Talk:Normal function

Definition Regarding Limit Ordinals
Via WP:BRD, I've reverted the previous edit and would encourage discussion and consensus before further changes are made to the definition section.

Specifically, I don't think this article is the appropriate place to define limit ordinal. That article exists and is clear enough, and the reader should be turning there if they don't know what a limit ordinal is. Since there are two definitions for limit ordinal common in current texts, it would be best to use a definition for normal function which is correct for either definition of limit ordinal, I think.

(For my reference, I use Set Theory by Jech. He defines limit ordinals without referencing zero, in which case 0 ends up being a limit ordinal by definition (it is not a successor ordinal, it is the supremum and limit of all ordinals less than it, it has no predecessor, etc).  There are several other authors who also use this definition.  While it is not the most common, it is widespread in current texts.)  TricksterWolf (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue about the definition of "limit ordinal", it would be better to do so on the talk page of that article rather than here. Saying "nonzero limit ordinal" is redundant and thus confusing to readers. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)