Difference between revisions of "Talk:Indescribable"
From Cantor's Attic
(Created page with "==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...") |
BartekChom (Talk | contribs) (→Strong indescribability: Can "strong" stay?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Strong indescribability== | ==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 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) | ||
Revision as of 12:20, 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)
