —msh210 17:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it is in Goldberg, and this article now includes the theorem (due to Muntz-Szasz). —msh210 19:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This page looks like it should be three separate articles

Unless someone can find a common abstraction unifying the three parts (say, are they all about ideals of sets? Probably not, but that would be the kind of thing to look for) then I think this article should be broken up into its constituent parts, and there should be a disambiguation page under this title. --Trovatore 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. —msh210 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good job with splitting. I also wondered about it a while ago.Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to?

I've deleted the merge template. This is no longer an article, but a disambiguation, and we can't merge a disambig with an article. I've added the article in question to the list of items on the page though, since it seems relevant. --Cheeser1 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] linking to redirects

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with linking to redirects. It is the best thing to do when there is any chance, even if extremely slim, that the redirect will ever become an article. The performance issue is entirely negligible. --Trovatore 06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And I can tell you that there is zero chance. But let's assume my professional opinion doesn't count. There is still no reason not to link to "large set" because that disambig page is for both. It is not exclusively the small set article, it is both large set and small set. If there were a circumstance like the one you describe, then a page for large set would have to be created, and the appropriate link would have to be moved there anyway. There is no reason to link to a redirect, and we are supposed to always repair links to redirects. --Cheeser1 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you misunderstand the purpose of a disambig page. It assumes that people are looking for a specific phrase. We are supposed to send them to titles are similar to that phrase, not that concept.

More importantly -- no, we are not supposed to "repair" links to redirects. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. This sort of "repair" is just wrong in the overwhelming majority of cases. You may be thinking of links to disambig pages -- those indeed should be repaired except in unusual contexts (such as when the link intends the same range of meanings covered by the disambig page itself). --Trovatore 07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY! You've hit it on the nose. This is the disambig article on large sets. Thus there is no reason not to link to things called "large set (specialty)". There is no rule declaring "all disambigs must link to titles that are exactly similar to the name of the disambig page" - especially when this is two articles: large set and small set. And here is an additional response, which I was writing while you were writing yours: Please note that the appropriate policy makes it clear that while one shouldn't simply remove all links to redirects, it provides guidelines for when linking to such content even makes sense: when there is a "possible future article" (not possible), when it consolidates information (does not), or when it is appropriate (is not - it's the wrong term entirely). It may be policy not to cut out every link to a redirect ever, but that's not the point. The point is that large sets are just as much the topic of this page as small sets are, and it is just as appropriate to link to the relevant article then to its redirect. That's what I meant by "repair." Worst of all, I've never seen a paper that called a non-large set "small" - it's just not the terminology we use, regardless of the fact that small is the "opposite" of large. --Cheeser1 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the last point should be brought up at the talk page for large set (Ramsey theory). I'm a set theorist, not a combinatorist, so I can't contradict you here. If you're right about that, the proper remedy might be to remove the claim there that a non-large set is called "small", and remove the link from this page altogether.

