User talk:Asalmon

Peano's Axioms
Sorry but I'm not sure I agree with your edits here. My reasons are on the talk page. What's your views on this in light of my comments? --prime mover 16:21, 8 September 2011 (CDT)

Hint for tracking changes
If you make sure that any page you edit gets added to your watchlist, then any questions that are raised on the talk page of that page will automatically make sure you are notified. In that way it would not be necessary to specifically send you a message on your talk page that such-and-such a page has changed. --prime mover 00:35, 9 September 2011 (CDT)

Reinvention of wheels
One thing I would watch out for is the danger of recreating proofs which have already been done. I recommend you take some time out to study what already exists in the field that you're thinking of contributing to before you spend a lot of time creating proofs.

As an example, there is a massive wealth of simple results in Category:Set Theory and its subcategories which you shoud be able to use directly, rather than working through them again blow by blow. In particular there's Intersection with Subset is Subset which gives you $S \subseteq T \iff S \cap T = S$, which you proved again in Axiom of Subsets Equivalents.

Just a thought. --prime mover 13:53, 10 September 2011 (CDT)

Keep structure clean
When you add interesting little comments to pages, please try and keep them out of the "Proof" (or "Definition" or "Theorem" sections) as these are more-or-less formal expositions of subject matter. Asides are best inserted into "comment" or "also see" or "notes" or "warning" sections, or whatever is most appropriate.

The plan is to make the formal expositions of such a standard and quality that they can be interfaced with an automatic proofing system (probably years away yet, and no firm strategy yet). --prime mover 14:56, 11 September 2011 (CDT)

Set theory long term goal
I see where you're coming from, but (without having seen the book you're working from) I'd be surprised if there's much in there which isn't already up - I've already extracted a few books' worth of stuff. I would suspect that there's not a great deal in there which is genuinely "new" to ProofWiki as such, it's just that it may be structured differently, and spread over a number of pages.

In particular, the "proof by recursive definition" is already in place, as it's fundamental to all expositions of the definitions of the set of natural numbers. You can't avoid it. Just that in the context it's in, it's used to construct $\N$ from the concept of a naturally ordered semigroup, possibly an unusual way of proceeding, but no less rigorous for all that.

There is a genuine reason for it having been done that way. Definition pages should be just that, definitions. If there are immediate conclusions which can be drawn from those definitions, however trivial, they are placed in their own pages. In that way the ability to use a particular atomic result as a link on another page to provide the justification for a step in a proof becomes so much more straightforward.

If there are alternative definitions for existing stuff, then the usual technique is to add a separate section called "Alternative Definition(s)" or whatever, so as to keep the expositions clean.

Also, if a particular exposition is not incorrect, but just hasn't been put into the same format as you have in your book, then consider:
 * a) Leaving well alone, if the way you have it written does not add anything to the exposition

or:
 * b) Adding your way of doing it as an alternative, in a separate section again (preferred, if it is genuinely radical)

Also note the following. If there are genuinely different definitions for a given term, then from our perspective there is no "right" or "wrong" definition, just alternatives. ProofWiki has already gone down the path of having chosen one of these options, and (unless the definition which has *not* been chosen is genuinely and demonstrably "better", and by "better" I don't just mean "the one I learned in school") it is not in anyone's interest to go through and change everything to match the other definition. On the other hand, to add extra stuff based on the differences in definition *is* probably appropriate.

In that way ProofWiki becomes more than the sum of its parts.

Carry on with your plan, but (as I say) please be prepared to find that some of what you do gets reversed out because it's already in the database in a different form. --prime mover 03:10, 13 September 2011 (CDT)

Source works
Another thing you might want to do is take a look at what's done in the Books page, and add the Quine book to it, filling out all the details like with other books we have in there. Use one as an example, perhaps E.J. Lemmon: Beginning Logic.

Bear in mind that Quine hasn't been added to the Mathematicians page yet - I'll try to get to it tonight. --prime mover 03:23, 13 September 2011 (CDT)


 * ... that has now been done, and I've also set up the stub page for the book contents itself. Feel free to fill it in. --prime mover 14:14, 13 September 2011 (CDT)

Links to other pages
Some interesting results and a good start to establishing class theory.

