User talk:Ncfavier

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Ncfavier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Ordered pair - Kuratowski, Function

You wrote in [comment]: "not being a function isn't something you can prove; you'd need to define functions first, which is usually done using ordered pairs, so this is circular. "

I don't agree that we have a vicious circle here. We have two commonly accepted definitions of functions: Bourbaki (a function is a triplet f=(X,Y,G) where X is the domain, Y is the codomain, and G is a graph, i.e. a set of argument-value pairs) and the second definition, probably Peano's, earlier, reducing Bourbaki's definition only to a graph, i.e. f=G (it is often added that it is also a certain binary relation at the same time).

The definition of G is based on the Cartesian product, i.e. a set of pairs (G is some subset of XxY). The way we define a pair does not matter for G.

Since we are considering the Kuratowski case, if we assume a pair as (a,b)={{a},{a,b}} we must consistently use this definition in the definition of G. Kamil Kielczewski (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Even so, the statement is bogus because $\pi _{1}$ is not of the right type to even consider whether or not it's a function in the set-of-pairs sense: it is not even a set. What you wrote looks like a formal proof but really isn't one, and a short sentence conveys the same information without needlessly confusing the reader. — ncfavier 13:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ncfavier What I wrote shows that if the function pi existed (as a regular function within ZFC) it would lead to a contradiction. Which does not mean that I insist that this proof should remain - your correction in the article is also ok and clarifies the situation. Kamil Kielczewski (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)