Talk:Age (model theory): Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Vadik - "" |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Mathematics}}. Tag: |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|||
{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority=Low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Untitled== |
|||
Nice page. I put in a redirect from Fraisse limit, as the subject is already quite well treated here. Do you think Fraisse limit needs its own page? [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
Nice page. I put in a redirect from Fraisse limit, as the subject is already quite well treated here. Do you think Fraisse limit needs its own page? [[User:Thehalfone|Thehalfone]] 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
Well, maybe Fraïsse limit would be even a better name for this article provided someone puts more information and emphasis on it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vadik|Vadik]] ([[User talk:Vadik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vadik|contribs]]) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Well, maybe Fraïsse limit would be even a better name for this article provided someone puts more information and emphasis on it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vadik|Vadik]] ([[User talk:Vadik|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vadik|contribs]]) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
The conclusion that JEP+AP+HP imply existence of a countable ultrahomogeneous limit is not quite right: the limit might not be countable if the class is not essentially countable. For example, the class of finitely generated groups has all of JEP, AP and HP, but it does not have a countable limit. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.64.72.182|132.64.72.182]] ([[User talk:132.64.72.182#top|talk]]) 12:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Overlap between this article and the article on Fraïssé's theorem == |
|||
See [[Fraïssé's theorem|here]]. This article also contains much of the information included in the Age article. Should we merge the two articles? [[User:Zaunlen|Zaunlen]] ([[User talk:Zaunlen|talk]]) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that we should merge the two - both are quite short and they don't justify being separated. There is also scope to rearrange, section and present stuff more clearly. I'll start the process as per [[WP:MERGEINIT]]. --[[User:Jordan Mitchell Barrett|Jordan Mitchell Barrett]] ([[User talk:Jordan Mitchell Barrett|talk]]) 04:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 05:43, 23 January 2024
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Nice page. I put in a redirect from Fraisse limit, as the subject is already quite well treated here. Do you think Fraisse limit needs its own page? Thehalfone 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe Fraïsse limit would be even a better name for this article provided someone puts more information and emphasis on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadik (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The conclusion that JEP+AP+HP imply existence of a countable ultrahomogeneous limit is not quite right: the limit might not be countable if the class is not essentially countable. For example, the class of finitely generated groups has all of JEP, AP and HP, but it does not have a countable limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.72.182 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Overlap between this article and the article on Fraïssé's theorem
[edit]See here. This article also contains much of the information included in the Age article. Should we merge the two articles? Zaunlen (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that we should merge the two - both are quite short and they don't justify being separated. There is also scope to rearrange, section and present stuff more clearly. I'll start the process as per WP:MERGEINIT. --Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)