User talk:Usagiop

Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact one of the administrators, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:
 * Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
 * Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
 * Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
 * Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers! prime mover (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Preimages
FWIW $f^{-1} \sqbrk U$ as opposed to $\map {f^{-1} } U$ is the preferred notation for preimages. Caliburn (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Usagiop


 * added that essential note of clarifxion to page in qn --prime mover (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Links with underscores
Please, when implementing an internal link, enter it without underscores. Otherwise it makes maintenance irritatingly more difficult.

Thx for co-ops. --prime mover (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

OK. Tanks for a lot of improvements. Usagiop

General structure of definition pages
We have standardised on to use  on all our definition pages.

Is there a solid mathematical reason why at any stage this may not apply? It would make for some complicated reasoning if for any reason does not apply in some circumstances.

And while I am about it, "any" is ambiguous. Defining a quantifier as "for any $A$ in $B$" or whatever could be interpreted to mean "there exists" as well as "for all".

You will find this in our house rules: Help:Editing/House Style/Linguistic Style

There may be discrepancies between how you are used to presenting mathematical arguments and how they are presented in standard style. We take pride on internal consistency of presentation. Hence you may find that if you were to change pages so as to look how you like it, they may well be changed back again.

Thanks for your cooperation. --prime mover (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, sorry I just did not know about the convention. I am going to follow the convention. Just to be sure, you are trying to formulate all definitions by, right?

For example, Definition:Embedding (Topology) should be rewritten as follows?


 * $f$ is an embedding (of $A$ into $B$) the restriction $f {\restriction_{A \times f\sqbrk A }}$ of $f$ to its image be a homeomorphism.


 * No, just those that are shaped the way they are shaped. Stuff that's already there does not need to be changed unless it is wrong.

Also thanks for any. OK, I will try to do it better. Usagiop

FA
Most of the FA pages are done with normed vector spaces for now. My intent is to come back to generalise (eg. locally convex spaces) later. This'll be done by adding new separate proofs, since the spaces being normed of course simplifies the presentation massively, and so is worth treating separately. Before I came, sometimes the Hilbert condition was unnecessarily included, and there are a few remnants of that I haven't got to yet. Just saying this to avoid the hassle of going through all the FA pages tagging that it can be generalised. I think I will be using Introduction to Banach Spaces and Algebras by Allan and Dales for some of the more general theorems, (the other books I have only deal with NVSs) but I've only just picked it out so I'm not sure what it has yet. You're welcome to offer any input of course and I'd appreciate having people to proofread my FA work. Caliburn (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Krull's Theorem
Leave it alone for the moment, will you? I told you I'm working on this.
 * OK, sorry but I did because you wrote feel free to change everything back the way it was. Don't worry, I will leave it. Just please be aware, if you only consider countable chains, the proof is formally wrong. --Usagiop
 * I was being sarcastic because I was beginning to feel pissed off. --prime mover (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)