Talk:Subset Product of Subgroups

A neat way of doing multiple proofs like this

So we have a theorem consisting of a Necessary and a Sufficient. There may be multiple ways of proving the Necessary, and multiple ways of proving the Sufficient. If there is a different number of ways to prove either, then piecing separate proofs together by arbitrarily pairing off a Necessary with a Sufficient is going to mean there is a repetition of one, like what has happened here.

My suggestion is to separate the proof into two parts: the Necessary (with $m$ proofs, each on separate pages) and the Sufficient (with $n$ proofs, each on separate pages). It makes more work because you then have to do more transclusions, by (in this particular example) Subset Product of Subgroups/Necessary Condition through to Subset Product of Subgroups/Sufficient Condition/Proof 2 and so on.

I did this the other week for another complicated proof where there were multiple necessaries and a different number of sufficients, and it was a large work package.

But IMO it's worth it for the ultimate clarity at the end. What you think? --prime mover 17:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately this is the desired form of course. But at this point there are a lot of pages linking to Definition:Sufficient Condition and its counterpart. I feared that linking them somewhere else would lead to possible confusion and as such would suggest to finish of the former category before enthusiastically enforcing our new policies further. Bottom line: Agreed, but we should care about the possible ambiguities, and finish them off. Cursed laziness. --Lord_Farin 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well let me have a go anyway ... if we still find plenty of links to Definition:Sufficient Condition we kill them as we go. I have no problem with confusing the punters. --prime mover 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)