Talk:Equaliser (mathematics)

message: What is a solution set of the equation 3x^2-20x=7
:{−1/3, 7}. Why? -- Fropuff 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: solution

message: ... And without offense to authors, the articleCoequalizer 
is appealing.  It begins in the context of Category Th. 
whereas Equaliser (mathematics) starts in Set Th.
Does anyone object to a new article Equalizer (mathematics) 
strictly dual to Coequalizer?  When these two articles are 
"up to snuff" Equaliser can be deleted.  
Thanks, PeterEasthope 14:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. I think for people without background in category theory or who are just learning category theory, explanations starting with the set theoretic notions are much easier to comprehend. Hence, I am in favour of starting with set-theoretic kernels, quotients and such and only later on reveal the categorical background including duality. This also means that the two articles should not be merged into one. Cf. also the paedagogical style of Adamek, Herrlich, Strecker: "Abstract and concrete categories", which is much more readable than the style of MacLane: "Categories for the working mathematician", who that first introduces the most general notions and then specializes them. By the way, AHS have separate sections for equalizers and coequalizers, see p. 114ff. --Tillmo 09:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: coequalizer

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose. As far as I can tell the proposed move violates the WP:ENGVAR section on Retaining the existing variety. – Axman (☏) 06:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I note that inconsistency between articles is not necessarily grounds for a move; see eg Orange (Colour) and Color. Perhaps the guidelines could be clarified on these points. Sam Staton (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Can equalizers be given "Equational definition" (like one in Product_(category_theory))? --VictorPorton (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Equational definition

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Equaliser (mathematics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223001815/http://www.j-paine.org/ to http://www.j-paine.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We have an article about coequalizers, which are dual to equalizers in category theory. But there is currently a spelling variant inconsistency. Should we therefore harmonize the spelling for Equaliser (mathematics) and Coequalizer? If so, then we need to decide whether we should use the British "ise" spelling for both, or the American "ize" spelling for both. On the one hand, if "ise" should be used for both articles, then "Equaliser (mathematics)" should stay at its current spelling and "Coequalizer" should be moved to "Coequaliser". On the other hand, if "ize" should be used for both articles, then "Equaliser (mathematics)" should be moved to "Equalizer (mathematics)" and "Coequalizer" should stay at its current spelling. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Harmonize spelling with the Coequalizer article?