Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 17th 2017
   • (edited Apr 17th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI was un-graying some links at _[[epsilontic analysis]]_. Among the titles of non-existing entries that are still being requested is * "classical analysis" * "topological property". Is it likely/desireable that we will have entries with these titles? Maybe we should change these links to point to "[[analysis]]" and to "[[topology]]" instead?

   I was un-graying some links at epsilontic analysis. Among the titles of non-existing entries that are still being requested is

   • “classical analysis”

   • “topological property”.

   Is it likely/desireable that we will have entries with these titles? Maybe we should change these links to point to “analysis” and to “topology” instead?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeApr 17th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSounds reasonable. Also it says there: >Ironically, classical? epsilontic analysis is not rigorous enough for constructive mathematics, Is it rigour that constructivists complain about, or is it more a challenge to the meanings of concepts and constructions adopted by classical mathematics?

   Sounds reasonable.

   Also it says there:

   Ironically, classical? epsilontic analysis is not rigorous enough for constructive mathematics,

   Is it rigour that constructivists complain about, or is it more a challenge to the meanings of concepts and constructions adopted by classical mathematics?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 17th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexIt seems to me desirable to create an entry on "___ property", whether topological or uniform or something broader in scope, with precise formalized content if possible.

   It seems to me desirable to create an entry on “___ property”, whether topological or uniform or something broader in scope, with precise formalized content if possible.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 17th 2017
   • (edited Apr 17th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI see that Wikipedia has both "topological property" and "uniform property" as stand-alone entries. Just to ungray the links, I'll create $n$Lab stubs with a pointer to those.

   I see that Wikipedia has both “topological property” and “uniform property” as stand-alone entries. Just to ungray the links, I’ll create $n$Lab stubs with a pointer to those.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeApr 17th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI\'ve wanted to create [[topological property]] and [[uniform property]] for a while but haven\'t had the time. There are other grey links that should redirect to them, such as [[topologically equivalent metric]]. These are classical terms in the theory of metric spaces (which the current text doesn\'t really get at) that are easily explained by reference to category theory, so we really should talk about them.

   I've wanted to create topological property and uniform property for a while but haven't had the time. There are other grey links that should redirect to them, such as topologically equivalent metric. These are classical terms in the theory of metric spaces (which the current text doesn't really get at) that are easily explained by reference to category theory, so we really should talk about them.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeApr 17th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex@David \#2: Well, that depends on the constructivist. Certainly this is an attitude that one can take, that assuming excluded middle exhibits sloppy thinking about the nature of the infinite, with some of the results being unsalvageably wrong, some being correct but requiring a different proof, and some (perhaps the most interesting) being fixable by a more precise statement, passage to an approximation, or a shift of context (such as to locales).

   @David #2: Well, that depends on the constructivist. Certainly this is an attitude that one can take, that assuming excluded middle exhibits sloppy thinking about the nature of the infinite, with some of the results being unsalvageably wrong, some being correct but requiring a different proof, and some (perhaps the most interesting) being fixable by a more precise statement, passage to an approximation, or a shift of context (such as to locales).