| Revision as of 00:30, 7 July 2008 editCSTAR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,870 edits Archive← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:11, 31 August 2008 edit undoKatzmik (talk | contribs)3,355 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| ==Mathematical validity== | |||
| You reversed my edit at ] with the justification that the content of the section is contained in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. The sentence you are referring to mentions vaguely that there is no argument about the mathematical validity of non-standard analysis. I don't think this is sufficiently precise. Namely, even a system containing additional axioms could also be mathematically valid, so long as nobody has found an internal contradiction in such a system. The specific point that non-standard analysis is "conservative" in the sense that it does not go beyond ZFC deserves to be mentioned explicitly. If you disagree please raise the issue at WP math rather than using deletions. For the time being I will revert my edits. ] (]) 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:11, 31 August 2008
Mathematical validity
You reversed my edit at non-standard analysis with the justification that the content of the section is contained in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. The sentence you are referring to mentions vaguely that there is no argument about the mathematical validity of non-standard analysis. I don't think this is sufficiently precise. Namely, even a system containing additional axioms could also be mathematically valid, so long as nobody has found an internal contradiction in such a system. The specific point that non-standard analysis is "conservative" in the sense that it does not go beyond ZFC deserves to be mentioned explicitly. If you disagree please raise the issue at WP math rather than using deletions. For the time being I will revert my edits. Katzmik (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)