Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Comments: Thanks for suggestions on 3rd bullet. |
||
Line 101:
:::"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)
:Your point is excellent. Thanks for your suggestions; I have used a rewording of one of them. I made sure it followed the 2-sentence format of the other bullets. —[[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
*Response to [[User:Bilorv]]’s comment about the Skolem paradox (I put Bilorv’s words in green):
:{{green|“In 1922, Thoralf Skolem proved that if the axioms of set theory are consistent" — Which axioms of set theory exactly? Is this referring to a specific collection of axioms (e.g. ZFC), or saying generally "given any set of consistent axioms ..."? (In the latter case, the definite article "the axioms of set theory" is misleading.)}}
| |||