Talk:Equivalence of Definitions of Matroid Circuit Axioms

Condition vs Formulation
I used the term "Condition" as I didn't think Condition 4 was the formulation of axioms. --Leigh.Samphier (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, you are also using the word "condition" to mean the axioms themselves.


 * That is not the case. I'm saying that the Condition is that $\mathscr C$ satisfies the axioms, not that the Condition is the axioms. --Leigh.Samphier (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In Equivalence of Definitions of Matroid Circuit Axioms/Condition 1 Implies Condition 2 we have:


 * "Let $\mathscr C$ satisfy conditions $(\text C 1)$, $(\text C 2)$ and $(\text C 3)$."


 * I still think there is plenty of room for clarification. --prime mover (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether to leave formulation 4 out of this page as it is out of the scope of the equivalence of the 3 formulations. Either that, or enter 4 as another formulation. It's confusing as it stands. --prime mover (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Each Condition is a statement about $\mathscr C$. The 4 statements about $\mathscr C$ are equivalent. Where is the confusion? --Leigh.Samphier (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * $\mathscr C$ is not specifically defined in a definition page. All you have is the three equivalent formulations of the circuit axioms, but (except, seemingly as an afterthought, as a 4th "conditioN" on this equivalence page) there isn't a definition page which explains what the object whose behaviour is specified by the circuit axioms actually is. --prime mover (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)