Talk:Transitive Closure Always Exists

I'm not happy about the refactoring job that has been done here:
 * a) IMO this should not have been a disambiguation page but a master/transclusion page.
 * b) The refactoring job has resulted in a plethora of double-redirects which ought to be sorted out
 * c) The initial intent of this page (as defined by its title) has been obscured.

Note that b) should be addressed after the other issues (perhaps the original pages need to be restored from their renaming / merging with the destination pages?) as this has evolved into a structure which lacks lucidity and needs to be rethought by someone with a head for such matters. --prime mover (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on page history, you were the one who did it, unless I'm missing something. Are these notions of transitive closure actually similar enough to justify master/transclusion? --Dfeuer (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My own view on the second is no. The notions of transitive set and transitive relation are similar, but they have radically different notions of transitive closure. --Dfeuer (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, yes, now I take time to read them I see where they are coming from - they are genuinely different pages.


 * The renaming / refactoring I was initially unhappy about was the one where the renaming of Transitive Closure Always Exists (Relation Theory) was renamed - and then completely rewritten to demonstrate something completely different. --prime mover (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)