Talk:Existence of Euler-Mascheroni Constant

My view is that it is better to link to a specific result, if possible, rather than a general page which contains a whole load of results. In this specific context, of course, I'm questioning the edit which replaces a specific result with the more general "Properties of Reciprocal Function" or whatever, which does not even exist yet. --prime mover 21:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the link was pointing to a corollary which I plan on moving to its own page, so it wasn't pointing to anything at all when I edited it. It's probably more house style to split up "properties of reciprocal" into separate mini-theorems, though. I'll keep your point in mind as I put up stuff on the reciprocal function. --GFauxPas 04:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The corollary itself no longer exists (if it ever did), which is probably where the confusion comes from. I'd had a feeling that something had been there - but now I check, I can't find it. --prime mover 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It had to do with my comment which came down to the corollary being specific to one proof rather than the theorem. Actually, the theorem was a corollary of the corollary. Hence the change. --Lord_Farin 06:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the corollary itself a step along the way towards the main proof? That is, to prove the reciprocal sequence is decreasing, it was first proved that the reciprocal function is decreasing. As the latter is more fundamental, I'd be happier with a page called Reciprocal Function is Strictly Decreasing and forget all this "corollary" trouble. I'd do it myself but I'm about to leave for the day job. --prime mover 06:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)