Talk:Corollary

Don't delete

This stub is important. i just found it. it should never be deleted or consumed into a larger article. I didn't write any of it but it's a really valid page about a mathematical concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxinabox (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete

This math article is NOT a stub, there is simply not more to say about this topic. It gives a valid and very helpful distinction between the most often confused terms. I think it is not a stub but simply concise and thus a very good example for a successfull entry in wikipedia. (Netzwerkerin (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

We don't delete articles for being stubs. We might delete, or merge, articles for there being little to say about the topic. Although I strongly suspect that in this case there are in fact more to say. Taemyr (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

non-mathematics use

Well something to add would be the non-mathematical use of the term. In colloquial use it doesn't mean exactly the same thing. 87.115.48.138 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Corollary/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The importance could be higher, depending on how much work this article needs to do compared to Theorem. Geometry guy 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

of less importance

English: that should be of lesser. Mathematics: it happens quite often that a corollary is an important result in its own right, perhaps a very famous one at that. The author wishes to point out that this important result now follows easily from the just-established theorem, and indicates it as a corollary to stress this. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:6952:F0EE:E8A3:95CF (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Corollary predating theorem?

Is it correct to refer to a result as a corollary if it predates the corresponding theorem?

The corollary may have been a theorem without its own name (if it were not well known or recognised until after the more general result), or a conjecture, or stated as if proved but this was later considered inadequate because of some deeper issue (or it may have been introduced without full mathematical rigour e.g. by a scientist).

A possible example is Einstein's (1914) version of the (1930s) Wiener-Khinchin theorem. Einstein's may rely on existence that Wiener and Khinchin strove not to require. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)