User talk:Amorrow/Systematic English

Welcome. A few comments on your endeavour.

Firstly, there is no page on ProofWiki the exclusive property of a single editor, although of course everybody recognises the first editor as having a say in the direction of a page. This was the primary motivation to move this page to user space.

The second motivation is that the philosophy of encourages focused, stand-alone pages. We furthermore attempt to source everything in printed literature (and in any case, no tertiary sources like Wikipedia). Since the main namespace is reserved for theorems, this page was a bad fit.

I must admit that I'm a bit sceptical about the idea of systematic English in general, and in particular with regards to. It reads contrived and distracts, where we already have trouble enough specifying everything with adequate rigour without this added hurdle. I'd like to hear from you how you envisage incorporating systematic English, if you are so inclined, with, while respecting the principles of comprehension and rigour (which are non-negotiable). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2016 (EST)


 * It needs to be pointed out that our own style of English as defined in the relevant house style page does appear to overlap to a certain extent with Systematic English as defined here. However, my own view coincides with that of Lord_Farin who states the case adequately. --prime mover (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2016 (EST)