HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) |
AshtonBenson (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
I have the following problem with [[elementary sentence]], [[elementary definition]] and [[elementary sentence]]: For me they are completely unfamiliar terms referring to things I am working with every day. And the source you have given, while it probably uses these concepts in some way or another, doesn't use these unfamiliar terms at all, and certainly not on page 4. I can only find "elementary topos" there. Do you have a better source? [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
I have the following problem with [[elementary sentence]], [[elementary definition]] and [[elementary sentence]]: For me they are completely unfamiliar terms referring to things I am working with every day. And the source you have given, while it probably uses these concepts in some way or another, doesn't use these unfamiliar terms at all, and certainly not on page 4. I can only find "elementary topos" there. Do you have a better source? [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
== May 2010 == |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research policy]] by adding your personal analysis or [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] into articles, as you did to [[:Apple TV]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:uw-nor3 --> — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:17, 4 May 2010
Jech 1977
I think that you looked a the wrong reference for this edit. The reference is to Jech's paper on the axiom of choice in the Handbook of Mathematical Logic; p. 348 starts the section "Do we need the axiom of choice?". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
primitive recursive functions
Several days ago, I left a note on Talk:Primitive recursive function listing several other reasons, apart from being r.e., that the primitive recursive functions are important. I'm not sure whether you saw it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have responded to your comment on the talk page. When I did a literature scan today of my bookshelf, the most common thing I found at the beginning of textbook sections on primitive recursive functions is the comment that most commonly encountered functions are primitive recursive. I did not see any that said that the key fact about primitive recursive functions is that they are r.e.; could you tell me which reference you found that did go so far as to make that claim? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Carl, I've replied on the talk page. AshtonBenson (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Axiom of choice
I also thought that that principle was identical to the ultrafilter lemma at first, but the limiting role of the set S makes it a stronger statement than just "every theory has a completion". There is a referenced proof on Talk:Axiom of choice for the equivalence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, that seems reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Elementary things
I have the following problem with elementary sentence, elementary definition and elementary sentence: For me they are completely unfamiliar terms referring to things I am working with every day. And the source you have given, while it probably uses these concepts in some way or another, doesn't use these unfamiliar terms at all, and certainly not on page 4. I can only find "elementary topos" there. Do you have a better source? Hans Adler 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)