Definition talk:Cover of Set

I don't want to mess with the whole transclusion process so if somebody does this I can make the theorem statement in Equivalence of Cover Definitions look cleaner at least. --Jshflynn (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I take it there's a source for the new Def 2? Please introduce it. --Lord_Farin (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as a definition of "cover" I think it sucks. While it's equivalent to the given def, I don't see why it should be used as an equivalent definition. In the source work, is it actually supplied as an actual definition or is it just shown as an equivalent condition? --prime mover (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It sucks massively PM. I'm glad you said so because I personally think definitions should be things that one actually starts from not just anything logically equivalent. I wasn't sure how to describe the definition as a title however so the ball's in your court on what to do. --Jshflynn (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Set of Subsets is Cover iff Set of Complements is Free? And just have it as a theorem, forget introducing it as a definition. Then all that needs to be done is the proof ... --prime mover (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yes you done the proof - sorry, just needs slight amendments. --prime mover (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)