Talk:Non-Closed Set of Real Numbers is not Compact
The statement of the result is how it appears in the cited work. The various types of interval were introduced. The concept of compactness was introduced. It may look silly to you because you were not following the flow of the exposition in the source work.
And what is wrong with writing Set of Real Numbers that it has to be changed to Subset of Real Numbers? --prime mover (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing really wrong with it; I just thought that it would be more consistent with Compact Subspace of Real Numbers is Closed and Bounded and the like. --abcxyz (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- ... but inconsistent with the terms "closed set" and "open set" which are usually called that and not "closed subset" and "open subset". --prime mover (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or maybe it should be "subspace" (to be really accurate, as in Compact Subspace of Hausdorff Space is Closed)?
- Why is the flow of exposition in the source work relevant to ProofWiki?
- By the way, what makes the title "Non-Closed..." preferable to "Compact..."? --abcxyz (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because that's the thrust of how it appears in the cited work. --prime mover (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It stems from a conversation I had with a guy whose dissertation for his Masters concerned how mathematics wikis enhance the learning process. One of the threads of the conv was in how wikis differ from the linear flow that is a book, and whether or not the former was better than the latter. To that end I have been involved in the exercise to link up the various linear threads as determined by the various source books I have managed to lay my hands on into a means whereby you can effectively use ProofWiki to "read" the source works in order. --prime mover (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)