Hi. This is the subpage of my user talk which should contain everything concerning mathematics.

Starting a new subpage for collecting /counter-examples. I still believe that these are the best to understand the big "why". — MFH:Talk 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(...) But then I noticed that you changed my ..."sequences" not indexed by... into ...a generalization of sequences... (a bit less rich in information, but well, I accept as it's "your" page, and I understand you don't like the "sequences" in quotation marks... ;-)

No, no, sequence is not my page. Here we have a community, and everything is done by talking and compromise. Please change it back if you like. Now that I know you actually meant it that way, I will not modify it again. 18:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "not your page": that's why I put quotes around "your"
• concerning "sequences": I just regret that "a generalization" does not give any hint on what is generalized, while my original "subtitle" was more informative - although mathematically incorrect without saying that "sequences" in quotation marks means "not really sequences"... I just noticed that there is a page (redirection) for Family (mathematics) - maybe I should have used this xref (but this page is not so "perfectly" written...)

Again, all the world is yours. You can make any changes you please to sequence. If I really disagree about something, I will not change it, rather, ask about it on your talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 21:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See (updated) Talk:Frechet filter. Oleg Alexandrov 02:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You said on Talk:Metric (mathematics) that you liked my split from Metric space. It would be nice if you could have a look at Talk:Norm_(mathematics) and provide your opinion. MathMartin 20:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching mistakes in my edits. Currently I am working on topological vector space articles and I appreciate any help and proofreading for my edits there.

I have noticed that your edits on sequence got reverted. I think your edits made the article clearer but you have to keep in mind this is an encyclopedia for the general public. The general consensus for math articles is

• first paragraph should contain an introduction understandable for non math people
• the definition should cover the most common cases (if possible). An abstract and clear definition (from a mathematical standpoint) can always be provided later.

MathMartin 18:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Visiting Cayley-Dickson construction, at the first glance, I believed I was drunk when I read "every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse" and "... has divisors of zero". But of course this possible is due to lack of associativity. Now I'm rather astonished that this (counter-) example is (almost?) never mentioned when introducing "inverse elements"...

(Just pasting this here so I could run across it again when I'll have the time to check out if "inverse element" and related pages do not assume associativity...) — MFH: Talk 14:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply