Talk:Ordering on Natural Numbers is Trichotomy

Do I have the right to drastically change my proof? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2016 (EST)


 * You know how it works. It is preferred that you set up separate pages, call them /Proof 1 and /Proof 2, and in that way both proofs are up.


 * I admit, I had not noticed it was your proof originally, but the point stands. --prime mover (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2016 (EST)


 * The original proof was incomplete. I found no way to complete it using that approach. So I deleted it and used a new approach. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2016 (EST)


 * My take: if a proof is complete, its logic should remain intact (so the idea behind the proof). This would make your edit bad if the proof would have been complete, be it yours or not.


 * But since both proofs are not complete either way, it doesn't really matter. They have no formal status yet, so to say. In particular it seems unwarranted to reserve space on subpages for what may well turn out to be a dead end. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2016 (EST)


 * My judgment was coloured by the similar replacement of a proof with a different one, but I still prefer that (incomplete or not) the original proof remain. If there are quesitons about the ability to complete it, then feel free to open a discussion on the talk page about its viability, maybe. This sort of approach has been used before. --prime mover (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (EST)

I could complete my second proof if you had not restored to the failed approach. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2016 (EST)


 * You know what to do. Set up two pages: a proof 1 and a proof 2 page. Take the existing proof and make it Proof 1. Go into View history to get the version you added. Put that in Proof 2. Add the appropriate transclusions and onlyinclude tags, and the job is complete. --prime mover (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2016 (EST)


 * Do I have the right to delete my failed approach? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (EST)

I disagree, PM. It makes no sense to give an attempt a "Proof" status if it's seriously doubted whether it can be completed. This is just bureaucratic arm wrestling which bores me to death. I suggest to take away Proof 2. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2016 (EST)

I guess we can delete my failed approach now? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2016 (EST)


 * Do whatever it is you think is necessary to improve the universe. :-) Seriously though, I thought that first proof had promise. --prime mover (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2016 (EST)