Talk:Aleph-0: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Something missing?: new section) |
imported>Jitse Niesen (→Something missing?: agree, and explain my edit) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
There is a lot more to say about alephs, but I think that this belongs to [[cardinal number]] | There is a lot more to say about alephs, but I think that this belongs to [[cardinal number]] | ||
where it can be treated in context. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | where it can be treated in context. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I agree. I did some copy-editing, mainly because I found the first sentence too complicated. I also tried to highlight the link to "countable set". Feel free to undo if you wish; I don't know much set theory. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:35, 18 June 2009
Rewritten
Completely rewrite:
- Avoid duplication of countable set (for basic explanation)
- Technical material should go into cardinal number for context
- Removed a general paragraph which does not fit here:
- "Greek mathematicians first grappled with logical questions about infinity (See Zeno and Archimedes) and Isaac Newton used inadequately defined 'infinitesimals' to develop the calculus; however over centuries the word infinity had become so loaded and poorly understood that Cantor himself preferred the term transfinite to refer to his family of infinities."
Peter Schmitt 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Something missing?
There is a lot more to say about alephs, but I think that this belongs to cardinal number where it can be treated in context. Peter Schmitt 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I did some copy-editing, mainly because I found the first sentence too complicated. I also tried to highlight the link to "countable set". Feel free to undo if you wish; I don't know much set theory. -- Jitse Niesen 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)