Talk:Upper set
After the merger...
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 05:39, 19 April 2026 | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
:[https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R15I3GT9NZZQ98 This review] of Taylor's book is instructive. "A confusing hodgepodge of tangential ideas" [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 03:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
:[https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R15I3GT9NZZQ98 This review] of Taylor's book is instructive. "A confusing hodgepodge of tangential ideas" [[User:PatrickR2|PatrickR2]] ([[User talk:PatrickR2|talk]]) 03:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
:You’re echoing my initial reservation: this article may not be a good place to discuss the use of initial segments in set theory. It seems the question is where to redirect "initial segment". I can |
:You’re echoing my initial reservation: this article may not be a good place to discuss the use of initial segments in set theory. It seems the question is where to redirect "initial segment". I can see maybe redirecting it to well-order isn’t too weird since the term is most commonly used in the case of a well-ordered set. |
||
:As for Taylor vs other references, Amazon reviews are not reliable. Basically the book isn’t intelligible without some category theory backgrounds. His book is fairly frequently referred in nlab and related places. So, he is certainly well regarded. He definitely likes to refer to history or does philosophical discussion. This ''does not'' make the book unreliable. With sufficient due diligence, his book is citable (diligence since his book is somehow unusual, editors need to be careful when citing it; like checking actual proofs). [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 05:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
:As for Taylor vs other references, Amazon reviews are not reliable. Basically the book isn’t intelligible without some category theory backgrounds. His book is fairly frequently referred in nlab and related places. So, he is certainly well regarded. He definitely likes to refer to history or does philosophical discussion. This ''does not'' make the book unreliable. With sufficient due diligence, his book is citable (diligence since his book is somehow unusual, editors need to be careful when citing it; like checking actual proofs). [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] ([[User talk:TakuyaMurata|talk]]) 05:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
