Talk:Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups

The main problems I can see with including the source code for lemmata on the same page as the proof to which they belong (albeit within a folding editor) are:
 * 1. They make the source code for the page that much bigger and it will therefore take longer to load (this is one of the stressers which encourages pages on this site to be small rather than large).
 * 2. A lemma (while it may still be called a "lemma" rather than a "theorem") may have a perfectly good use in another context, or has an independent self-contained definition that does not require the context of the result / proof itself to make sense.

So whenever possible the strategy ought to be to put all lemmata on their own page whenever feasible. I note that this has already happened for the first of these lemmata, but I suggest we might want to do it for at least the second as well.

This page was put together by someone who isn't around so much any more (I think he has a life!) who had a slightly different philosophical take on how proofwiki could be structured, which explains why this page is somewhat of an anomaly among proofs of a similar nature.--prime mover 04:49, 20 October 2011 (CDT)
 * I agree. The foldable template was, in my opinion, already designed for really proof-specific things like on Weierstrass's Theorem. The results did not really make sense without the rest of the page to encapsulate it. I will try to use this standard throughout my editing. --Lord_Farin 07:36, 20 October 2011 (CDT)

I am tempted to put Lemma 3 and Lemma 4 together on a separate page, effectively proving the theorem for groups with prime-power order. Is this a good idea? --Lord_Farin 08:22, 20 October 2011 (CDT)
 * I wonder whether they each merit their own page - particularly Lemma 3 which is pretty big and unwieldy (and even then might do with breaking it down into sections). Do what looks good and we can find the sweet spot afterwards. --prime mover 09:53, 20 October 2011 (CDT)