Definition talk:Join Semilattice

Is there any vision behind this edit, other than "because I felt like it" or "because I could"? Unlike what your impression may be, there is actually some vision behind the approach taken. The risk arises that upon adding ad hoc defs and results many theorems are actually saying the same thing (in some loose and vague sense) or, worse still, only make sense for one of the given definitions.

You see, there are actually some general flows, ideas, conventions and practices at work on ProofWiki that reside somewhat deeper (perhaps only/mainly in the minds of the, until recently, two major contributors). I fear that you gloss over or deny these things in doing whatever you please and appeals to your sense of what needs to be done. I might be spot-on if I call this the source of all or most of the animosity that has been around.

Oh and one thing: The solution is not going to be to change the carefully-crafted, crystallised site philosophy. We're not going to throw away that, and certainly not on a whim. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The carefully crafted site philosophy appears to be in your head and PM's. I have yet to divine the principles behind it despite having looked at many pages. The fact that you can get to $(S, \vee, \preceq)$ from either $(S, \vee)$ or $(S, \preceq)$ seems central to the concept here. How would you prefer to see that expressed? --Dfeuer (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)