User talk:Inconsistency

Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact one of the administrators, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:

• Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
• Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
• Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
• Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers! — Lord_Farin (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

CBS Theorem

I see you took the "liberty" to delete the existing Cantor-Bernstein-Schröder Theorem/Proof 4 and replace it with a new version. This is not appropriate. See the FAQ. — Lord_Farin (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to answer you. My proof of CBS is essentially the same. (If you read both versions you will notice the similarities.) -- Inconsistency

In that case, I'm a bit lost as to why you would delete the existing proof in favour of yours. You see, the "Claim-Proof" format is something alien to $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ (at least until now). We have been thinking in the past about ways to condense the easier steps and make only the broad overview visible on first glance, but we couldn't decide on a satisfactory solution. Hence our style is basically as advertised in the unmodified version of the proof.

Should you have qualms or suggestions about particular parts of the proof, then please feel free to discuss these on the respective talk page before making changes.

Lastly, on talk pages, please sign your post. — Lord_Farin (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I accept that it would have been better practice to propose changes this drastic on the discussion page first.

I'm new to editing wiki's and will read an introduction.

Nevertheless my changes were motivated neither by the concept nor the form of the proof but its rigour. --Inconsistency (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem in being new; I hope I didn't put you off too much :). To get an idea, you can consult Help:Editing, Help:FAQ, and Help:House Style, in addition to just clicking "Random Proof" and seeing how things work. In case of any questions, you can use Help:Questions or directly leave a note on my or someone else's talk page.

Upon closer inspection, I see your point; this proof is ripe for improvement. Please feel free to put specific suggestions on the talk page. If we are to rework the proof entirely this has to be done by close inspection of the referenced sources, so as to not compromise them in the process. — Lord_Farin (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No you didn't. Thank's for your advice. I will read it.

Ok. --Inconsistency (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Existing pages

I've got a separate question: Regarding Set Difference is Intersection with Complement - I searched for it but must have overlooked it.

However I was pretty sure that this proof already existed. Is there a place I can ask for such things?

Or should I always ask before I create a page. I always feel funny if I'm just creating one. --Inconsistency (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Rule of thumb is that simple stuff like that probably already exists. The reason for the name of this one being unconventional ("as" instead of "is") is that this result is used by some sources as a definition for set difference: "Set Difference (defined) as Intersection with (Relative) Complement", further confused by the fact that more rigorous treatments of set theory based on ZF(C) do not recognise the universe and so all their complements are relative, whether they call them so or not.

But if you want to check, do a "what links here" from one (or both / all) of the entities about which the result is stated. If we've done a good enough job, any page we have written will have been created with links to the entities they are about. (There are exceptions -- such pages are generally marked with the big old ugly "MissingLinks" template.) There is currently an exercise to go through all these incomplete and non-conformant pages and bring them up to house style. (There are -- ouch -- a couple of thousand.)

No big deal, if you do create a page that already exists, someone will notice it and it will be flagged for merge or deletion. It happens occasionally, one says "d'oh!" and moves on.

I'm going to move this discussion into your own talk space, and may move it into FAQ as it has cropped up before. --prime mover (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)