| Revision as of 20:32, 27 August 2007 editSopoforic (talk | contribs)5,114 edits →[]: reply to comment from Trovatore← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:52, 28 August 2007 edit undoCRGreathouse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators12,954 edits do not redirectNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::::Oh, I agree that content is irrelevant when deciding where to redirect to. I was just explaining where the idea of 'perhaps we should redirect to ]' came from, since it isn't obvious from the current version of the article. --] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ::::Oh, I agree that content is irrelevant when deciding where to redirect to. I was just explaining where the idea of 'perhaps we should redirect to ]' came from, since it isn't obvious from the current version of the article. --] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete.''' There actually is a peculiar way of using this phrase within mathematical jargon, as sometimes first seen when you're in 12th grade learning epsilon-delta definitions, but it's not worth an article. ] 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | * '''Delete.''' There actually is a peculiar way of using this phrase within mathematical jargon, as sometimes first seen when you're in 12th grade learning epsilon-delta definitions, but it's not worth an article. ] 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * Delete, I suppose, but '''do not redirect''' to set-builder notation. ]<small> (] | ])</small> 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:52, 28 August 2007
Such that
Articles about stylized constructions in mathematical discourse are in general hard to source and of marginal encyclopedic interest; in this case there's arguably no specialized meaning anyway, as the construction can be interpreted correctly in ordinary English. Trovatore 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No specialised meaning, obvious from context, WP:NOT a dictionary. --Taejo|대조 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Leibniz 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to set-builder notation or delete per discussion on WT:WPM. —David Eppstein 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and do not redirect No room for expansion beyond a simple English dictionary definition. Any other content that's there now is already in set-builder notation. I don't like the redirect idea because the phrase is also used outside of the context of set builder notation, both in math and in common English usage. nadav (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. We are not a dictionary, and I don't think there is much to say about "such that" beyond its meaning. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Trovatore and Jitse. A redirect to set-builder notation would have the disadvantage that 'such that' is not explained or defined in that article. EdJohnston 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. --Mark H Wilkinson 06:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. "Such that" is about as encyclopedic as "it is." --Cheeser1 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see the connection to set-building. The meaning of "such that" seems closer to Hilbert's choice operator in the Epsilon calculus. See as a source for the "such that" connection. Leibniz 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The connection is to so-called "set-builder" notation, in that a set is defined as "the elements x such that x blah blah blah." But "such that" in this context isn't particularly technical or unique - it's just using two English words to mean what they mean. --Cheeser1 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- And in this particular case, the previous version that we were commenting on at WT:WPM was totally about the little symbol in set-builder notation which is pronounced 'such that'. --Sopoforic 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- True, but when considering changing an article into a redirect, the current/former content of the article is irrelevant. The only consideration is whether it makes sense to redirect the title in question to the article being proposed. Redirecting such that to set-builder notation is not completely terrible, but on balance I prefer for it to be a redlink, as there's not much sense in linking it (and it's a fairly implausible search term). --Trovatore 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree that content is irrelevant when deciding where to redirect to. I was just explaining where the idea of 'perhaps we should redirect to set-builder notation' came from, since it isn't obvious from the current version of the article. --Sopoforic 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- True, but when considering changing an article into a redirect, the current/former content of the article is irrelevant. The only consideration is whether it makes sense to redirect the title in question to the article being proposed. Redirecting such that to set-builder notation is not completely terrible, but on balance I prefer for it to be a redlink, as there's not much sense in linking it (and it's a fairly implausible search term). --Trovatore 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There actually is a peculiar way of using this phrase within mathematical jargon, as sometimes first seen when you're in 12th grade learning epsilon-delta definitions, but it's not worth an article. Michael Hardy 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I suppose, but do not redirect to set-builder notation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)