The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Reason
Eozhik (
talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
I nominated this article for deletion for the following reasons.
1) It does not contain references where its subject -- "axiom of global choice" -- is described: the texbooks by Kelley and by Jech given as references don't contain the term "axiom of global choice" at all.
2) I did not succeed independently in finding textbooks or papers where this term -- "axiom of global choice" -- is explained.
3) At the talk page of this article I suggested the authors to correct the references, but I did not receive a reasonable answer.
4) 7 months ago I initiated a trial at one of the websites for mathematicians, MathOverflow, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/107650/axiom-of-global-choice, about the content of this article in Wikipedia. My complaint was that the subject of the article resembles too much a hoax. Again, no reasonable answer followed.
I suppose this is enough for considering the necessity of deleting this article (and mentionings of the term "global choice" everywhere in Wikipedia). I don't exclude that the authors could rewrite this text in such a way that the idea of "global choice" could be endowed with some mathematical sense, but it's clear for me that something must be done with this.
I invite all authors (and readers) to share their opinion. Eozhik ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice, II by H. Rubin and J. E. Rubin, Elsevier, 1985, ISBN 0-444-87708-8. One could argue that the first named form in a section of a reliable reference book is sufficiently notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, now the mistakes are corrected, so I have no further objections against the present text. I think only that it would be desireble to write simply that "usual choice" is for sets of sets, while "global choice" for classes of sets -- that would clarify everything from the very beginning. Anyway, I suppose I must do something to stop this discussion on the ground that the article took now an acceptable form. What should I do for this? Eozhik ( talk) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Reason
Eozhik (
talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
I nominated this article for deletion for the following reasons.
1) It does not contain references where its subject -- "axiom of global choice" -- is described: the texbooks by Kelley and by Jech given as references don't contain the term "axiom of global choice" at all.
2) I did not succeed independently in finding textbooks or papers where this term -- "axiom of global choice" -- is explained.
3) At the talk page of this article I suggested the authors to correct the references, but I did not receive a reasonable answer.
4) 7 months ago I initiated a trial at one of the websites for mathematicians, MathOverflow, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/107650/axiom-of-global-choice, about the content of this article in Wikipedia. My complaint was that the subject of the article resembles too much a hoax. Again, no reasonable answer followed.
I suppose this is enough for considering the necessity of deleting this article (and mentionings of the term "global choice" everywhere in Wikipedia). I don't exclude that the authors could rewrite this text in such a way that the idea of "global choice" could be endowed with some mathematical sense, but it's clear for me that something must be done with this.
I invite all authors (and readers) to share their opinion. Eozhik ( talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice, II by H. Rubin and J. E. Rubin, Elsevier, 1985, ISBN 0-444-87708-8. One could argue that the first named form in a section of a reliable reference book is sufficiently notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, now the mistakes are corrected, so I have no further objections against the present text. I think only that it would be desireble to write simply that "usual choice" is for sets of sets, while "global choice" for classes of sets -- that would clarify everything from the very beginning. Anyway, I suppose I must do something to stop this discussion on the ground that the article took now an acceptable form. What should I do for this? Eozhik ( talk) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply