Difference between revisions of "Talk:Indescribable"
From Cantor's Attic
BartekChom (Talk | contribs) (→Strong indescribability: Can "strong" stay?) |
(→Strong indescribability) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Thanks for the edit BartekChom! I believe strongly-Q-indescribable is now nonstandard terminology, due to the age of Richter and Aczel's paper some notational choices (including using ω<sub>1</sub> to denote the Church-Kleene ordinal) are not commonly used anymore. [[User:C7X|C7X]] ([[User talk:C7X|talk]]) 12:09, 14 May 2022 (PDT) | Thanks for the edit BartekChom! I believe strongly-Q-indescribable is now nonstandard terminology, due to the age of Richter and Aczel's paper some notational choices (including using ω<sub>1</sub> to denote the Church-Kleene ordinal) are not commonly used anymore. [[User:C7X|C7X]] ([[User talk:C7X|talk]]) 12:09, 14 May 2022 (PDT) | ||
: Thank you. Can "strong" stay where it is in the source, or should I remove it? [[User:BartekChom|BartekChom]] ([[User talk:BartekChom|talk]]) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (PDT) | : Thank you. Can "strong" stay where it is in the source, or should I remove it? [[User:BartekChom|BartekChom]] ([[User talk:BartekChom|talk]]) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (PDT) | ||
+ | :: Since it is verbatim in the source, I don't know whether to remove it, I should ask Julian [[User:C7X|C7X]] ([[User talk:C7X|talk]]) 12:25, 14 May 2022 (PDT) |
Latest revision as of 12:25, 14 May 2022
Strong indescribability
Thanks for the edit BartekChom! I believe strongly-Q-indescribable is now nonstandard terminology, due to the age of Richter and Aczel's paper some notational choices (including using ω1 to denote the Church-Kleene ordinal) are not commonly used anymore. C7X (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2022 (PDT)
- Thank you. Can "strong" stay where it is in the source, or should I remove it? BartekChom (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (PDT)