# Talk:Equivalence of Definitions of Adherent Point

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

They may mean the same thing, but this and Condition for Point being in Closure say things that are completely different. Merging should be done only when the equivalence of what they are saying is established - and even then I see no particular merit in a merge. --prime mover (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

- How do they say things that are completely different? An open set $U$ of $T$ containing $x$ is exactly an open neighborhood of $x$, and that $U$ contains a point of $H$ is exactly saying that $U \cap H$ is non-empty. Unless I'm missing something, these two results consist of
*exactly the same*claim. That's why I proposed the merge. Thoughts? --abcxyz (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

- Sorry, I just can't be bothered to think about it. --prime mover (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

## eqn template

What's inadequate about the `{{eqn}}` template? --abcxyz (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

- I'd say the axiom template is more suited to what you are trying to achieve (using q for $\iff$, t and rc columns for text). Currently, there is an undesirably large gap between the $\iff$ and the text. --Lord_Farin (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

- The lines get split over two, and it looks clumsy. I recommend the use of the formatted equation templates for symbolic content only, and use the standard verbal technique for textual arguments. --prime mover (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)