diffhistFormal language10:32+201Nyngwangtalkcontribs(Formalize the definition of "well-formed" by set theory; notice that this edit also formalized the possibly informal term "expression".)
diffhistFormal language10:00+54Nyngwangtalkcontribs(Prefer introducing the parent set Σ* first instead of doing so for its subset, since a reader should be able to derive the informal meaning of its subset themselves; use markdown tags for math symbols.)
diffhistAlphabet (formal languages)07:16−41Nyngwangtalkcontribs(Remove superfluous adjective "indivisible", which at worst is misleading when an alphabet is simply a "non-empty set"; simplified the immediate sentence following it.)
diffhistExtensionality23:52−37Fang-runintalkcontribs(I resolved a "clarification needed" request for the Univalence bullet point in the Extensionality subsection, wherein I provided the types of the mathematical objects and defined the notation used.)Tag: Visual edit
diffhistCardinality15:29035.21.79.36talk(fixed the in-article link on "Pre-Cantorian Set theory", it should actually send one to the spot in the article now. It didn't previously because the S in Set wasn't capitalized.)
diffhistFunction (mathematics)13:49+49Mindmatrixtalkcontribs(revert - the goal of hatnotes is to point readers in the right direction for subjects having the same or similar names, irrespective of relation to the current page)
diffhistFunction (mathematics)13:24−57Aray0825talkcontribs(removed unnecessary— and frankly bit suspect — reference to a band whose name happens to be the algebraic visual representation of a very generic function f(x). This has nothing to do with the article.)Tags: Mobile editMobile app editiOS app editApp section source
diffhistLogical biconditional11:57+822a01:799:965:9400:809c:c3b0:7357:4fetalk(Added a comment about the somewhat confusing nomenclature of the XNOR operator, that should rather be named NXOR (but which is harder to articulate), since this is likely contributing to what appears to be a common misconception, viz. that any op without an X - such as NOR and AND - can be "made exclusive" somehow (but eg. NOR and AND cannot be made more "exclusive" than they already are, since they are T for only a single operand pair: {F,F} and {T,T}, respectivley).)Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit