Talk:Minimal axioms for Boolean algebra
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Axiom naming
[edit]I was unable to find reliable sources which state that
is known as the "Wolfram axiom". Blog and forum posts don't count, nor do insta-books derived from Wikipedia content. MathWorld has generally been unreliable when it comes to names. Sifting through the literature that cites the paper which actually proved it to be a minimal 1-basis suggests that it doesn't really have a name. (It's just written out and from then on referred to by equation number.) Wikipedia shouldn't be a force that pushes terminology which hasn't already been established elsewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- As long as the naming is clearly identified as coming from Wolfram (via MathWorld) I think it may be ok, but I don't feel strongly about keeping it in. I'm more concerned about the persistent spin to push Wolfram as the sole inventor of this and downplay the role of McCune et al (which appears to me to be an independent and simultaneous discovery of the same result). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your solution looks fine to me. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
1-basis or 2-basis?
[edit]The article calls the "Wolfram axiom" a 1-basis even though it requires adding commutativity, but implies that the Robbins axiom gives a 3-basis because it requires adding commutativity and associativity. This seems like inconsistent counting to me. (And now I would like to know if there is a genuine 1-basis with only the Sheffer stroke.) --Ørjan (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)