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)