Definition talk:Join Semilattice

Is there any vision behind this edit, other than "because I felt like it" or "because I could"? Unlike what your impression may be, there is actually some vision behind the approach taken. The risk arises that upon adding ad hoc defs and results many theorems are actually saying the same thing (in some loose and vague sense) or, worse still, only make sense for one of the given definitions.

You see, there are actually some general flows, ideas, conventions and practices at work on ProofWiki that reside somewhat deeper (perhaps only/mainly in the minds of the, until recently, two major contributors). I fear that you gloss over or deny these things in doing whatever you please and appeals to your sense of what needs to be done. I might be spot-on if I call this the source of all or most of the animosity that has been around.

Oh and one thing: The solution is not going to be to change the carefully-crafted, crystallised site philosophy. We're not going to throw away that, and certainly not on a whim. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The carefully crafted site philosophy appears to be in your head and PM's. I have yet to divine the principles behind it despite having looked at many pages. The fact that you can get to $(S, \vee, \preceq)$ from either $(S, \vee)$ or $(S, \preceq)$ seems central to the concept here. How would you prefer to see that expressed? --Dfeuer (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that it is indeed hard to get to know the site philosophy by looking at pages. It's a bit like looking at a car. You can look at it from all kinds of different angles, even open the hood; it won't (easily) tell you how to build one.


 * In this particular case, my point lies in the results Join Semilattice is Semilattice, Ordering Induced by Join Semilattice and Join Semilattice is Ordered Structure (I may have missed some). They will need attention and possibly some of them need to be relegated to the equivalence proof. 't Is precisely these kind of confluent bits and pieces that need to be contemplated before jumping into the action. Now in the present case, this is admittedly a relatively small task, but you can imagine that it can provide serious headaches in more developed areas. Because of your eagerness in suggesting things like this, it may be a good idea (I've said this before) to list them somewhere, if applicable with their status (though the target should be that it is done in one go).


 * As a final suggestion, until you've got sufficiently dirty hands with changing approaches, it may be good to limit your calls for things to be changed. Not that you should ignore the itch that something could be done better, but simply make it better dosed (so that things can be assessed and, if approved, executed properly). You could use the proposed listing also for things that you have observed but haven't come round to suggesting changes for (or even for things you don't see a fix for). Unlike the impression you may have gotten, we're actually hoping that you will come to understand site philosophy fully and be a valued team member, so that we can do away with all the verbose arguments and accusations, and rather work on with unified vision (at least globally, we don't have to agree on everything, of course). That's really what I hope for.


 * Pardon my verbosity :). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)