Talk:Empty Set is Subset of All Sets/Proof 2

Does any text actually prove it this way? Should we just get rid of it? It's convoluted, doesn't justify its steps well from the definitions, and it's hard to see how anyone could prefer it. --Dfeuer (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wholly immaterial. What brings you to this destructive attitude? Bringing in new proofs, fine, but then to condescend on the other contributors and their efforts seems, no rather is, completely out of place. Please try and read your words from someone else's perspective. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, cf. Help:FAQ. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I should have said it differently. This proof starts by showing how the definition of subset is equivalent to an alternative statement. Then it gets rather informal in how it uses that alternative statement. Can you see a way to make that argument more complete without effectively undoing that transformation? $\forall a: P(a) \implies Q(a)$ seems more directly applicable in this case than $\neg(\exists a: P(A) \land \neg Q(a))$. Also, note that you edited my proof that Kuratowski closures are closures and I didn't object because I recognized that your way was more direct. I don't think my way there was bad, but yours is better. In this case, this proof seems to go down a twisty path for no reason, and I don't care for that. --Dfeuer (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * TL; DR: Please read it (yeah, it isn't supposed to be that easy), then reread it until you are able to empathise with the position of the other PW editors.


 * On-topic, your new suggestion is completely different and incomparable. Changing proofs ever so slightly in minor arguments (with the aim of "improving" them, but I'll avoid that term for now) to make them better presented and more comprehensible is absolutely and fundamentally different from purging proofs. The former is constructive, the latter, well you get the point.


 * On how you worded it: I don't like being accused of hypocrisy (because, at the bottom of it, the Equivalence of Kuratowski Closure Operator Definitions reference comes down to that (in my eyes, I might add)). I also fail to see why you need to use an Argumentum Ad Hominem ("But you did it too...") instead of a proper reasoning. Except if it is only to prevent you from having to acknowledge you may have been wrong.


 * While I realise these are not the friendliest of words, they are necessitated because the point I'm trying to make matters a lot to me. 't Is too easy to come in and say something is rubbish; much easier than coming up with a (purportedly) better approach. You have been balancing these, and you know I value your efforts for the latter. What I value even more is the addition of new material (of which you've done your share as well). I urge you to try and find a different balance between these. was not set up more than four years ago simply as a place for you to criticise it, and its philosophy and guidelines in 2013.


 * Finally, please no calling names. As a courtesy to my words and point of view, please precede any reply you would write with some introspection. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)