Talk:Beth two

Cyp: Yes, that was supposed to be an Aleph. Mozilla renders it as one, too. :) -- schnee

Actually, schnee, your character is the correct one. Unicode makes a clear distinction between Hebrew letters and the mathematical symbols that are based on them -- and Cyp found out why when he had to add the directional codes! If people can't see the symbols, then we should just replace them with images. -- Toby Bartels 11:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't see the mathematical version, so changed it to the letter version. I don't know what the mathematical versions look like compared to the letter versions, so it's probably better for someone that can see what they look like to make images. Κσυπ Cyp 14:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that equation (*) necessarily implies CH - could you not have (*) and $2^{\aleph _{0}}=\aleph _{2}$ ?

Duh. never mind. I'm stupid today. If $\beth _{2}=\aleph _{2}$ then of course $\beth _{1}=\aleph _{1}$ . Oops.

Merge into Beth Numbers

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged into Beth numbers? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a reason. Anything here seems to be pretty much covered there, so the merge should be a cinch. In fact, after taking care of the pages linking here, I think a {{prod}} may be the way to go. This talk page is no loss. Lambiam ^Talk 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Please take a look, if anyone has this page on their watch list. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]