Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
hyperlinking more words would involve creating entries such as “two” or “every”.
:-)
That’s the right attitude! And why not link every to universal quantification.
By the way, your comment above on why you create this entry in parallel to “additive category”: That kind of comment would be good to include in the Idea-section of the entry!
Added the comment.
I didn’t dare adding the link to universal quantification ahah.
We will not be able to be perfect: one must add a link for the word “and”. But how to define it the first time? This impossible task must be related to the way we learn the natural language and probably people weren’t thinking to this at the beginning of the century when they tried to formalize everything in math.
Sure, we don’t need to be doing that (and we are generally not even close to such fine-grained hyperlinking).
All I keep trying to urge everyone is to put double square brackets around technical terms. Don’t assume that the reader already knows what you, the author, know – and even if they do, given them a chance to remind themselves or look up details. It’s a tiny extra effort for every author, but brings out the whole point of a wiki so much better.
The sentence “This is typical of the attitude in theoretical computer science where one often doesn’t assume the presence of negative numbers.” reads as very dismissive considering that it is the classical definition of “additive category” which is at fault for the ambiguity (that name doesn’t mention subtraction, after all…)
I decided to remove that sentence. I also corrected a couple of typos.
1 to 7 of 7