Talk:Choice sequence

I'll flesh this article out soon, I swears it. ILikeThings (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Let \alpha\in n denote the relation "the sequence α begins with the initial sequence n"" Is this notation really correct? \in is used in two different ways in the same formula. Twanvl (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's totally silly notation, I know. This is what I've seen in the literature, though. And I think it's used consistently throughout the article (as far as I can tell, the axiom of open data is the only place where the \in predicate is used twice, and it means the same thing in both cases). ILikeThings (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"The axiom of density, given by:

$\forall n\,\exists \alpha [\alpha \in n]$

states that, for any finite prefix (encoded by) $n$, there is some sequence $\alpha$ beginning with that prefix."

Is this correct? I think the axiom of density states the existence of a lawless sequence. Can someone check the literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.111.155 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

One-place predicate

The term "one-place predicate" currently links to Predicate (logic), which does not use the term "one-place" anywhere. The page one-place predicate currently redirects to First-order predicate, which says "This is not to be confused with a one-place predicate or monad, which is a predicate that takes only one argument." So there is not currently any great place to link for the term "one-place predicate", and I don't know enough about the subject to know if the phrasing can be safely changed to "unary predicate" or another more common term. As a band-aid fix, I'm changing the redirect to one-place predicate, so that there will at least be a definition somewhere on the linked page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Lesbian (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)