Content deleted Content added
→GA Review: re the proof |
|||
Line 58:
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)
::That is what needs saying, since there are infinitely many numbers in any given finite interval there must be a number other than xn. The implication is there, but the article fails to explicitly say this is why it is proved. I don't think that step is going to be obvious to all readers. It is not even obvious that one is still left with a finite interval. (I am not disputing anything here of course, just looking at it from the perspective of someone completely unfamiliar with the material). [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::: The fact that there are infinitely many points in every open interval is known to students in secondary-school math courses, so it seems a bit like explaining what a '''question''' is in an article that quotes Hamlet saying "That is the question." However, I suppose there's not much harm in adding that. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have rephrased the subheadings so that they are no longer questions and tinkered with the corresponding phrasing in the lead. I am afraid this is not really getting to the heart of the matter. I think some structural changes to the article need to be made to take the emphasis off this alleged dispute/disagreement. The disagreement does not seem to amount to a whole pile of beans. If it does, some sources saying so are needed. Even more, fundamentally from a GA perspective (criterion 3b), the discussion of this dispute is part of a tendency for the article to go off at a tangent to discuss Cantor's other proof(s). The non-constructive proof is the diagonal argument, no? which is not the subject of this article. I have already commented on how easily the reader can become confused over which proof is being discussed. The diagonal argument should be discussed only inasmuch as it is needed to describe ''this'' method, or in passing to say Cantor went on to use other methods. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
| |||