Definition talk:Set Equality

Extension to Classes
Since this definition holds for both classes and sets, should we extend the definition to cover classes (we already do use it this way, but it ties in the loose end by allowing this)? Or would you rather have the definition cover sets and have a separate one for classes? -Andrew Salmon 16:12, 12 September 2011 (CDT)
 * Separate page, as the equality of subsets precisely applies to the ZF definition. Provide a link. --prime mover 17:13, 12 September 2011 (CDT)

Equivalence of Definitions
Do we really need a separate theorem for the proof of the equivalence? I think that if someone was looking for the proof he'd look here first. (If she/he was not allowed to use the search) At least we should provide a link to this theorem? --Inconsistency (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good call. Link provided to equivalence proof. --prime mover (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)