> And to be honest we have never given a "catalog" of definitions. The
definitions in the topology part were useful and used to prove theorems
contrary to what you say.
> Those in the algebra part were useful too. The rare ones that are useless
can be easily removed since they ere not used.
In any case, I don't feel able to code a theorem like FLT that would use
theorems from many areas of mathematics without explaining them anywhere.
I need to understand what I'm coding. And for that I need a
well-structured, systematic and progressive book. I don't think I'm the
only one.
Focusing on the definition of a magma doesn't seem relevant to me. You've
chosen the worst-case scenario. Apart from a magma, that doesn't even
appear in the set.mm
main part, I wonder what definitions sounds so stupid to you.
--
FL
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/cd379c9d-ea72-41de-89dd-5f7fffff7f2f%40googlegroups.com.
