Revision as of 11:17, 10 December 2014 edit Spinningspark (talk \| contribs) 89,216 edits →Review: ticking those done. Although even I can follow the proof in the uncited para, not convinced it doesn't need a ref ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:55, 19 December 2014 edit undo Michael Hardy (talk \| contribs) Administrators 210,577 edits →GA Review Next edit →
Line 53: [[User:Spinningspark\|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark\|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC) :: Hello. Thank you for working on this. I've done a few edits today and I'll be back. [[User:Michael Hardy\|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy\|talk]]) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC) The review says: : "There seems to be an implication here that one can prove that there is a number other than xn in the interior, or am I missing something?". That is correct: there must be such a number since there are infinitely many numbers in the interval. But it is not clear what you're suggesting should be done about it, as far as editing the article is concenrred. [[User:Michael Hardy\|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy\|talk]]) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's first set theory article/GA1: Difference between revisions