If I wanted to post a discussion-based question on the defendability of allowing uncountable languages in FOL would that be better for metamath or math?
Just looked it up;had never heard of that field. Have come across the Knuth arrow before though. Ironically, I posted a response regarding the historical motivation for FOL to be real analysis, and that nobody really cared about it anymore. It's consistent with you considering it to be "out of your area".
Basically my question was is it safe to assume that it is possible to surjectively assign a unique symbol/graphic to each real number.
Thank you Martin. Yes I noticed that question earlier today, which ultimately brought me in here.Scrolling up I can see he's brought it up here as well. It's a legimitate issue.
Personally I go even for minor edits if the post is not too old. (In my opinion changing the sentence "Personally i go even for minor edits ." to "Personally I go even for minor edits." in a - hypothetical - post is still worth doing - stuff like minor languages slips or misplaced punctuation make post slightly more difficult to read.)
I had an edit suggestion rejected the other day...edit was simply taking the string x^3ln(x-3) and putting $$ around it. Not sure why someone felt it was better off in textmode
@SimplyBeautifulArt Or, as I prefer to call it, Please-Solve-Question.
@SimplyBeautifulArt amWhy linked the said user, and I'm just helping to highlight the obviously problematic ones, rather than everyone having to sieve through all the user's posts one by one
Anyway why you say "he" instead of "you"?
@amWhy @SimplyBeautifulArt @ZacharySelk: Open for deletion. Sounds like homework due soon.
@MartinSleziak @DavidReed: Yes feel free to come to the Logic chat-room to ask your kind of question!
@SimplyBeautifulArt Yikes!, Though given the user you were trying to explain the wrongness of their answer, I'm not surprised. Two downvotes, and certainly opended for deletion.