Talk:Order-Extension Principle/Strict

I really don't like the way you merged my if/then into a nested symbolic statement. These two levels are best seen as separate, and you've lost that, making it (in my opinion) harder to read in the process. The point is, essentially, that the partial mapping "looks like" the characteristic function of a strict total ordering wherever in its domain that can be judged meaningfully. --Dfeuer (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's better to use mathematical symbolism rather than words.


 * But there are other areas of this proof that require higher-priority attention than niceties of presentational style. --prime mover (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Better? The goal is ease of understanding, no? --Dfeuer (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is. Trust me, I know what I'm doing here, I'm a professional. --prime mover (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope not a professional teacher. --Dfeuer (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you this obnoxious to everyone who disagrees with you? I'm surprised you're still alive. --prime mover (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is, without getting too unnecessarily personal, that yes, part of my professional expertise consists of arranging and editing expositions in order to make them understandable, coherent and pithy. Such skills have been earned over a career spanning a plurality of decades. And, in my professional opinion, your work on can usually bear some improvement in their presentation, as do those of other contributors. The difference between them and you is that You Know Better.

Immediately below this edit window I can see: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... then do not submit it here." --prime mover (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)