Talk:Fixed-point lemma for normal functions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:22, 23 February 2010

Latest revision as of 20:32, 11 March 2024

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{mathsWikiProject ratingbanner shell|class=Start|priority=Low|field=foundations}}

{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority=Low}}

}}

== Limit Ordinal Definition ==

Again, by [[WP:BRD]], I'm reverting [[User:JRSpriggs]] who seems intent on reverting any of my edits on the topic of limit ordinals. Please discuss the issue here and achieve consensus according to policy prior to reverting my edits again.

My position, as stated on the talk page for [[Normal function]], is that there exist several current texts defining 0 as a limit ordinal. This being the case, a small change in wording which provides a correct definition for either case is, I believe, preferable. [[User:TricksterWolf|TricksterWolf]] ([[User talk:TricksterWolf|talk]]) 03:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:Per [[WP:BRD]], the status of the article before you started editing it should be used until consensus is obtained; i.e., zero is '''not''' a [[limit ordinal]]. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

== Proof that normal functions commute with suprema ==

It seems like this should be proven, since the Fixed-point lemma is then just a corollary of that fact. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheKing44|TheKing44]] ([[User talk:TheKing44#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheKing44|contribs]]) 00:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)</small>