Simple and easily readable

There is a MSc thesis worth of reading MINIMAL WALKS AND COUNTRYMAN LINES--BTZorbas (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"technical" tag removed

This article contains a plain method definition. All additional knowledge needed to understand the definition is in Ordinal arithmetic.--BTZorbas (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

afc comment: So the originator is blocked, but I think the topic is a good one, and while I don't think the draft article is much use in learning about it, it does at least point to references and to the relationship to the Countryman line. Out of an abundance of caution, I would probably want to attribute BTZorbas in any resurrected article. What is the procedure for that? --Trovatore (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC) }}[reply]
Note: the creator of this draft has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --JBL (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]
AfC Comment: Trovatore First of all, thanks for noticing typo at $\varepsilon _{0}=\{\alpha :\alpha <\omega ^{\alpha }\}$ . I've fixed it. I know that the C-sequence is an example of a ladder system and it is used as a tool for walking down from one ordinal to a smaller one. That's the meaning and use of the $\curvearrowright$ symbol. Having defined C-sequence there is no need to mention the ladder. (If you go through Todorcevic's Walks on ordinals lecture here you'll notice that he did not mention the ladder word). As to the von Neumann representation and Cantor normal form - there are Wikipedia articles about them. When writing this stub I tried to find a very starting point for writing something better. I'm not a man who is a regular Wikipedia editor. Everyone with proper knowledge of this method could take a lead, fix the typos, errors or place a comment on the article talk page.
Now I have to stop my work on this article. Most likely for good. There is a looming assassination of my Wikipedia account.
At the end of this my farewell, I am honoured and outraged at the same time for being identified as S. Todorcevic
Each time this comes through it becomes harder for me to believe that anyone but Todorčević himself is behind these self-serving edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC).
Outraged in the name of S. Todorcevic (if he allows me and excuses me for speaking in his name) for those "self-edits". BTZorbas

}}

afc comment: This draft article is about a genuine and significant set-theoretic topic. The claims of "promotion" are off-target.
That said, in its current state, it is not a useful contribution. A few specific issues:
(1) The ratio of "detail about the method" to "detail about why anyone cares" is much too high. Needs more information on how the technique is actually used, in more than one proof. Or for that matter even in the first proof mentioned, the one about the Countryman line.
(2) Even the detail about the method is not really readable. If you already know about ladder systems, or know enough about the topic to know that "ladder systems" is what you should search for to find out more, then you can maybe work through the definitions to figure out what is being asserted. Otherwise the typo in the math after "we'll create a sequence" is likely to throw you off, assuming you weren't already derailed by the false claim that $\varepsilon _{0}=\{\alpha :\alpha <\omega ^{\alpha }\}$ .
(3) This article is about an extremely specific technique, and yet a large fraction of the real estate is taken up by very basic notions that everyone who has any hope of reading the article knows backwards and forwards, like the von Neumann representation of ordinals and Cantor normal form (and what Cantor normal form has to do with the subject of the article is not really explained anyway). These things should be simply linked to (if they need to be mentioned at all).
So fundamentally, I think it's very plausible that an article on this topic (or perhaps on "ladder systems") ought to exist, but I don't think it's anything remotely resembling this article as it stands. Bits and pieces might be salvaged, but the whole structure of the article needs to be completely redone. --@Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC) }}[reply]
afc comment: @BTZorbas: @KJP1: I've solicited comment from WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Controversy_at_Draft:Walks_on_ordinals,_input_sought. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

afc comment SUBMITTER COMMENT:Before being pointlessly moved in the draft state, this article was in its stub state.

The first reference is the most reliable one for being cited 220 times

The second reference is the most reliable one for being cited 99 times;

Since the article contains ONLY the method definition and the original method definition belongs to its author, Stevo Todorcevic, there is no need to add anything.

I sincerely hope that this submission will be reviewed by a professional mathematician. I've enlarged the article with two placeholders in order to justify the addition of references.

This article is not about Kim Kardashian and, for me, it is not possible to think about "This won't do as significant, independent coverage." nor the persons who rejected my earlier two submissions were capable of explaining it in the context of this article.}}

AFC comment: My intentions are purely academic. The comment below is just a malicious attack on me. The content contains no more than a plain definition of this set theoretic method already immensely popular among mathematicians, i.e. it does not need any promotion.}}

AFC comment: The only sources, which aren't properly formatted, are to the subject's inventor. This won't do as significant, independent coverage. KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

AFC comment: Let this be main-spaced by someone other than the SPA creator with dubious promotional intentions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]