Talk:Correspondence

Untitled

I can see why this article needs help. For any mathematicians who may happen upon the request that improvements be made, my suggestion would be that it is so abstract as it stands that only someone who already understand a "correspondence" could guess what the discussion is trying to get at.

Does, for example, a "correspondence" between two sets amount to a list of the set members held in common between the two sets? Or is something entirely different intended? How do you know when you have correctly stated a "correspondence" between some set, A, and some other set, B??? P0M 23:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem is that the term is used to mean different (but related) things in different contexts. Probably this page should become a disambiguation page, or at least something closer to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isomorphic (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2004 (UTC)