Definition talk:Shift of Finite Type

The page should be called Definitoin:Two-sided Shift of Finite Type--Usagiop (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that name the standard one? (/is just saying "shift of finite type" incorrect?) Usually the first name picked sticks unless there are compelling reasons to change it. Caliburn (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. If you say shift of finite type, then it is not clear if it is one-sided or two-sided. When I create this page, I thought two-sided is the standard, but now I do not think so. The (one-sided) shift of finite type is as common as (two-sided) shift of finite type.--Usagiop (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to rename the page but I do not know how to.--Usagiop (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, leave it as it is. Do it the same way we do identities and inverses and so on. --prime mover (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I need to refactor the introduction of topology.--Usagiop (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Topology is an essential part of the definition of the concept.--Usagiop (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And what input do you require for this? --prime mover (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Now the definition looks fine for me.--Usagiop (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Always a good idea, before posting up a coherent series of pages onto, to make sure you understand where the exposition is going. There are often unspoken contexts in published materials, particularly that which is advanced, which require this context to be defined meticulously on itself before any meaningful sense can be made of any new stuff being posted up. --prime mover (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes--Usagiop (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)