Talk:Fixed-point lemma for normal functions

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Limit Ordinal Definition

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Again, by WP:BRD, I'm reverting User:JRSpriggs who seems intent on reverting any of my edits on the topic of limit ordinals. Please discuss the issue here and achieve consensus according to policy prior to reverting my edits again.

My position, as stated on the talk page for Normal function, is that there exist several current texts defining 0 as a limit ordinal. This being the case, a small change in wording which provides a correct definition for either case is, I believe, preferable. TricksterWolf (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BRD, the status of the article before you started editing it should be used until consensus is obtained; i.e., zero is not a limit ordinal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Proof that normal functions commute with suprema

It seems like this should be proven, since the Fixed-point lemma is then just a corollary of that fact.