Talk:Reflection principle: Difference between revisions

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

What about "reflection principle" as in complex variables?

To 24.199.94.94: Please sign your contributions to talk with four tildas, i.e. ~~~~. I am not familiar with complex analysis or any "reflection principle" in it. If the mathematicians in that area want to write such an article, no doubt, they would create a disambiguation page to distinguish it from this article. Have you tried looking for it by other names? JRSpriggs 06:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Schwarz reflection principle -- added reciprocal disambig links on each page Zero sharp 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know whether there is an article on the reflection principle for Brownian motion yet? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reflection theorem" redirects to "Reflection Principle". There is a well established series of reflection theorems in algebraic number theory, beginning with Scholz in 1932 and continuing through current research by G. Gras. Does anyone know if these other "Reflection Principles" (set theory, complex variables, or Brownian motion) are sometimes referred to as "Reflection Theorems"? If not, then I'll go ahead and stop "Reflection Theorem" from redirecting here. Regardless, it sounds like "Reflection Principle" needs to become a disambiguation page. If I don't get a response soon, I'll just make this one big disambiguation page for both "reflection principles" and "reflection theorems".B2smith (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you add another hat-note, if necessary, rather than make this into a disambiguation page. I am not aware of how Brownian motion is involved in this. I suspect that the reflection theorems are related to this reflection principle, being the application of the same idea to a sub-theory of set-theory. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know about the Brownian motion either, so maybe it just deserves a hat-note. But I still want to know if "Reflection theorem" is often used as a substitute for "Reflection Principle" in any of the cases: set theory, complex variables, or Brownian motion. The "reflection theorems" in number theory are totally unrelated to the set theoretic "reflection principle". I'd like to stop the redirect from "reflection theorem" to "reflection principle" and give the page to the number theoretic stuff, unless "reflection theorem" is a common synonym for "reflection principle" in set theory. If it is only occasionally used, then I can devote "reflection theorem" to the number-theoretic stuff and put a hat note linking here for people interested in set theory.B2smith (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and change the redirect, reflection theorem. I am only concerned about this article, reflection principle. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article says:

One form of the reflection principle in ZFC says that for any finite set of axioms of ZFC we can find a countable transitive model satisfying these axioms. (In particular this proves that ZFC is not finitely axiomatizable, because if it were it would prove the existence of a model of itself, and hence prove its own consistency, contradicting Gödel's theorem.)

This is a little bit confusing, since NBG is finitely axiomatizable. Aren't theorems in ZFC supposed to also be true in NBG? 76.195.10.34 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]