Talk:Boolean algebra (structure)/Archive 1

message: It states: An ideal I of A is called maximal if I ≠ A and if the only ideal containing I is A itself.
But doesn't A always contain A implying there are no maximal ideals?
I'm new to this Wikipedia thing; should I just edit this?
-- anon
If you know how to fix it, then yes, just edit it.
In this case, somebody else has already done that.
But next time, be bold.
-- Toby Bartels 13:27, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: This page uses wiki TeX tags instead of html character entities to show OR and AND. Otherwise those characters are not rendered by my browser (IE6.)--Voodoo 15:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: TeX or Unicode?

message: Recent change of sign at Boolean rings, ideals and filters: makes no difference, since a Boolean ring certainly has x = -x. Charles Matthews 07:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change of sign makes no difference 

message: Plugwash has also gone ahead and and created two element boolean algebra. Paul August ☎ 17:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Of course "boolean" should be capitalized. And I think it perhaps should be "two-element". That is if this article should exist at all. Paul August ☎ 17:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
::btw the recent edits seem to have made a great improvement to the followability of this article if it continues to improve then we may even be able to get rid of the two element boolean algebra article since it doesn't seem that there is anything really specific to the two element variety after all. Plugwash 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per suggestion of User:Kaleissin, I strenuously recommend that the article Boolean logic (computer science) or maybe even Boolean algebra (computation) be created, with a big disambiguation marker placed on top of this current article, pointing to the new article.  This will allow the computer/electronics types to take the article and run with it, while leaving the mathematicians unperturbed. In particular, two element boolean algebra could be renamed to one or the other of these. Plugwash, I encourage you to do this renaming yourself ... linas 04:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Two-element article 

message: I'm not very good at writing in a wikipedia style, so does anyone want to add tautologies to this for me? If it's not here in a few days then I'll stick it in, I suppose --Spankthecrumpet 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What tautologies are you talking about? Paul August ☎ 01:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to add tautologies (redundant statements).  I would think you might want to REMOVE them, if present. Or do you mean the definition of tautology: "true by virtue of its logical form alone" ? StuRat 10:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He probably means "tautologies of the propositional calculus" -- things like ((p→q)&(¬q))→¬p. Those don't have much to do with Boolean algebras in the sense of this article (except that Boolean algebras are models of such tautologies). It would be a better fit at Boolean logic. But Spankthecrumpet ought to first check whether they're already there. --Trovatore 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should I do this?

message: I want to make some progress on wording a way in to this article. So, someone, please give me an orthodox account of conditional statements (which are quite general enough as examples of things on which to do Boolean algebra). Charles Matthews 21:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are asking here.  I guess it must be worded too "rigorously" for me to understand.  Are you trying to say you want some common if-then statements from real life ?  For example, "if it rains, then the street will get wet".  StuRat 22:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We are willing to meet you half way.  That consists of letting you have total control over the body of the article while we insist that the intro be readable by a general audience.  Actually, that's far more than half way, by volume. StuRat 10:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional statements

message: I feel the introduction currently residing in the article is a very good compromise. Well done everyone who worked upon it and I thank you for taking my points on board. Perhaps we could try and do the same with some other complex mathematical topics. --Celestianpower háblame 08:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. StuRat 10:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction as it stands