Talk:Ordinal is not Element of Itself

Changing proofs
One of the rules which was started up early in the days of was that unless a proof was utterly wrong, we did not delete it and replace it with something we prefer.

The rules may have changed recently, I wouldn't know, but the usual technique here would be to add an additional proof, rather than replace what was there with another one.

But it matters not. Perhaps we ought to delete all multiple proofs, then, and just replace them with the best one. --prime mover (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * Do we really need to invoke $x^+$ to prove that $x \notin x$? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * It does not matter. One could similarly argue that the presentation of No Membership Loops is deplorable and that its scope is ill-defined, so using it in a proof is not improving the rigour of said proof. Plus the risk of circularity.


 * With multiple proofs, the only relevant discussion remaining is their ordering. It shields from unfortunate events like holes popping up in one proof. We'll still have the others. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2016 (EST)