Difference between revisions of "Talk:Indescribable"

From Cantor's Attic
Jump to: navigation, search
(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...")
 
(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)