User talk:Sopasakis p

Welcome
Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact one of the administrators, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:
 * Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
 * Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
 * Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
 * Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers!


 * --Your friendly ProofWiki WelcomeBot 03:30, 23 November 2011 (CST)

Talk pages
Hello and welcome to PW; I have noticed you are contributing quite a lot lately. A small tip: when using the talk/discussion pages, it is helpful to end your message with  --~  in order to make it easy to distinguish the contributor. The indentation in conversations is achieved by a colon at the start of the line. --Lord_Farin 11:41, 24 November 2011 (CST)

House Style
This website has adopted a consistent style to which all pages are to meet. Part of that style is that a definition page contains just a definition. Any further statements that follow from the definition are placed on their own pages. In particular, the statement about cofinal sets of $\N$ was separated out into its own page.

I notice that soon after I had made that edit, you reverted the page to the original version posted up, thereby undoing the work done on reformatting. I have once more returned to the version I amended it to, but have left your additions in place, commented out. These additions need to be placed in their own pages, as they are unproved statements which need to be justified by a proof. Hence the name of the site: "ProofWiki".

Please do not revert it again, as I don't want to keep having to bring it back to house style. I understand that you are importing material from a previously-generated body of work written in LaTeX, and converting back and forward may be tedious, but that's what it is. --prime mover 04:06, 25 November 2011 (CST)


 * That was not deliberate. I was just editing and I didn't get any notification that someone else has changed the content in the meantime. Sorry for the mesh. I'm taking my first steps on the wiki. --Pantelis Sopasakis 12:11, 25 November 2011 (EET).


 * That is odd, because MediaWiki should alert the user to edit conflicts. The fact it did not means there may be something that has not been configured properly. We may need to look into it. --prime mover 04:59, 25 November 2011 (CST)


 * I, on the other hand, was alerted to such a conflict just today when writing the proof for Cofinal Sets of Natural Numbers. Strange. --Lord_Farin 06:35, 25 November 2011 (CST)

Citing links
1. There is never a need to use the version of the link which uses underscores. That is, instead of (for example) Union_is_Commutative you can use Union is Commutative and it works just as well. The advantage is that you then do not need to use a "display" version of the link - you can use the link as it is.

2. If you find you need a display version of a link which says something completely different from what the link says, then either the title of the original article is wrong, or it's trying to include too much. The plan is for every page to contain one and only one statement, to which the title is an adequate link.

The particular example here is in Topological Characterization of the Inner Limit of Sequences of Sets, where your "See also" section had:


 * 1) "Properties of the inner limit on normed spaces and the inner limit described via the point-to-set distance function (induced by the norm of the space)."

If the page cited is actually about the inner limit and not the limit inferior as the title of the link says, then the linked-to page needs to have its title changed. If not, then the display name is wrong. In either case, there should be no need to have the display name saying something different from the page title.

Also, if the added description of the article linked to contains information vital to the understanding of the proof contained in the page it's in, then that needs to be added to the contents of the article itself. Otherwise it should be sufficient just to link to the page. --prime mover 06:05, 26 November 2011 (CST)


 * I have a fundamental question: In a page dedicated to a particular theorem, is it appropriate to include examples, applications and/or implication of this theorem, or these should go to a separate page?


 * Separate pages, every time. Otherwise a page gets too big. We do not want to make the mistake of Wikipedia, whose philosophies tend to be diametrically opposed to those of ProofWiki.


 * Second, the results I posted refer to the Inner Limit exclusively, not the Limit Inferior and the links at the bottom of the page also point to results on the Inner Limit. I made a mistake when I first posted the article and I titled it using the term "Limit Inferior". Later I moved the page, so now everything is fine. --Pantelis Sopasakis 15:20, 26 November 2011 (EET).


 * I'm confused. The page in question: Limit Inferior for Sequences of Sets in Normed Spaces is about the "inner limit". So from what I understand, the page needs to be retitled to say Inner Limit of Sequence of Sets in Normed Space. Would you agree, before I make that change? (Also note that we try to use singular nouns in titles where the singular is referred to in the proof itself, otherwise the title is again misleading.)


 * I appreciate that the art of providing a title for a page is an art, and needs to be considered carefully. It is not unusual for a page to pass through several different titles until the "best" title is decided upon. No problem, this is just one of those instances.


 * I apologise if I sound "dictatorial" in my communications - but this site is aiming for a specific and consistent look-and-feel, and this has evolved over the last few years. --prime mover 07:34, 26 November 2011 (CST)


 * It's ok, don't worry. I also noticed that you replaced \mathbb{N} by \N. I'll keep that in mind. I added links to other pages in the wiki for the article you indicated and I moved the page according to your instructions. I noticed that you changed my notation of a sequence which was $\left\{C_n\right\}_{n\in\N}$ into $\left \langle{C_n}\right \rangle_{n \in \N}$? Why is that? Shouldn't it be reported somewhere? How should I know how which notation to use? --Pantelis Sopasakis 15:55, 26 November 2011 (EET)