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

Revision as of 16:35, 6 March 2016

Revision as of 22:46, 2 April 2016

Line 355:

: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 the present title nor "Grothendieck's Tôhoku paper" 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)

== Constructive? ==

The lede text on constructiveness seems a bit confused. There's not clear evidence for a controversy; the only "against" is "Stewart, 2015" but that's not enough to identify who Stewart is. Or who Sheppard 2014 might be. Fraenkel is a heavyweight though so you'd need a good reason to disagree with him [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)