Talk:Nice name

Merger proposal

Is it not enough that I have changed the category for this article from "Set theory" to "Forcing"? What benefit is there to merging it entirely into Forcing (mathematics)? JRSpriggs 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only proposed it in response to the insufficient context comment. Jason22 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard tp find much to say so perhaps it should go into Forcing (mathematics). Ansatz (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

    See no reason not too. --174.110.141.178 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient context in introduction?

To my mind, the introduction is fine. Nobody will understand the article who doesn't have a graduate-level degree in mathematics -- I don't think it's possible to write an accessible introduction.

Dricherby 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It actually introduces the term in a loose way before getting into the technicalities. On one hand, one could certainly write a far better introduction, that puts this method into wider context, the big picture if you will. On the other hand, that's something that would only happen in a better written article and most articles on Wikipedia (including many non-technical ones) do not meet that high standard. For a stub, it's certainly ok, so I'm removing the tag.


s/khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.179.232 (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name isn't defined here, so perhaps someone could define that and then go on to that. Alternately, maybe we could move this to a 'name' article and redirect 'nice name' there so that there is sufficient information? Chimpionspeak (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.