Talk:Union of Bijections with Disjoint Domains and Codomains is Bijection/Corollary

Name

Yes, I know this lemma isn't nearly important enough to name after The Hobbit. What should it go by? Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder Theorem/Lemma 2? --Dfeuer (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything but TABA. Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder Theorem/Lemma 2 is appropriate.

Lack of importance is not the reason why not to name stuff after your current favourite children's book. Might as well call a theorem "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" or "James and the Giant Peach". Makes adults cringe with embarrassment. --prime mover (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "There and Back Again" is somewhat tied to the sense of the theorem. It was not a random choice. --Dfeuer (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. --prime mover (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I think "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" would be an excellent name for a theorem or definition (something about series that collapse in some way, I figure), but I see very little mathematical potential for "James and the Giant Peach". Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single Dahl book that would be a good theorem name. --Dfeuer (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Renamed as appropriate. --prime mover (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)