But it's not merely not correct to "cut out every link to a redirect ever". It's almost never correct. It's correct, as the guideline page says, in some obvious cases such as misspellings. --Trovatore 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost never and never are not the same thing. That article is not about small sets, it's about large sets. This is just as much the disambig for large set as it is for small set, and the article Small set (Ramsey theory) was only created to facilitate article redirecting! Talk about absurdity. If you want to keep things messed up, fine. It's my policy to let crazy people do crazy things if they want - I've made my case clear, if you still want to introduce misleading and inappropriate terminology into this page to satisfy your adherence to this redirect policy, fine. It's not my job to convince you to see reason. That redirect policy is about otherwise unjustified changes to redirects. This change has other justification. But do what you will. I don't care enough to try to make my case with you any more. --Cheeser1 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To be concise: The general "don't change links to redirects" rule is overridden by the fact that this is not an disambig exclusively about small sets and that the target article in question is essentially only about large sets. --Cheeser1 07:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. --Trovatore 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a general concern, not one related only to the specific article. Also note that no one is required to "obey" anyone's instructions regarding his/her talk page. --Trovatore 07:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't demanding your obedience, I was asking you to help keep your contribution (and mine) as productive, civil, and transparent as possible. And I know about redirect policy, it is not a redirect problem, it is a content problem. Content concerns outweigh concerns about concerns regarding unjustified changes. The redirect policy you cited is about unjustified changes that eliminate redirects, not changes justified by content concerns or other considerations. --Cheeser1 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said (well, at least implied), if you want to remove the link entirely from the dab page, I have no objection. As far as I can see, that addresses all your concerns. --Trovatore 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If I look up large set, I get this page. If I want large set (Ramsey theory), that link should be there, and it should be worded correctly. Redirect-link policy is not the policy in question. But like I said, do whatever you want, you've repeated your points several times without wavering, I'm not here to proselytize common sense to you. If you insist on obeying rules that you've imagined apply, do whatever you want. I don't care enough to stop you. --Cheeser1 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And please note the far more relevant policy, which clearly states that we should link to target articles. The fact that there is no such thing as a "small set" in this context means that we (1) shouldn't use that term and (2) shouldn't link to that page - it's not the target page, in any way. The redirect there notwithstanding, since that redirect may be helpful and isn't doing any harm, small set (Ramsey theory) is not the target article, and use of such a term is inappropriate and borderline OR. --Cheeser1 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What what what? Make a separate "large set" dab page, if you want. This page is called "small set" and all the stuff about large sets is just flat confusing. --Trovatore 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. The two are almost always direct opposites, and would inevitably be in the same article together, and having disambiguations for each would require excessive redundancy. As such, large and small set are the same page, and should remain this way. This page may be called "small set" in the title, but the subject of the page is just as much one as the other. Because of that, your insistence that each link match the subject of the page is IRRELEVANT because the subject of the page is BOTH. That means we can link to EITHER, depending on context, with perhaps a preference for "small set" whenever that term is appropriate. However, in no case would it be necessary to have a large and small set of the same subject, thus your concerns about redirect-link policy are totally irrelevant too - no one is going to write another article on the exact same thing, titled "small set (ramsey theory)" or "large set (combinatorics)" unless there separate meanings (in which case, they will get their own entires on this page anyway). If you insist that you are trying to be rational or logical, I'd hope by now you would get the point: This IS the page for large set, it should be that way, and we CAN link to "large set" articles just as much as "small set" ones. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing more to say on this. I've expounded it six times in half a dozen different ways - I don't have any more time to spend explaining it to you. --Cheeser1 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, go away then, and I'll fix it myself. --Trovatore 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Refusing to repeat myself is not open invitation for you to do whatever you want. I'm requesting a comment because frankly, you have now created what is essentially a duplicate of this page, linking to the same articles in both - this is frankly, the most absurd thing I've ever seen, all because you don't want a link to "large set" on an article that is about both large and small sets. --Cheeser1 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This request is to ask whether or not we may put "small set" and "large set" together in one disambiguation page - they are almost always opposites, and in rarer cases, only one of the two terms is used (never both with non-opposite meanings). The article is titled "small set" but the subject of the article is (was) both large and small sets. One of the definitions was only for large sets ("small set" not used in that context), and the question becomes whether to duplicate most of this content at large set or to allow a link to Large set (Ramsey theory) in this article, where the title is "small set" and the subject is (was) both large and small sets. See discussion above. --Cheeser1 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I'll get the ball rolling. Disambig pages are for navigation only, not for exposition. The exposition involved in saying a large set is one that's not small is not much, but eliminating it is still an improvement. Yes, there's some redundancy involved in my solution, but it's harmless redundancy. The point is to get users where they want to go. This gets them there. --Trovatore 23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So does the less redundant method of keeping both topics together. And that minor amount of exposition is certainly alot more sensible than a mysterious and confusing link to small set at the bottom of large set (and vice versa), when typically, the two subjects are indistinguishable. There's no reason to create an extra article, with cyclic links, unnecessary redundancy - so why create one? Because it's apparently "[your] solution" that "fix[es]" the article, and you happen to like it. Of course, now we'll have to maintain the two articles separately - if there is a new "small set," we'll have to add it to both lists, and synchronize these lists independently, and make every change to them twice. Now, if you wanted to cut all exposition from the article, you should have done that, instead of reverting only my edits on the incorrect pretense that "small set" was the appropriate link. I established that this was wrong, and then argued against your "don't fix redirects" on the basis of content > style guidelines, and now you're citing "no exposition in disambigs," despite the very minor amount of exposition in this one. Now I'm not an expert on requests for comment, but I suggest you let others make comments, instead of drawing our disagreement into this section of the talk page, which I presume is not the point of a request for comment (since they are, as far as I know, intended to get comments from uninvolved third parties). --Cheeser1 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)