Talk:Without loss of generality

"Some regard without any loss of generality (WALOG) as a more grammatically correct expression."

Could anyone please explain to me what is grammatically wrong with "without loss of generality"?

--Huppybanny 17:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's any more or less "grammatically correct" but it does seem to be used, so I've put a reference back in the article. A Google test shows 20,000 results for "without any loss of generality"; some are copies of old versions of this article, but others are genuine mathematical uses. Possibly the "any" version would be even less common in published papers but it is at least used informally. I've also added "WOLOG" which is given as an alternate abbreviation in the MathWorld article. Andy Smith (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary
I don't think it makes sense to move this page to Wiktionary. It is not merely a definition; it explains why in some cases no generality is lost by simplifying assumptions and reports that that fact is often useful in writing mathematical proofs. Michael Hardy 00:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Dominus 15:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mathematical joke
I removed this section from the article because it is unreferenced and most likely WP:OR. I place it here in case I am in error.

Mathematical joke
The same acronym can be used also for the term "With Love Of God". A Mathematical joke claims that the ability to use the term "Without loss of generality" is the revelation of God's love for the Mathematicians. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)