Talk:Inverse of Inverse of Subset of Group

Source code style in alignments
Someone inserted spaces to turn "|l= " into "|l = ". I think this is more confusing than helpful. That equals sign is not actually part of the equation, so the more it's tied to the "|l" or whatever and the further it is from the math, the better. I might go so far as to say there should be two or three spaces after it just to set it off, --Dfeuer (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I can't think of anything more trivial to make a fuss about. --prime mover (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Current alignment is to facilitate readability and proper code styling when using the ll or rr columns. I disagree that it is confusing, and contend it helps keeping the code readable. I agree with PM that it's probably not even worth a single sentence of discussion. --Lord_Farin (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename/refactor
Isn't it true that in a monoid, $(X^{-1})^{-1} \subseteq X$? If so, what's the best way to name the two? With or without slashes? --Dfeuer (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What? --prime mover (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he intends to upload the more general but weaker theorem (for monoids) as well and asks how to name it. --Lord_Farin (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My vote is on subpages (slashes); it seems the most natural way. --Lord_Farin (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My vote is a separate page: Inverse of Inverse of Subset of Monoid, and then, if you need to, add a link between them.


 * The fact that the result is a different result from the group version inspires me in this. The objects are different (groups against monoids) and there result is different (subset as opposed to equal). We have never transcluded in this context, and we'll need a good reason to change our paradigm now, otherwise we'll never do anything else but do the entire site over every time someone comes along with a "better" idea. --prime mover (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, fair enough. That the results are different means we should take them apart, more so as to promote consistency. Interlinking will be good enough. *turns like a leaf in the wind*. --Lord_Farin (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)