User talk:Jason22~enwiki

Welcome

Hello, Jason, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution to Löwenheim–Skolem theorem. However, I have to admit that after your edit, I found the first sentence rather hard to read because of the parenthetical remarks and subclauses, so I tried to rewrite it. I'd appreciate if you could take another look to make sure I didn't change the meaning (I don't know model theory at all).

Anyway, I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page at User talk:Jitse Niesen, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

A good place for specific information for mathematics is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Have a look at the list of participants to see some other mathematicians contributing to Wikipedia.

I hope to see you around, and most importantly, that you will enjoy yourself. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some standard Wikipedia conventions

Hello. Your edits to nice name prompt some comments.

You began by writing:

A nice name is a set theoretical concept used in forcing to impose an upper bound on the number of subsets in the generic model.

This fails to tell the non-mathematician reader that mathematics, rather than chemistry, theology, archeology, grammar, etc., is what this is about. I changed it so that it says "In mathematics, a nice name is...." etc.

You shouldn't capitalize an initial letter just because it's in a section heading. Thus

Formal definition

is correct, whereas

Formal Definition is not.

On Wikipedia, TeX often looks good when "displayed", thus:

A+e^{\int _{0}^{1}3\,dx}

but often looks bad when inline, thus:

A+e^{\int _{0}^{1}3\,dx}

. On my browser, this gets misaligned. Obviously, the A and the e should be at the same level as the preceeding and following text outside the "math" environment, but that's not what happens. (For similar (and maybe other) reasons, one puts final periods and commas INSIDE of "displayed" TeX). Also, at least on the browser I'm using, the characters in TeX are much bigger than the letters outside of TeX, and this can have a comical effect. (In non-TeX math notation, one italicizes variables (but not digits and not parentheses or the like) and puts spacing before and after "=", "+", etc., thus:

2 + 3 = 98,

not

2+3=98.

Michael Hardy 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jason22. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jason22~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

00:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

14:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tail sequence

The article Tail sequence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned dictionary definition without attestation. It's plausible as a nonce term but I don't believe it exists as a term of art in set theory with this specific a definition (for example, it would be equally plausible to use it to mean the complement of an initial segment of any wellordered sequence, not just an ordinal). If it can be attested, then I could live with a merge to glossary of set theory, though I'm still not convinced it's particularly useful.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]