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

Revision as of 02:58, 20 February 2016

Revision as of 04:28, 20 February 2016

Line 351:

I do like the respectful tone of our discussion and it has challenged me to think about why I have the opinion I do. Perhaps the next discussion we're both involved in will have us in agreement. [[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 02:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

:The article [[Grothendieck's Tôhoku paper]] has the advantage that people do in fact refer to that paper as "Grothendieck's Tôhoku paper" both in conversation and in writing. I don't ever recall having a conversation with anyone in which Cantor's first set theory article was discussed (but maybe that's because I work in algebraic geometry and not set theory or logic) so I don't know how people refer to it.

:Neither of the article titles strike me as being appropriate. After all, the papers have names, and I continue to recoil at the idea of calling them something other than their names. Though I'm reminded of [[Haddocks' Eyes]]. [[User:Ozob|Ozob]] ([[User talk:Ozob|talk]]) 04:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)