Conversation started Jun 15, 2012 at 21:39.
Jun 15, 2012 21:39
@Eugene I see nothing wrong -- except that transfinite induction belongs more in (elementary-set-theory) than in (logic). I retagged it.
@HenningMakholm oh thanks then. if there's nothing wrong with it then i'll just chalk it up to trolling!
thanks henning for looking through it
@Eugene I upvoted your question to compensate for the downvote
@BenjaminLim you needn't do that. i don't mind the rep loss. i just don't want it to be wrong. thanks anyway though.
Actually, if we are to have sophistication-graded tags for set-theory, then it's a bit crazy that transfinite induction belongs in elementary set theory (explicitly according to the tag excerpt). How is one supposed to tag actually elementary set stuff, I wonder?
@HenningMakholm i know. this has been puzzling to me. there is a tags chatroom. want to make a suggestion?
maybe induction should be a new tag.
Jun 15, 2012 21:43
@Eugene i don't see anything wrong with it as a question. i can't say i fully understand it, but if there's an error made in your question, it seems like it would be instructive for an answer to point this out, and i cannot see how down-voting is called for.
@DavidWheeler oh seriously the downvoting isn't an issue. recently i've been frequently downvoted without explanation. i'm sure there's a troll somewhere.
@Eugene i think transfinite-induction would deserve a separate tag, so as not to be confused with the ordinary kind.
@DavidWheeler i think that would be too specific
i would recommend suggesting that in the tags chatroom though.
the character of transfinite inductive proofs is often very different.
@Eugene But I don't think there is much relevant overlap between ordinary induction in $\mathbb N$ and the transfinite stuff. Formally one is a special case of the other, of course, but the questions one could ask about either are very different.
 
Conversation ended Jun 15, 2012 at 21:45.