Talk:Basis Representation Theorem for Ordinals

Length?
What is meant by "length" in the missinglinks? --Andrew Salmon 08:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It means there is no link to a definition of the word "length" as it appears in the body of the text. --prime mover 12:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Issue resolved. --Lord_Farin 13:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

what this is
I think I get it now. This is just the Basis Representation Theorem, am I right? In that case, is it appropriate to merge this with that, or that with this? Is it necessary that we prove this from the standpoint of pure ordinals, when in fact as it is shown that an ordinal is only a post word for a number and we've proved it for numbers? I'm looking in trepidation for every existing result in number theory being stated and proved separately in the context of ordinals. --prime mover 13:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a result in that direction, yes. However, the stuff goes the other way around, in fact: The theorem for numbers is an instance of that for ordinals. --Lord_Farin 14:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)