Talk:Fixed-point lemma for normal functions
Latest comment: 7 years ago by TheKing44 in topic Proof that normal functions commute with suprema
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Limit Ordinal Definition
editAgain, by WP:BRD, I'm reverting User:JRSpriggs who seems intent on reverting any of my edits on the topic of limit ordinals. Please discuss the issue here and achieve consensus according to policy prior to reverting my edits again.
My position, as stated on the talk page for Normal function, is that there exist several current texts defining 0 as a limit ordinal. This being the case, a small change in wording which provides a correct definition for either case is, I believe, preferable. TricksterWolf (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:BRD, the status of the article before you started editing it should be used until consensus is obtained; i.e., zero is not a limit ordinal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Proof that normal functions commute with suprema
editIt seems like this should be proven, since the Fixed-point lemma is then just a corollary of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKing44 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)