Talk:De Morgan's laws

De Morgan's laws
This term is not a plurale tantum, and needs to be reduced to a soft redirect as a plural of, quod vide for a citation of the singular form (the August 2004 quot.). I'd clean up the entry myself, but I don't know enough about set theory to rewrite the second definition for the singular form with confidence, and nor do I consider myself qualified to correct the translations (assuming that they aren't pluralia tantum either). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added the sense to the entry for the singular and reduced the entry for the plural to a form-of entry, detagging it. I've simply dropped the transliterations. They remain in history. (...where of course no one will think to look for them. Shall we add them with to the entry for the singular?) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up by msh210. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)