Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Theoria copiarum" differant
Content deleted Content added
→Fons tituli? copia vs. classis?: nova pars |
seems OK to me, diffidently |
||
Linea 15:
--[[Usor:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Adumbrativus|disputatio]]) 05:54, 27 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
:The talk page for [[copia]] also asks whether there's a source for the term (and that question goes back to 2010), and I assume this page took the word from that one. Consistency is at least worth something! But I think ''copia'' is a reasonable choice, pace Peano; your observation that he didn't distinguish "sets" and "classes" is important, and we really should have a page on classes. Note, too, that we've used the term ''copia'' in this sense all over the place, not just in the titles of these two pages, so even if we did change it, it may never be completely eradicated. What do others think? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 17:07, 30 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
| |||