Talk:Transitive Closure is Closure Operator

The letter $R$ bugs me here, since we have $\mathcal R \in R$, which seems contrary to usual mathematical practice, and is disparate with the notation $\mathcal Q$. Other options are mathscr or using unrelated calligraphic letters (e.g. $\mathcal A$, $\mathcal B$). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of personal taste, but I'm not happy with mathscr for similar reasons to my distaste to mathfrak (it's difficult to read and is overly "busy" visually). I read the above suggestion as a sort of either/or, in order to better provide a visual differentiation between the concepts denoted as $R$ and $\mathcal R$ - so merely changing $R$ to $A$ would probably be adequate without applying the mathscr style to it as well.


 * There's a case for laying down a typographical style rule suggesting, e.g., that sets of sets are to be written using mathcal (the original unwritten pulled-out-of-a-hat style on proofwiki was to use mathbb but that has been firmly slapped down), but I anticipate resistance from those who may wish not to be dictated to by the rigidities of house style, so I won't push it for fear of being blocked.


 * Apologies if this posting is seen as a child's prattle interrupting the serious business being discussed by adults. Feel free to tell me so. --prime mover (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd in general be inclined to use calligraphic letters for sets of sets (that are being used as such, the ZF perspective demands to add) and I have done this in several places. Problem here is that the relation is also firmly established to be denoted with $\mathcal R$, which rules out the obvious choice. I don't have a dislike for scripted letters, but I see your point. I think it doesn't matter much, but the "busier" relation on characters is in my brain quite intimately linked to how many times "sets of" is prefixed to something (in casu, sets).


 * My preference however still goes to $\mathcal A$, and $\mathcal B$ in place of $\mathcal Q$. And rest assured, I don't consider your contribution "child's prattle" :). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)