Talk:Young's Inequality for Products

I strengthened the hypothesis to $p, q > 1$ since the assumption $p, q > 0$ combined with $1/p + 1/q = 1$ implies $p, q > 1$ (if $1/p = 1$ then $q = \infty$ in the usual abuse of notation, and if $1/p > 1$ we have $q < 0$ and so on) and I thought I'd make this explicit. Feel free to make a note of this on the page. Caliburn (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is sense that you are making. --prime mover (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Since we were in there, I've gone through and modified the page names to be descriptive rather than numerated, so they match the display labels on the page


 * Note we do not do this in general, only when it is clear and obvious how to describe such a proof.


 * It has advantages, the best one being that if some clever boffin decides that the proof order is wrong and his proof needs to go at the top, rearranging the proofs willy-nilly does not cause lots of inappropriate links like it does if they're numbers.


 * We had that happen with the definitions of the exponential function (there are / were 5 of them) where there were several pages referencing specific definitions, and someone decided off their own bat to renumber them and as a result they broke the tree. --prime mover (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)