However, a couple of things:

a) Please try to link to existing pages wherever possible. A case in point is Definition:Epsilon Relation which I looked at puzzled for a while till I realised that $\in$ means "is an element of".

b) Also, every page needs to be assigned to at least one category.

c) Certain statements are immediate consequences of the definition, and (particularly if one is completely familiar with the subject matter) it is tempting to just add them on the definition page, perhaps with some words along the lines of "this obviously follows". However, one of the purposes of this site is to be able to introduce concepts to those who may have not thought about the subject, and such statements are not obvious at all. Therefore, however trivial, all such statements are added as completely separate pages, linking to the definition page which would then have a link on the "Also see" section to that consequence. An example of this is the page Definition:Transitive Class.

I have going through some of your recent edits and amended as appropriate or added templates indicating work needed, so that you get the idea of how these things need to be presented. --prime mover 04:31, 26 November 2011 (CST)

Talk pages
... and when you add a new topic to a talk page, (a) add it to the bottom, and (b) add a new heading by pressing the "Add topic" link (see above) otherwise it's irritatingly tedious to work out what's being said.

And while I'm about it, I reiterate the request to (a) add links to concepts used, and (b) add the category into which a page goes in. (I mention this because you added a page earlier this evening with neither.)

Always worth taking a look at what has been changed when a page of yours has been edited, to see what was needed to bring the page to house style. --prime mover 22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That being said, we still value your contributions; please don't be put off by our mercilessly enforced policies on stylistic intricacies. --Lord_Farin 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OTOH you might want to read this. --prime mover 05:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

eqn template
I see your eqn template, but would suggest that in the "implies" version, the "implies" tag goes into the ll column, leaving the o column free for the operator (by default "equals". You might want to press "random proof" a few times till you find an appropriate example - they are very common. Failing that, I have a page full of proof structure templates which you may like to study. --prime mover 08:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Axiomatic Set Theory
Since we are aiming to have more than one axiomatisation of set theory eventually, it is vital to specify in which axiom system one lives. In order to do so there needs to be a page like Definition:Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms to explicate what the working assumptions are when one derives results in LST. --Lord_Farin 06:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So far, everything except for what has specifically been marked Category:Axiom of Regularity is provable without the axiom of regularity or choice (of what is referenced in the Takeuti/Zaring book reference). It may be of some use to specify what cannot be proven without Replacement or Infinity.  The theorems on ordinals require Replacement, and some require infinity (without infinity, there are no limit ordinals, so the proofs would be greatly simplified).
 * It really depends what other set theories you mean. If you mean something very similar to ZFC like NGB or MK set theory, then you can prove that NGB is a conservative extension of ZFC and simply transfer theorems from ZFC to NGB.  Something similar can be done for MK.  However, if you are thinking about something like New Foundations or Type Theory, then the behavior is really weird (you can't even prove Cantor's theorem in New Foundations), and you're practically forced to have a completely independent development. --Andrew Salmon 06:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, let me voice some concerns on the use of $x$ and $A$. As it stands, predicate logic does not allow to discriminate multiple types of variables. Hence we would be forced to adopt that $A \in U$; I can see this is overcome by defining what a set is, namely a class $x$ with $\exists y: x \in y$ but one has to be very careful. *Please* try to be as rigorous as possible when deriving results in these basic realms, using the principles of reasoning coming with PredCalc and all. --Lord_Farin 06:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I use $x,y,z,a,b,c,\dots$ as my set variables and $A,B,C,\dots$ as my class variables. Much of the recent development I have been trying has been to formalize this distinction between sets and classes.  In Definition:Class, you can see that every statement involving $\{ x : P(x) \}$ can be reduced to simpler statements.  So when we write a statement with classes, the $A$ is not necessarily a value of some variable $x$.  It all depends on whether $\exists x: x = A$.  See the definition of "small" under Definition:Class.  Takeuti uses his own notation to say that $A$ is a set: $\mathscr{M} \left({A}\right)$ --Andrew Salmon 06:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)