Talk:Θ (set theory)

not a dicdef (eventually)

There's a lot to be said about Θ, particularly in the realm of the descriptive set theory of models of AD. So I think, even if there's eventually a Hartogs number page, this stub can still expand into something useful on its own. But I'm not likely going to do it myself anytime soon. --Trovatore 18:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth renaming this article to something more... non-symbolic? The current name feels pretty awkward. I'm thinking of the average user who would be interested in this information; are they very likely to use alt-[number] combinations and/or the Windows character map to type this into the search field? Perhaps a disambiguation link from Theta, and the article itself titled "Theta (set theory)" would be easier to find. Peruvianllama 05:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theta (set theory) is there as a redirect, and there is a link on Theta though you could easily miss it. Best I know how to do, as far as finding the article. Now as to whether Theta (set theory) should be the article rather than the redirect, I'm not sure. I think probably not, given that it's not spelled out as "Theta" in the literature. --Trovatore 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed miss the link on Theta. I'm not personally familiar with the use of Θ in the literature, but given your comments, it makes sense for it to stay as it is. Cheers. Peruvianllama 20:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed my error

So it seems I had the wrong definition in my head for Hartogs number; if AC fails then Θ may not be the Hartogs number of the reals after all. --Trovatore 18:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or redirect, or door number 3?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_uncountable_ordinal

Signed - Monty Hall 49.184.24.3 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why you would want to merge these. Θ is certainly larger than the first uncountable ordinal ω₁. --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]