Talk:Intersection is Idempotent

"General result": seriously? --prime mover 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... although, yeah suppose so, see how you're using it. --prime mover 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mind you, it is necessary to invoke predicate logic (universal quantifier introduction) to prove this, while the binary result is simply conjunction introduction. --Lord_Farin 22:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Prime.mover I don't know where else to ask this: What do the red and green bracketed numbers mean on the recent changes page? Thanks. -Jshflynn 29/6/12


 * Don't ask me, I'm colourblind. But if it's what I think you mean, it's the number of characters added to or removed from the page by the edit in question. --prime mover 20:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe it is the change in the character count on the page, yes. --Alec  (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename request
Why? Probably because of the ambiguity in the domain of $\cap$. Hm... No. I think the current title is perfectly adequate and that we needn't make stuff complicated unnecessarily; in due time (in 10 years...) operations will be extended to incorporate those on classes and we can properly make sense of things without the need for renaming. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sort of? Classes aren't really relevant. We have two notions of idempotence that I know of: idempotent element and idempotent mapping. Intersection is neither. However, any set is an idempotent element wrt the intersection operation, and intersection with a specific set is an idempotent mapping. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Intersection is definitely an Definition:Idempotent Operation. I suggest you read up before posting requests in the future; this notion is what you arrive at when following the "idempotent" link. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed that meaning! How about Intersection is Idempotent Operation, then? --Dfeuer (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose that causes no harm, probably even adds clarity (since you seem to have been confused). If you're really determined to do so, go ahead. In the process, please take care of changing the relevant links. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to burden you, but the "Text replace" thing isn't exactly flawless. Please check the "what links here". &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed. I'll have to finish tomorrow. Bed time now. --Dfeuer (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Named it back because it adds too much extra overhead. --prime mover (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)