Content deleted Content added
→I suggest scrapping the article.: closing thread |
|||
Line 151:
== I suggest scrapping the article. ==
{{discussion top}}
The four properties say nothing about countability. One could reword the entire theorem to state:
Line 278 ⟶ 280:
:::4. In set theory, if a proper subset contains a certain property, then it implies the superset must also posses that property by '''inclusion''' of the subset. So if the rational numbers are countable, this would imply the real numbers must therefore also be countable.
::Or is it that you simply can't bear to admit Cantor's theorem and his theories in general are cranky?
::Hardy, I really don't want you becoming upset over this. Just take a deep breath and stay calm. Try to be your normal, cool-headed, objective self.
::[[Special:Contributions/91.105.179.213|91.105.179.213]] ([[User talk:91.105.179.213|talk]]) 09:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
According to [[WP:TALK]]: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." We usually allow a little freedom to discuss things if it appears that it might lead to article editing, but in this case I think the discussion has become tangential and unlikely to lead to improvements to the article. Therefore, I would suggest ending it here.
'''Concrete''' suggestions about how to modify the article are welcome; please use a new section for them. My recommendation for 91.105.179.213 is to consult a good introductory book on set theory. Any such book will have a clear explanation of countability. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 12:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}
| |||