Definition talk:Extended Real Number Line

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Propose rename because the extended reals don't even form a group, so calling them "numbers" seems a stretch. --Dfeuer (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK this name is standard. I'm disinclined to change it - more so since I have grown used to it over the course of several years. --Lord_Farin (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm with L_F: I believe it's best to keep the standard names for things even though we think we can invent better ones. --prime mover (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Both names appear to be standard. --Dfeuer (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
How about a compromise: replace "extended real number space" with "extended real line"? --Dfeuer (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is it that you are so determined to change names? I grasp it if you have references (but even then an "AKA" section will suffice most of the time) but I don't get that impression generally. I'm genuinely curious; after all, renaming a concept usually mainly brings a lot of work. --Lord_Farin (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Since there are only two pages in the "Extended Real Number Space" category, that hardly seems like much work. In this case, I want to rename it because the name's too long and not as visually evocative as I'd like. --Dfeuer (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you on that one. May I conclude that your reasons for proposing other renames are equally ad hoc in essence? --Lord_Farin (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I am against renaming pages on principle, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The name is not too long and is as perfectly visually evocative as I'd like. I suspect that the desire to rename, restructure and rework every page possible is territorial. --prime mover (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

During the refactoring job I have compromised and called it the Extended Real Number Line. It occurred to me that "Extended Real Number" does not really state the case, as that suggests that the number itself is extended, when in fact what is really meant is the "extended set of real numbers", where $\R$ itself has been extended to include the two infinity points.

Hope this will be acceptable to all parties. --prime mover (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Lord_Farin (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)