Talk:Topological Closure is Closure Operator

Argle bargle. I need to do some extensive refactoring in this zone. I think my preference would be to make one subpage for each definition of topological closure, and make each of the proofs supporting that a subpage of the subpage. That should, I think, make it easier to see what depends on what and how. --Dfeuer (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another matter to bear in mind/another approach: prove that each of these closure definitions satisfies the Kuratowski closure axioms, and show that a Kuratowski closure operator is a closure operator. --Dfeuer (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The first seems superfluous to me. Upon establishing the eq.of def. for topological closure, I concede there is some value in having proofs from multiple directions. However, to practically transclude all the proofs of the three constituents onto this page (which is approximately what the result would look like) just seems artificial. It seems to me that what would happen is that this page is multiplied, with each of the three links pointing to a similar multiple of the associated result, which in turn lists only the proofs that pertain to a certain definition. I just don't like the sound of it; it also seems that it would excessively spread proofs (of the same result) over multiple pages. Sorry for so bluntly using my shotgun on your idea but that's what I think.


 * The second is obviously a bona fide approach, and different from the one already present. Though I don't know what the Kuratowski closure axioms are. Feel free to build the necessary background to facilitate the approach, then implement it (like you have been doing with "Closure Operator"). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We clearly see this differently. I think the current approach is spread out. Thinking about this a bit more, probably the most important thing is to figure out what approach will do the best job of confining the equivalence proof to a small area of the site. --Dfeuer (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm. Apparently you've chosen a very odd page to discuss the issues you have with Equivalent Definitions for Topological Closure. I completely misunderstood: I thought you intended to break this page (of which this is the talk, to be more precise) into bits, one for each definition. It was precisely that idea that I opposed. In fact, I agree that the equivalence proof of Definition:Topological Closure needs to be brought up to standard. Said equivalence page seems to predate the current multi-def. paradigm (which has since been implemented on the def. page itself). I'd like to take this project on, if you don't mind. Still held up on other areas due to bugs with the extension; it'll help killing the time. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, but I reserve the right to make my views known when you do something bone-headed I disagree with. --Dfeuer (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)