Talk:Small set

message: From page. Charles Matthews 09:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was I who wrote that, and I've since checked Goldberg, and can't find the theorem. So I don't remember where I saw it. I'll try and find out the statement of the theorem. —msh210 17:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is in Goldberg, and this article now includes the theorem (due to Muntz-Szasz). —msh210 19:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Equivalent to being small

message: Unless someone can find a common abstraction unifying the three parts (say, are they all about ideals of sets? Probably not, but that would be the kind of thing to look for) then I think this article should be broken up into its constituent parts, and there should be a disambiguation page under this title. --Trovatore 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —msh210 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, good job with splitting. I also wondered about it a while ago.Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This page looks like it should be three separate articles

message: I've deleted the merge template. This is no longer an article, but a disambiguation, and we can't merge a disambig with an article. I've added the article in question to the list of items on the page though, since it seems relevant. --Cheeser1 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to?

message: This request is to ask whether or not we may put "small set" and "large set" together in one disambiguation page - they are almost always opposites, and in rarer cases, only one of the two terms is used (never both with non-opposite meanings). The article is titled "small set" but the subject of the article is (was) both large and small sets. One of the definitions was only for large sets ("small set" not used in that context), and the question becomes whether to duplicate most of this content at large set or to allow a link to Large set (Ramsey theory) in this article, where the title is "small set" and the subject is (was) both large and small sets. See discussion above. --Cheeser1 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does the less redundant method of keeping both topics together. And that minor amount of exposition is certainly alot more sensible than a mysterious and confusing link to small set at the bottom of large set (and vice versa), when typically, the two subjects are indistinguishable. There's no reason to create an extra article, with cyclic links, unnecessary redundancy - so why create one? Because it's apparently "[your] solution" that "fix[es]" the article, and you happen to like it. Of course, now we'll have to maintain the two articles separately - if there is a new "small set," we'll have to add it to both lists, and synchronize these lists independently, and make every change to them twice. Now, if you wanted to cut all exposition from the article, you should have done that, instead of reverting only my edits on the incorrect pretense that "small set" was the appropriate link. I established that this was wrong, and then argued against your "don't fix redirects" on the basis of content > style guidelines, and now you're citing "no exposition in disambigs," despite the very minor amount of exposition in this one. Now I'm not an expert on requests for comment, but I suggest you let others make comments, instead of drawing our disagreement into this section of the talk page, which I presume is not the point of a request for comment (since they are, as far as I know, intended to get comments from uninvolved third parties). --Cheeser1 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment