User talk:Greg Woodhouse: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen
imported>John Stephenson
(NoResponse template (may be an email problem) - user may remove this at any time)
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[User bio is in User:Your Name]
{{NoResponse}}


{{archive box|auto=long|
[[User:Greg Woodhouse/User_talk:Archive_1|Archive 1]]
}}


== Welcome ==
== Simple as possible, but not simpler ==


{{awelcome}}
I agree with your comment on Catherine Woodgold's page:


You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link [[CZ:Workgroups]].You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.
:I guess I'm looking for an opinion here. The discussion of audience level in the forums has grown increasingly tendentious. So much so, in fact, that I'm beginning to wonder if there's much point in even writing anything that presupposes more than a typical high school education by way of background - at least for subjects that are at all mathematical. Ironically, one of the reasons I wanted to become involved with Citizendium is that I wanted to try my hand at making difficult topics accessible, but it is all relative. A statement attributed to Einstein, namely, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler," has been my guide here. But it just doesn't seem acceptable. Truth be told, I'm trying (unsuccessfully, obviously, since I'm writing this) to hold back my anger and frustration. A rexcent comment about the word "multiple", followed by a highly condescending remark on the part of someone else to the effect that it takes practice to write for a wide audience, make me wonder if this is the place to try an address so-called difficult topics.


I agree especially with the statement attributed to Einstein.  All that I really ask is that "multiple" be defined in the context of the LCM article.  That's all; that is not "simpler than possible."  The notion of an LCM is simple enough and familiar to many school kids, and so, presumably, if we need an article about it at all, the people who need the article could also use an introduction to this jargon.  But when it comes to more advanced topics, I agree that there simply ''is no way'' to make them accessible to a general audience.  We should have articles about those topics, but we should not be held to impossible standards of accessibility.  If anyone is wrongheadedly trying to correct you on these points, let me know and I'll explain these things to them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:03, 21 May 2007 (CDT)


''Kind Regards'',  
:I don't think I'd go so far as saying advanced topics can't be made accessible to a general audience. At a minimum, I think a talented author well-versed in the subject matter may be able to make them more accessible than we might think, but taking an explanation written in specialist language and attempting to "translate" it by defining terms one at a time will seldom (if ever) succeed. This is one reason why I think rushing to define everything is a bad idea. I originally started [[Prime number]] because it seemed a very basic (in the sense of fundamental) article that was badly needed. I had originally planned to go on and write articles about the Gaussian integers and Eisenstein integers, and may do yet, but trying to explain why these rings are important and how the ideas covered in the prime number article generalizes to these rings is a bit tricky, and it seems to me that current editorial practice could make it very difficult. That's one of the reasons why I've argued in the forums for integrative articles ("how the pieces fit together"). Without them, I don't know if it's realistic to try and address mathematics and the sciences without producing long lists of theorems or facts that may, indeed, by very useful, but which will be of little help to the newcomer not already acquainted with a field. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 12:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 15:58, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


== Etiquette ==
I think you may be overinterpreting the constraints placed by "current editorial practice."  In other words, you are writing as if your hands are tied, and I'm not sure who you think is tying them, or how.  You have as much authority to settle these matters as any other editor.  The general injunction, which I think we agree upon, is to write accessibly when accessible writing is possible.  I'm befuddled by the idea of accessible writing that does not define (or otherwise explicitly clarify) its terms, but I'll keep an open mind.  The proof of the pudding... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:05, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


I hope I didn't violate CZ ettiquete there. I came over from WP not so long ago, where if I write anything, it ends up being modified faster than I can blink! (Well, okay, that's an exaggeration.) [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 09:11, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I had something much simpler in mind: If you start with an article written is specialist language, you can theoretically try to edit by translating all the technical terms used into ordinary language (or, more likely, into more basic terms that must ''also'' be explained), but this procedure isn't likely to lead to an article that is at all illuminating (or readable). What is necessary is to recast the ''ideas'' in such a way that they will be more accessible to a non-specialist's intuition, and then to build a foundation for exploring some of these ideas more deeply. By contrast, asking authors to explain the meaning of this word or that word is not likely to produce good results. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 17:01, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
:Hi, do not worry about breaking etiquette here by editing pages, I think being bold is aslo a principle on the Citizendium. If two people disagree, they should of course use the talk page, but about your changes on the [[divisor]] page, I finally agree with them, as I [[User_talk:Richard_L._Peterson|told]] to [[User:Richard L. Peterson|Richard L. Peterson]], so there is not any problem. --[[User:Sébastien_Moulin|Sébastien Moulin]] <small>[[User_talk:Sébastien_Moulin|(talk me)]]</small> 09:35, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


== another welcome, as editor ==


{{ewelcome}}
:Well, I'd be interested to hear comments to my comment on this subject at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,952.msg7307.html#msg7307 [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:38, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 
best, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 15:10, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 
==NPOV and such==
Hey just a reminder that on CZ they're trying to shy away from NPOV and whatnot... basically all the crazy myriad of acronyms on Wikipedia. Also I get the impression on here "compelling articles that grip the reader" take precedence over "beating someone with the NPOV stick" :) Taking a look at your edit on [[OSI model]] it does promote a more balanced approach to the situation --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:53, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:Yes, I suppose you're right about that. I used the acronymn in the summary for reasons of space, but the question of whether or not the principle is valid is a different one. In my opinion, "dispassionate" would be better. Neutrality, carried to its logical extreme, can lead to some dilemmas of its own. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 14:05, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 
Indeed when constables find such initialisms, they replace it (for the particular one talked about here) with a template producing
 
:{{Acronym|NPOV}}.
 
Hopefully, doing that will really help prevent the matter here. The reasons for this policy are  [[CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians#Don.27t_spill_alphabet_soup.21|here]] and also [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,798.msg6267.html#msg6267 here]
 
[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:29, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Tux ==
 
[[Talk:Tux|Tux]] has been nominated for approval. Can I count on you for a signature? :) --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]]
 
 
==Approval Life==
The reason for recording editor approval was to avoid future quibbles about whether to process was legal since almost every Biology editor had touched the page. We dont want to reverse the approval after such a long process. Editor recording was not a required process (as yet).[[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 18:26, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Tux ==
 
Greg, if you agree the page is good for approval please read all talks about it (as well as my remarks about it not being a single stand-alone article but linked to the Linux pages for abvious reasons then you can add your name before pr after mine, seperated by a comma. It means 2 or more editors find the article approve-worthy. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 18:38, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Reply from my talk page ==
 
Hi Greg, I see David and Rob are here as well.  The current procedures are still as stated in the [[CZ:Approval Process]], but do keep an eye on them and be sure to take part in the "about to be formed" editorial council that I hope you have been getting emails from Larry about.  Basically, if an editor writes an article, he/she cannot approve it himself, he will need at least another editor who '''has not''' worked on the article to approve it.  If that editor makes changes, it will require another editor to approve as well.  After that it only requires that the three agree to approve.  When a constable (me) comes to the page to perform the mechanics, he will be looking for signs that there are three agreeing editors, or one that had nothing to do with writing it.  Notice that there can be ten authors, but we're only talking about editors. Also note that currently it only takes one editor to stop the process or remove the approved tag.
 
Hope that helps.  I expect that as we proceed, there will be need to adapt some of the rules.  Any input you might have would be appreciated.  The best place for it now is on the forums, but do plan on participating in the editorial council when it forms. 
 
Does that help? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 18:45, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 
Greg, also see this on my talk page.[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:D._Matt_Innis#approval_process.2Feditorial_procedures]--[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 20:16, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== complex, prime et al. ==
 
Hi, thanks for the message. Let's keep an eye on [[Gamma function]] too (I guess it is one of best developed articles). And who knows how it will end up :-) --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 11:07, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 
==Approval process for Linux article==
What does it mean that an article gets "approved"?  I hope it doesn't mean that we're not supposed to change it much.  I don't see that Linux article as being in any kind of final form, or even near it.  I just started authoring here very recently, so perhaps I am bringing a new perspective and that's possibly disappointing to those who've been working in here longer than me.  I'm not sure why people feel in such a hurry to seek approval.  It must scratch some sort of itch that I don't have.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 21:14, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Editing checklist ==
 
Did I miss-interpret [[CZ:The_Article_Checklist#The_.27by.27_field_-_Checklist_last_edited_by.3F|this page]] then? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 23:04, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:Good question. I guess it depends on the meaning of "updating or correcting".  I didn't interpret normal status changes this way, but you're probably right. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 23:17, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Underlinked ==
 
To be honest, I'm not a 100% sure of what that means, so I just leave it the way it was in the article I pasted the template from and hope that someone will fix it if it's wrong. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 10:54, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 
:I think I understand it now. Thanks for bringing it up :) --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 10:56, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 
== Byte ==
 
Can you think of anything else that should be done to the [[Byte]] article? I was thinking that the "Gulliver's Travels" reference should go in the [[Endianness]] article. Do you agree? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 21:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)


== Complex analysis ==
I have some concerns. For one thing, I think it's a mistake to think of authors as non-specialists. I prefer to think of authors as more akin to graduate students. There is no reason to think that an author cannot be as knowledgeable about a subject as an editor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't highly qualified authors who never sought editor status simply because they prefer to write. Second, I think reducing the expectations you have for the proverbial audience is the wrong direction. If anything, I believe it is better to challenge the audience, providing ''more'' information and ''more'' insight than expected, than to underestimate the background of the audience, and thus provide less than what they want and need. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 17:09, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


: I notice you have deleted essentially everything I wrote about complex analysis in the complex number article. That's fine, as I really think it belongs in another article, and put it in there at the request of someone else, anyway. I do wonder, though, if you are still making modifications, or should I just remove the section "What about calculus?" It really serves no purpose there, anyway. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 15:12, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
:Well, I tend to agree. I think what I am saying and what you are saying are consistent. What I had in mind in my post is, for example, an instance where, say, a non-science major "is not quite getting it" with a science article. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 17:34, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


I had not realized I'd done that; I'm now wondering if it's a software glitch. I was attempting to do only the things I mentioned in my edit summary. I'll go back and take another look. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 15:29, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
But why would they not "get" it? Let's try a simple example. If two resistors are connected in parallel, what is the current that flows over each? You can write down Kirchoff's current law, but it's pretty uninspiring (and I mean that literally, it's not likely to help anyone to develop insight). But think about it: The potential difference is the same across both wires, so the determining factor is the resistance, the greatr the resistance, the less current will flow along that path and, indeed <math>1/R_{total} = 1/R_1 + 1/R_2</math>. Maybe that doesn't really help. Think of a canal that divides into two unequal parts before rejoining. How much water will flow along each? Assuming that the depths are the same but one is only half as wide as the other, then we can ask whether a twig floating on the surface of the canal is just as likely to take one path as the other. What do you think? Anyway, you get the idea: I could start formally defining potential, electric current, etc., but it probably wouldn't help much. Flowing water is closer to most people's experience, and so easier to understand. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 17:54, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


== trying to recruit PhD-level (but not necessary to have PhD) editors ==
:Here's a concrete [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Bacteriophage&diff=100109221&oldid=100096115 on-wiki example]. Note the whole before-and-after, but scroll down to the especially illustrative == Attachment == section. Do you think the article gained or lost by these accessibility efforts? [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 20:47, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


I was referring to recruitment of editors with degrees and other field specialists.  [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 20:39, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
==Retrieving history==
===tux/gallery==
Greg, thanks for your note about how to get things from history.  Yes, I could do so, but I think the person who deleted them should put them back.  I'm trying to establish some ground rules for future collaboration.  If I put the stuff back myself, it's 1) I write, 2) he deletes, 3) I "revert".  I should not ''have'' to revert, and we should not be having revert discussions.  He should just put the stuff back (as he stated he would 10 days or so ago).  I'm being stubborn about this because it's an important point of etiquette.  It sure looks to me like he "accidentally omitted" these two paragraphs because he doesn't happen to agree with them.  That is the sticking point. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:00, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


please add your approval to this side-gallery of tux [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 20:34, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
==Photoelectric==


== Complex # ==
Greg, can you provide a link to or explain the photoelectric effect in the talk:light page?--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 14:37, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


Yes, thanks Greg. I have e-mailed one of the new Mathematics Editors who has not authored in the article. I am hoping he responds, and reviews the article. If not, I will keep on it. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 22:44, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
:See the talk page. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 14:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
::Thanks, Greg. If you see glaring errors, discrepancies, mistakes, items for correction on the [[Light]] article, please do not hesitate to point them out on the talk page. I'm going to make the article as complete as possible, and I totally appreciate the input. I'm not a physics expert, but I strive for excellence.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 14:47, 8 June 2007 (CDT)


:Thanks for your replies.  I'm particularly interested in this one:  "Another argument is that for probabilities to make sense, you've got to have interference."  Do you mean that our type of universe, where double-slit experiments give wave interference patterns, is in some sense the only conceivable type of universe?  I had thought it was conceivable to have some other type of pattern.  Apparently the double-slit experiments and other quantum-mechanical phenomena can be explained by assuming that the universe keeps splitting off into alternate universes and that similar alternate universes interact with one another in some particular way involving cancelling things out.  I had thought it was conceivable to have a multiverse where similar alternate universes interact in some different way, such as always adding rather than cancelling out.
== Quantum ice-breaking ==


:I'll reply another time to your other comments.  I'll have to think about the Galois groups and things. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 18:22, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Greg, I can't resist any further.  [http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/5062/schrodingerslolcatpm1.jpg Schrodingers cat humor.] --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 12:15, 15 June 2007 (CDT)


==Number and Numeral==
:That's great! [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:26, 16 June 2007 (CDT)
Greg, In all my years in computer science, reading dozens of textbooks, I have always seen "binary number system" or maybe "numbering" or even simply "binary system".  "Numeral" seems simply jarring.  Weird, I know.  There was another case where someone had changed "human readable" to "humanly" and I changed it back, because the way it gets used repeatedly in computer textbooks is "human readable".  I know that in a grammatical sense one could argue that it's technically wrong, but saying "binary numeral system" just looks very strange in the computer science world.  I'm not sure what math people do, but I'm pretty sure that most of the links to binary system will be from computer articles.  We also had a lot of competing phrases going; sometimes people have linked "decimal system"; other times, "decimal numbering system", "decimal numeral system" and "decimal number system".  I just decided to start trying to create a consistent pattern for binary, hexadecimal, octal and decimal number systems, all of which occur a lot in computers.  Hope it's OK.  I was in the middle of leaving an explanation, when my computer crashed; I never got back to finish that--sorry to make the change without first explaining it.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 16:51, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


''Random comment: I'm fine with "human readable", but I claim it should be "human-readable" with a hyphen. Precedents are, for example, "man-eating shark", "case-sensitive password", "award-winning novel".... - [[User:Greg Martin|Greg Martin]] 15:57, 29 April 2007 (CDT)''
== Discrete harmonic analyst ==


::I won't argue with a hyphen!  Thanks for responding.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 16:02, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
The reference was to something I did on algebraic groups over finite fields, yes. (Imagine a self-promoting link to one of my things in the arxiv here.) [[User:Harald Helfgott|Harald Helfgott]] 14:29, 18 June 2007 (CDT)


== Thanks ==
== Bayesian filtering ==


I've been meaning to thank you for this edit [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Prime_number&diff=100085336&oldid=100085075]. (''"To see why this is so, we use the formula for the sum of a [[geometric series]] to write the product as..."'' at [[prime number]].) It feels good to have one of one's suggestions taken up, and the wording you came up with fits the bill perfectly. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 18:54, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
It was WP-imported from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_spam_filtering this] (maybe some earlier version, see history of edits), then moved to the new title and not that much edited here. In fact, "content from WP" should be tagged (I forgot it). --[[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 12:29, 30 June 2007 (CDT)


== Thanks for your message! ==
== Article of the week - Dog ==


Thanks for your positive message on my talk page! I appreciate the feedback.
Hi Greg--could I ask you to reconsider your nomination of [[dog]] in its current form? Please have a look at the work I've done at [[dog/Draft]] for comparison.  There are also some forthright comments on the Talk page (draft), if you're interested.


And thanks for adding a section to the [[logarithm]] page.  It's encouraging to put up a new page and see people adding to it.  The Wikipedia page has a long section on notation.  I think their section on notation is too long and that yours is just about right. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:45, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Compare the opening paragraph of [[Dog]] with the revised opening of [[Dog/Draft]].  Also consider the restructuring.   


== Primes of the form <math>n^2+1</math> ==
The paragraph [[dog#Dog breeds]] contains some inaccuracies and at least one wrong statement:  the [[Great Dane]] is not the largest breed of dog, the [[Irish Wolfhound]] is.  Also, the paragraph refers to breeds, which are in the province of show dogs, which do not have snouts (they have muzzles) or fur (coat).  See [[Dog/Draft#Dog breeds]]. Small issues to the uninitiated, but the difference between an okay, non-expert article and a great one.


Hi Greg. I'm responding to your comment on [[User_talk:Greg_Martin#Primes_of_the_form_n.5E2_.2B_1|my talk page]]. I think of these things from an analytic rather than algebraic standpoint, so this an interesting perspective to consider. While my algebraic knowledge is perhaps in the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", let me muse a bit on the topic.
Your comments would be appreciated. [[user_talk:Aleta_Curry|come run your mouth]].


You say that the curve <math>y=x^2+1</math> is rationally equivalent to a line over '''Q''' or a finite extension. I know it's rationally equivalent to a line over '''C''' - just send (x,y) to y. Doesn't seem this map works over any finite extension of '''Q''' though....  The reason I'm interested in pinning down the map itself is that I doubt it preserves enough about primality and arithmetic progressions and '''Q''' to make deductions about prime values of <math>x^2+1</math>. For example, if <math>(x,y)\mapsto y</math> is the map we're talking about, then whether the image y is a prime doesn't have anything to do with whether the original point (x,y) is defined over '''Z''' or not.
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 18:03, 8 August 2007 (CDT)


Just for your own curiosity, here's the analytic number theory conjecture in its full glory. Take an irreducible (over '''Q'''), integer-valued polynomial f(n) with positive leading coefficient. Let <math>\sigma(q)</math> denote the number of solutions, modulo q, to the congruence <math>f(n) \equiv 0 \pmod q</math>. Notice that if ever <math>\sigma(p) = p</math> for any prime p, then the values f(n) are ''all'' multiples of p, and hence f(n) can only take prime values finitely often. If <math>\sigma(p) < p</math> always, however, then the conjecture is that f(n) does take prime values infinitely often, and in fact the number of <math>n\le x</math> for which f(n) is prime should be asymptotic to
==Image Deletion==
 
Hey, I don't know who has permission to do deletions on this wiki, but I'm assuming that as an editor you can? I uploaded the same image to two places and I was hoping you could delete the one at [[Image:ISS Expedition 15 patch.jpg|thumb]] for me. Thanks. And if you can't can you please let me know who can? -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 12:50, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
:<math>\frac{x}{(\deg f)\log x} \prod_p \bigg( 1-\frac1p \bigg)^{-1} \bigg( 1-\frac{\sigma(p)}{p} \bigg),</math>
 
where the product is taken over all primes p (and does converge, though it's not obvious). As a reality check, take f(n) = qn+a to be linear, and then we arrive at the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions which is of course known. - [[User:Greg Martin|Greg Martin]] 16:15, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
 
 
==you didn't write??==
LMAO, some excuse LOL but I hgope you understand my point and agree with it. lol. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span>
 
==Computer articles==
Thanks, Greg. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 06:18, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== Manifolds ==
 
Biggest factor in my opinion in what articles you "should" be working on is what you're excited and eager to work on. If you want to go for an article on manifolds, I say go for it! (I'd suggest a single article on manifolds rather than multiple articles on differential manifolds, topological manifolds, complex manifolds, etc.) But if you think a different article would have a better chance of you shaping it satisfyingly, by all means change your focus.
 
Note that the CZ policy that every article should start with a definition of the title term doesn't necessarily mean that advanced math articles have to start with the most formal possible definition. Here's a potential beginning for a manifolds article, off the top of my head: "A manifold is a special type of mathematical space, every small part of which looks exactly like a small part of a normal Euclidean space (a one-dimensional line, or a two-dimensional plane, or three-dimensional space or beyond), but which can have an overall shape that is much different from a normal Euclidean space." Then one could go on to apologize for the vagueness and tell the reader what to expect from the article; easy examples like the circle and the surfaces of a ball and doughnut could come early as well.... - [[User:Greg Martin|Greg Martin]] 14:55, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== well-defined ==
 
"Actually, well-defined has a fairly precise meaning."  So, "well-defined" is defined, but is not well-defined?  I pretty much followed your explanation about subtraction, but it doesn't leave me with a clearer idea of what "well-defined" means than I had already.  (To define something like "well-defined" I think you need something better than definition-by-example.) <s> Actually, I thought "well-defined" had an even more precise meaning, now that I think of it.  Wasn't I taught that the positive integers are well-defined and that that means that every set of them has a smallest element?  That reminds me of the proof that every positive integer is interesting (which uses this well-defined property) and the proof that every positive integer is a lot less than a million (by induction :-).  Or maybe I'm remembering wrong;  maybe well-defined was the missing quality allowing those proofs to proceed.</s> Nope, I was remembering wrong.  "well-ordered" was the property of the integers I was thinking of, and "well-defined" was what a property like "a lot less than a million" would have to be in order to have a valid proof involving it.  I still have only an intuitive grasp of the definition of "well-defined".  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 21:21, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 
Right, and Godel's incompleteness theorem casts doubt on the extent to which meta-mathematics can be made rigourous, but that's not an excuse not to do the best we can.  Here's an attempt to define "well-defined":  A mathematical object is well-defined if it has been proven that (1) it exists;  (2) it is unique, i.e. only one such object exists;  and (3) everyone agrees on which one it is.  An example of why the third condition is required:  Everyone might agree that there is only one object which is "the capital city of the country" but different people might have different ideas about which one it is, especially if they live in different countries.  There may be a better way to express the third condition:  something like "there is a method of specifying it which always produces the same object."  (and the definition must specify what that method is.)  I like the definition of well-defined to work as well in a universe containing only one mathematician as in one with more than one person whose agreement is required.  Perhaps a slightly different definition of "well-defined" is required for properties as opposed to objects.
 
I know, well-founded (or well-ordered) is completely different from well-defined.  I just got them temporarily mixed up in my mind, that's all. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:52, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:responding on Catherine's page. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 07:55, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 
::LOL.  How about this one:  A symbol S is well-defined in context C if there exists a mathematical object <math>x_0</math> such that whenever S appears in C, it is understood to refer to object <math>x_0</math>, and whenever S appears in C and is understood to refer to an object <math>x</math>, then <math>x = x_0</math>.  (The equivalence relation = may also depend on the context C.)  This definition suffers from a similar problem as a pencil line representing a mathatical line.  Real human beings will understand things to mean something other than the correct meaning.
::Definition of "defined":  A meaningful string of words and symbols has been associated with it and declared to be its definition.  (Possibly more than one such string.)
::I still think either "defined" or "well-defined" would do fine in the complex number article.  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 17:17, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== Slip of the keyboard ==
 
When I was correcting ''"for example, its smallest divisor greater than 1 must be a prime"'', which as you noticed I had accidentally typed as ''"for example, its largest divisor greater than 1 must be a prime"'', I cut-and-pasted it again and edited it and almost saved it as ''"for example, its largest divisor smaller than 1 must be a prime"!!''  :-)  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 17:30, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== Definition of surface ==
 
I added some examples to [[Surface (geometry)]].  I'd appreciate it if you would check whether they fit the definition you gave.  I changd a few other words, too. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:35, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:Replied on [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Catherine_Woodgold#Definition_of_surface Catherine's talk page]. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:06, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 
==Switch links==
Greg, Thanks for catch the OSI switch link error.  I realize now that "switch", in the networking context, means a router or something and not a foundational circuit.  I was making changes really fast and didn't pay enough attention.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 11:49, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 
==history of computing==
Hi Greg, thanks for visiting my page and chatting.  Was that you leaving more ideas on [[history of computing]]?  I agree with them.  Feel free to dive in.  The model I'm trying to take for that page is to have timeline-arranged headers, and each subtopic kept fairly small.  The subtopics will often branch off into multiple articles.  I've really just begun this page and am trying to figure out how to structure it, and I think a timeline of seminal developments and ideas might be the way to go.  I'd thus like to provide a date on each header and make sure it's all in the right order.  Unless somebody gets a better idea, that might help the page from becoming too long.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 15:23, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 
::Re: to do's for [[history of computing]]; we've only made it up to the 1950's (still leaving out many important innovations) so I think it isn't ready yet.  Is that what you meant?  I'd be happy for others to take it over; I have too many other interests I'd rather work on.  But no one was doing it, so I wanted to get it rolling.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 15:47, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 
==CPU article and quest for approval, and various notes==
Greg, Thanks for your note.  I didn't write the [[CPU]] article but I've been picking at it (along with many other articles).  Since it's being looked at for approval, I gave it a close going over and registered all my observations on its talk page.  I think if the endnotes can be turned into references, and my other comments could be addressed, it might actually be closer to being ready (in my humble opinion--I'm not an editor here, just an author, but I am a teacher and I probably have standards that are higher, for technical writing, that the average geek.  Thanks for the note (and, nice to meet you)--incidentally, could you help out some on [[computer network]]? I think it also needs more grooming though people have got a lot of good stuff there. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 13:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== Request new approval nomination for Tux ==
 
Sorry to bother you with this.  See [[Talk:Tux/Draft#Request_for_new_approval]] for rationale. The minimum number of days from re-nomination placement to re-approval would be in order, for the template. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:27, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:Thanks! I moved the template to the draft article. I am pretty sure it goes there...same end will occur either way! [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:49, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
:Sorry to butt-in but I have moved it yet again, to the approval area. That is my interpretation of what had gone before.  But who knows? Clearly this needs more discussion to make it seamless. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 23:02, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 
Greg, I wrote my reply on my talk page. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 06:13, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 
Please see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Tux/Draft#Request_for_new_approval]. Please contact the others and work on that page. Thanks- you will do a good job, I'm sure, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 07:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 
==Thanks for offering help on CDSS==
I had started the article on [[Clinical decision support system]] at WP and then thought of rewriting here at CZ. Unfortunately, so far no one else has shown any interest in editing this article! I have also been to the [[Medical informatics]] page that you have started and have added a few titbits. Hope to contribute more soon. However, I cannot login very regularly due to my workload and connectivity problems. [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]] 23:20, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 
== Simple as possible, but not simpler ==
 
I agree with your comment on Catherine Woodgold's page:
 
:I guess I'm looking for an opinion here. The discussion of audience level in the forums has grown increasingly tendentious. So much so, in fact, that I'm beginning to wonder if there's much point in even writing anything that presupposes more than a typical high school education by way of background - at least for subjects that are at all mathematical. Ironically, one of the reasons I wanted to become involved with Citizendium is that I wanted to try my hand at making difficult topics accessible, but it is all relative. A statement attributed to Einstein, namely, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler," has been my guide here. But it just doesn't seem acceptable. Truth be told, I'm trying (unsuccessfully, obviously, since I'm writing this) to hold back my anger and frustration. A rexcent comment about the word "multiple", followed by a highly condescending remark on the part of someone else to the effect that it takes practice to write for a wide audience, make me wonder if this is the place to try an address so-called difficult topics.
 
I agree especially with the statement attributed to Einstein.  All that I really ask is that "multiple" be defined in the context of the LCM article. That's all; that is not "simpler than possible."  The notion of an LCM is simple enough and familiar to many school kids, and so, presumably, if we need an article about it at all, the people who need the article could also use an introduction to this jargon.  But when it comes to more advanced topics, I agree that there simply ''is no way'' to make them accessible to a general audience.  We should have articles about those topics, but we should not be held to impossible standards of accessibility.  If anyone is wrongheadedly trying to correct you on these points, let me know and I'll explain these things to them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:03, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:I don't think I'd go so far as saying advanced topics can't be made accessible to a general audience. At a minimum, I think a talented author well-versed in the subject matter may be able to make them more accessible than we might think, but taking an explanation written in specialist language and attempting to "translate" it by defining terms one at a time will seldom (if ever) succeed. This is one reason why I think rushing to define everything is a bad idea. I originally started [[Prime number]] because it seemed a very basic (in the sense of fundamental) article that was badly needed. I had originally planned to go on and write articles about the Gaussian integers and Eisenstein integers, and may do yet, but trying to explain why these rings are important and how the ideas covered in the prime number article generalizes to these rings is a bit tricky, and it seems to me that current editorial practice could make it very difficult. That's one of the reasons why I've argued in the forums for integrative articles ("how the pieces fit together"). Without them, I don't know if it's realistic to try and address mathematics and the sciences without producing long lists of theorems or facts that may, indeed, by very useful, but which will be of little help to the newcomer not already acquainted with a field. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 12:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 
I think you may be overinterpreting the constraints placed by "current editorial practice."  In other words, you are writing as if your hands are tied, and I'm not sure who you think is tying them, or how.  You have as much authority to settle these matters as any other editor.  The general injunction, which I think we agree upon, is to write accessibly when accessible writing is possible.  I'm befuddled by the idea of accessible writing that does not define (or otherwise explicitly clarify) its terms, but I'll keep an open mind.  The proof of the pudding... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:05, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:Well, I'd be interested to hear comments to my comment on this subject at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,952.msg7307.html#msg7307 [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:38, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 12:48, 10 February 2021

NOTICE: This user is unlikely to respond to questions or comments placed here.
This could be because of any of the following:
*Their registered email address is no longer working (or is rejecting Citizendium mail);
*The account has been closed;
*The user is otherwise inactive on the wiki.
The user may remove this template at any time.
none (to start Archive 1)


Archive 1


Simple as possible, but not simpler

I agree with your comment on Catherine Woodgold's page:

I guess I'm looking for an opinion here. The discussion of audience level in the forums has grown increasingly tendentious. So much so, in fact, that I'm beginning to wonder if there's much point in even writing anything that presupposes more than a typical high school education by way of background - at least for subjects that are at all mathematical. Ironically, one of the reasons I wanted to become involved with Citizendium is that I wanted to try my hand at making difficult topics accessible, but it is all relative. A statement attributed to Einstein, namely, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler," has been my guide here. But it just doesn't seem acceptable. Truth be told, I'm trying (unsuccessfully, obviously, since I'm writing this) to hold back my anger and frustration. A rexcent comment about the word "multiple", followed by a highly condescending remark on the part of someone else to the effect that it takes practice to write for a wide audience, make me wonder if this is the place to try an address so-called difficult topics.

I agree especially with the statement attributed to Einstein. All that I really ask is that "multiple" be defined in the context of the LCM article. That's all; that is not "simpler than possible." The notion of an LCM is simple enough and familiar to many school kids, and so, presumably, if we need an article about it at all, the people who need the article could also use an introduction to this jargon. But when it comes to more advanced topics, I agree that there simply is no way to make them accessible to a general audience. We should have articles about those topics, but we should not be held to impossible standards of accessibility. If anyone is wrongheadedly trying to correct you on these points, let me know and I'll explain these things to them. --Larry Sanger 23:03, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think I'd go so far as saying advanced topics can't be made accessible to a general audience. At a minimum, I think a talented author well-versed in the subject matter may be able to make them more accessible than we might think, but taking an explanation written in specialist language and attempting to "translate" it by defining terms one at a time will seldom (if ever) succeed. This is one reason why I think rushing to define everything is a bad idea. I originally started Prime number because it seemed a very basic (in the sense of fundamental) article that was badly needed. I had originally planned to go on and write articles about the Gaussian integers and Eisenstein integers, and may do yet, but trying to explain why these rings are important and how the ideas covered in the prime number article generalizes to these rings is a bit tricky, and it seems to me that current editorial practice could make it very difficult. That's one of the reasons why I've argued in the forums for integrative articles ("how the pieces fit together"). Without them, I don't know if it's realistic to try and address mathematics and the sciences without producing long lists of theorems or facts that may, indeed, by very useful, but which will be of little help to the newcomer not already acquainted with a field. Greg Woodhouse 12:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I think you may be overinterpreting the constraints placed by "current editorial practice." In other words, you are writing as if your hands are tied, and I'm not sure who you think is tying them, or how. You have as much authority to settle these matters as any other editor. The general injunction, which I think we agree upon, is to write accessibly when accessible writing is possible. I'm befuddled by the idea of accessible writing that does not define (or otherwise explicitly clarify) its terms, but I'll keep an open mind. The proof of the pudding... --Larry Sanger 13:05, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I had something much simpler in mind: If you start with an article written is specialist language, you can theoretically try to edit by translating all the technical terms used into ordinary language (or, more likely, into more basic terms that must also be explained), but this procedure isn't likely to lead to an article that is at all illuminating (or readable). What is necessary is to recast the ideas in such a way that they will be more accessible to a non-specialist's intuition, and then to build a foundation for exploring some of these ideas more deeply. By contrast, asking authors to explain the meaning of this word or that word is not likely to produce good results. Greg Woodhouse 17:01, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


