# Definition talk:LAST

Do you really want to use opposite subscripts in both properties?

• $\left({w_m \in v_n}\right)$
• $\left({w_n \in w_m}\right)$

--Cynic (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair question, but apparently yes. --Prime.mover 08:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

## Merge request

NO to the merge because they are different. --prime mover (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A merge request is appropriate because the definitions are at least trying to define the same thing. That they take a slightly different approach (although only in the LAST version distinguishing "specific" and "arbitrary" sets). is not relevant, as it was not the intent to destroy either definition, but rather amalgamate them. — Lord_Farin (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Same thing as what we do with the definition of natural numbers? Transclude several approaches in parallel? --prime mover (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Something like that. I'm not sure if that approach is viable in the long run, given the host of different definitions. But it might be feasible if we just mention "predicate calculus with binary relation $\in$" (but that might just be moving the problem). Won't be here for quite some time, prop- and predlog await first -- and those projects will be long. — Lord_Farin (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
YES merge and replace LAST with a redirect. Transclusion will still work. Alec (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)