 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
edit"When one talks of Suslin sets without specifying the space, then one usually means Suslin subsets of R, which graph theorists usually take to be the set ..." Is the graph theorist a mistake? Might not logician/set theorist be a better fit? Chimpionspeak (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed it to descriptive set theorists. Certainly it's far from the worst problem this page has, though. This article and Suslin set should be merged (not sure under which title; I think maybe the representation one is better). The obstacles are:
- Finding out whether the claim currently made at Suslin set, which appears to limit the notion to -Suslin sets, is indeed a current usage, and
- Figuring out what to do in spaces other than Baire space, Cantor space, and products thereof.
- The second problem is also one that's currently causing me problems at scale (descriptive set theory). Sources, even by the same author, are not always consistent on this point, and the irritating thing about it is that it really doesn't matter; there are always ways around it without bothering about what is the correct definition in non-zero-dimensional Polish spaces. Or at least I think there are.
- But it's natural for a reader to want to know what happens in, say, R (the literal R, not Baire space) and we'd like to answer that if we can. But in a way that's sourceable, and that doesn't interfere with grasping the essential concept. I doubt all these constraints can really be met at the same time. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