Well, I'd be interested to hear comments to my comment on this subject at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,952.msg7307.html#msg7307 Stephen Ewen 13:38, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I have some concerns. For one thing, I think it's a mistake to think of authors as non-specialists. I prefer to think of authors as more akin to graduate students. There is no reason to think that an author cannot be as knowledgeable about a subject as an editor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't highly qualified authors who never sought editor status simply because they prefer to write. Second, I think reducing the expectations you have for the proverbial audience is the wrong direction. If anything, I believe it is better to challenge the audience, providing more information and more insight than expected, than to underestimate the background of the audience, and thus provide less than what they want and need. Greg Woodhouse 17:09, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, I tend to agree. I think what I am saying and what you are saying are consistent. What I had in mind in my post is, for example, an instance where, say, a non-science major "is not quite getting it" with a science article. Stephen Ewen 17:34, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

But why would they not "get" it? Let's try a simple example. If two resistors are connected in parallel, what is the current that flows over each? You can write down Kirchoff's current law, but it's pretty uninspiring (and I mean that literally, it's not likely to help anyone to develop insight). But think about it: The potential difference is the same across both wires, so the determining factor is the resistance, the greatr the resistance, the less current will flow along that path and, indeed . Maybe that doesn't really help. Think of a canal that divides into two unequal parts before rejoining. How much water will flow along each? Assuming that the depths are the same but one is only half as wide as the other, then we can ask whether a twig floating on the surface of the canal is just as likely to take one path as the other. What do you think? Anyway, you get the idea: I could start formally defining potential, electric current, etc., but it probably wouldn't help much. Flowing water is closer to most people's experience, and so easier to understand. Greg Woodhouse 17:54, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Here's a concrete on-wiki example. Note the whole before-and-after, but scroll down to the especially illustrative == Attachment == section. Do you think the article gained or lost by these accessibility efforts? Stephen Ewen 20:47, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Retrieving history

Greg, thanks for your note about how to get things from history. Yes, I could do so, but I think the person who deleted them should put them back. I'm trying to establish some ground rules for future collaboration. If I put the stuff back myself, it's 1) I write, 2) he deletes, 3) I "revert". I should not have to revert, and we should not be having revert discussions. He should just put the stuff back (as he stated he would 10 days or so ago). I'm being stubborn about this because it's an important point of etiquette. It sure looks to me like he "accidentally omitted" these two paragraphs because he doesn't happen to agree with them. That is the sticking point. Pat Palmer 22:00, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Photoelectric

Greg, can you provide a link to or explain the photoelectric effect in the talk:light page?--Robert W King 14:37, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

See the talk page. Greg Woodhouse 14:51, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, Greg. If you see glaring errors, discrepancies, mistakes, items for correction on the Light article, please do not hesitate to point them out on the talk page. I'm going to make the article as complete as possible, and I totally appreciate the input. I'm not a physics expert, but I strive for excellence.--Robert W King 14:47, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Quantum ice-breaking

Greg, I can't resist any further. Schrodingers cat humor. --Robert W King 12:15, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

That's great! Greg Woodhouse 11:26, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Discrete harmonic analyst

The reference was to something I did on algebraic groups over finite fields, yes. (Imagine a self-promoting link to one of my things in the arxiv here.) Harald Helfgott 14:29, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Bayesian filtering

It was WP-imported from this (maybe some earlier version, see history of edits), then moved to the new title and not that much edited here. In fact, "content from WP" should be tagged (I forgot it). --Aleksander Stos 12:29, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Article of the week - Dog

Hi Greg--could I ask you to reconsider your nomination of dog in its current form? Please have a look at the work I've done at dog/Draft for comparison. There are also some forthright comments on the Talk page (draft), if you're interested.

Compare the opening paragraph of Dog with the revised opening of Dog/Draft. Also consider the restructuring.

The paragraph dog#Dog breeds contains some inaccuracies and at least one wrong statement: the Great Dane is not the largest breed of dog, the Irish Wolfhound is. Also, the paragraph refers to breeds, which are in the province of show dogs, which do not have snouts (they have muzzles) or fur (coat). See Dog/Draft#Dog breeds. Small issues to the uninitiated, but the difference between an okay, non-expert article and a great one.

Your comments would be appreciated. come run your mouth.

Aleta Curry 18:03, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Image Deletion

Hey, I don't know who has permission to do deletions on this wiki, but I'm assuming that as an editor you can? I uploaded the same image to two places and I was hoping you could delete the one at

ISS Expedition 15 patch.jpg

for me. Thanks. And if you can't can you please let me know who can? -- Carl Jantzen 12:50, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_Woodhouse&oldid=21583"