Content deleted Content added
Misc cleanup: Removed confusing ref to Dauben in paragraph that printed at bottom of page |
No edit summary |
||
Line 33:
===The article===
*
*<s>"It begins with a discussion of the real algebraic numbers" — Would "definition" be better than "discussion"?</s>
*<s>"Cantor restates this theorem in terms more familiar to mathematicians of his time" — This seems to be a stronger claim than is verified by the paper itself (or its English translation).</s>
Line 96:
:If my structuring or explanation is not clear to you, please give me suggestions for modifying them. Thanks, — [[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 19:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
::Right, yes. I was confused as I can't access the source given, but that doesn't matter. The structure and explanation is fine, but the original bullet point still seems unnecessarily obfuscated. Some example improvements:
:::"The proof of Cantor's second theorem does not state why the limits a<sub>∞</sub> and b<sub>∞</sub> exist. The proof it was based on does."
:::"The proof of Cantor's second theorem was taken from Dedekind, but omitted the "principle of continuity" which proves that a<sub>∞</sub> and b<sub>∞</sub> exist."
:::"The proof of Cantor's second theorem is based on Dedekind's proof, but omits explanation of why a<sub>∞</sub> and b<sub>∞</sub> exist."
::The point is that the reader shouldn't have to look further down to make sense of the bullet point; the explanatory paragraph should just provide extra detail. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[Special:Contribs/Bilorv|(c)]][[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
| |||