Talk:Existence of Non-Measurable Subset of Real Numbers

Do we want the boxes around the lemmas, or should we set them off some other way? --Cynic (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. I haven't even been consistent myself; I wrote both Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups and the still incomplete Classification of Compact One-Manifolds, the latter of which uses the convention on Existence of Non-Measurable Subset of Real Numbers and the former of which uses bold type. It's something that needs settling.

In fact, I'm not even sure we should be putting lemmas on pages at all - maybe they should have independent pages of their own. Since this is an issue that applies to all articles that need lemmas and not just this, I'm moving this discussion to the main page. Zelmerszoetrop 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If we possibly can, I believe all lemmas ought to be on their own pages. Nice work btw, I'm learning all sorts of things. --prime mover (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

POTW

No to POTW until all the questions have been sorted out, if that's okay. --prime mover (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

I was just flagging it to be potw some time in the indefinite future. Is labeling questioned proofs like this discouraged? --GFauxPas (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

Well, yes. There's plenty of complete proofs to offer up. --prime mover (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

Fair enough. --GFauxPas (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2018 (EDT)