186
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + +
Talk:Axiom of Choice (view source)
Revision as of 23:57, November 27, 2008
, 23:57, November 27, 2008→My edits: That doesn't change that you inserted apparently wrong info or that you blocked two people for pointing it out.
:So the other direction of the claim is apparently wrong, and AndyJM was right to remove it. He was blocked for "removing information from articles" by the same user who also re-inserted the apparently wrong claim. This is exactly why I oppose this "Block first" approach: How can we improve this encyclopedia when we can get blocked and banned by whoever ''thinks'' we're wrong? I suggest an unblock. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:So the other direction of the claim is apparently wrong, and AndyJM was right to remove it. He was blocked for "removing information from articles" by the same user who also re-inserted the apparently wrong claim. This is exactly why I oppose this "Block first" approach: How can we improve this encyclopedia when we can get blocked and banned by whoever ''thinks'' we're wrong? I suggest an unblock. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Alan, the Axiom of Choice yields many strange behaviors in mathematics. That's why it is still questioned and debated. If the statement is not equivalent to AC (which I will have to look deeper into to believe), then the correct behavior is not to remove the statement altogether but to change it to an implication. Edits that whitewash the Axiom of Choice's questionable role in mathematics are the sort of behavior you see at Wikipedia, not here (see [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]] for a guide to our positions). I am reinstating the fact, but will tentatively change it to just a consequence of AC instead of an equivalence. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Alan, the Axiom of Choice yields many strange behaviors in mathematics. That's why it is still questioned and debated. If the statement is not equivalent to AC (which I will have to look deeper into to believe), then the correct behavior is not to remove the statement altogether but to change it to an implication. Edits that whitewash the Axiom of Choice's questionable role in mathematics are the sort of behavior you see at Wikipedia, not here (see [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]] for a guide to our positions). I am reinstating the fact, but will tentatively change it to just a consequence of AC instead of an equivalence. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:50, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::I have no problems with stating that it's a consequence of AC, but that doesn't change (1) that you first re-inserted the apparently wrong information, (2) that you claimed on your talk page that "[i]t is well known that you need AC to create a non-Lebesgue measurable set of real numbers" and (3) that you blocked two users over this
''content dispute'', one of them for ''five years''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:57, 27 November 2008 (EST)