Talk:Inverse Completion Theorem

This theorem consists of a result which was deduced from an extremely messy series of pages wherein the definition of the theorem far outweighed the proof.

For clarity, it would be good if this series of pages (namely, the ones in the "Inverse Completion Construction" category) were tidied.

Either we could extract the gubbins of the definition of the construction into a separate page, or we could merge certain of the proofs into a larger, multi-part proof.

I'm wary of making the pages too big, though, as we had problems with that to some extent the other week.--Matt Westwood 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think that page sizes will be too much of a problem now that LaTeX is fixed. I think that was the cause of our earlier problem. There there ways you could go about this theorem.

1. You could just put everything on the one page, copy and paste or whatever. 2. If a subproof is need, and it has already been proven on a seperate page(or make a new page to prove it), you could include it using a transclusion, ie.{:pagename} 3. Or you can break the page up into secions adn create new pages that are sub pages to Inverse Completion, by naming them Inverse Completion/Page1, Inverse Completion/Page2, ..., and you could then transclude them the same way as above. 4. Or I guess some combination of 2 and 3.

But I don't think we have to worry too too much about page sizes. If you know this will be really big, then it might be best to break it up. Up to yourself though. --Joe 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to revisit this section again when I've got some other stuff sorted out. If I have a break from this area, I come up upon it fresh, I see things with new eyes and it may make more sense. It's all garble to me at the moment, I'm too close to it. --Matt Westwood 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)