User talk:Oleg Alexandrov
Please write here any comments. If you have something to say about a certain Wikipedia article, create (or update) a section with the article name, like this
==[[Article name]]==
I understand where you're coming from, though Wikipedia's math articles are not a set of math papers, however. Having the proof in it's own subsection is only set to logically organize the page, though your point about mentioning a theorem without describing which it is, is well taken, and I'll twiddle the page again. Dysprosia 05:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You also don't need to remove talk from my talk page :) Welcome, by the way! I hope you like the place and choose to stay. Nice to see another math person, even though you are in Applied ;) If you've any other questions don't hesitate to ask me or make a note on the (albeit massive) Wikipedia:Village Pump. Thanks, and happy editing... Dysprosia 05:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles have a reputation for being difficult to understand by the layperson. That wording was aimed to try to make it less so. Dysprosia 05:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The removal thing may well be a bug, since we've just upgraded to a new version of the software. Dysprosia 05:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- We've stated the theorem and said it's a fact, rightly so. Consider placing the word "theorem" before - a layperson who would not know what a theorem is would be put off by this. Alternatively one could say "There is a fact (a theorem), that ...", but this sounds strange. I'm saying the proof section should go in a new subheading, not the "This fact" section. I thought it would sound more like a discussion or textual (I can't find the word right now) by using a single paragraph, but that can probably be twiddled around. If you've got a good idea, be bold and try it out :) Dysprosia 01:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you are complicating things. OK, I see your point, we should not confuse the lay people. But you cannot simplify things indefinitely. Anybody going to the level set page would first see a mathematical definition of level sets, which includes a set notation in n variables, which is not encouraging for lay people, but this is life! I would not want that thing changed. Now, if your supposedly naive layperson was not put off by that, when that person moves to the section called "level sets versus gradient", s/he will be sufficiently hardened not to faint when seeing the word "Theorem". Do you agree?
Now, you put the proof in a separate subsection. This is not good I would say, and for two reasons. First, you need to then put the theorem itself in a subsection, otherwise it does not make much sense. Second, people visiting that page will not figure out why the proof is in a subsection, because there is not too much material to be organized in the "level sets versus gradient" section. What they will see is the word "Proof" put without punctuation and with a fat bold font almost in the center of the page. This is a big lack of style, and no, our layperson would not like "Proof" in big boldface more than that person would like proof in small bold face at the beginning of paragraph.
All that said, if that lay person is not smart enough to gloss over technicalities and to look just at the paragraph about the hikers, that person is hopeless. Let us not converge towards the lowest dumbed down denominator, and keep things clear. I reverted the page to its original condition, linking to the word theorem. --Oleg Alexandrov 16:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also put a picture. Hopefully this will compensate for maybe too much math lingo (although I see no way to avoid it in this setting, and I am not sure we should). --Oleg Alexandrov 23:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If you are happy, I am happy. However,
- What they will see is the word "Proof" put without punctuation and with a fat bold font almost in the center of the page. This is a big lack of style, and no, our layperson would not like "Proof" in big boldface more than that person would like proof in small bold face at the beginning of paragraph.
- Articles need to be structured, with the heading markup. This means a table of contents will be generated. Whether or not the font is too large is not really the issue - that is the responsibility of the CSS. Unfortunately, we don't have one CSS for the non-math articles and another for the math articles (which would be ideal). Regardless, I'll leave the article alone for the time being.
- Thanks Dysprosia 00:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed your addition of a request for Pekeris and the Helium atom, and I was wondering what that one's about - it doesn't sound like your typical mathematical term. ^_~ -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 12:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- First, it was not me who mentioned "Pekeris and the Helium atom" in the Calculus of variations page. There was even some kind of improperly written link to Pekeris and the Helium atom. So, all I did, was to put that link in good shape, and request the actual article. There is something about Pekeris and stuff on the following page: Graduate Course: Quantum Physics, but I don't know anything of this kind of things. If you think the request is inapproapriate, we can remove it. --Oleg Alexandrov 19:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I have an idea. The page Graduate Course: Quantum Physics I mentioned, was last updated less than a year ago. I bet that the prof who wrote it is alive and well, and might even be willing to contribute that text or a rephrased version on the actual page. Should we ask him to do that? --Oleg Alexandrov 19:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't think it was inappropriate - I was just wondering what it was about. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 10:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Got it. So, from what I saw on that link I mentioned above, a guy called Pekeris made great contributions to modeling the Helium atom, and that thing seems to be a very important example of the variational principle, about which the page which links to Pekeris and the Helium atom is taling about. --Oleg Alexandrov 16:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oleg, do you realise that the influence of Christianity has led to the decline of Buddhism in Korea? I tell you why:
- Christianity exceeded Buddhism as the leading religion. The current statistics is that Christianity is followed by South Korea's 35% of its total population while Buddhism had only 26%.
- The Christianity in Korea is expanding and will not decrease. Generally, Buddhist can convert to Christian, but not Christian to Buddhist. Seeing from Christianity in Korea that they want to establish Christianity in Korea at this rate, the future of the Buddhist influence will be overshadowed by Christian influence.
- If you find it relavant, then please put it back. Thanks.
- Well, this suggestion is good, but place it there first in the meantime. Help me to put it up the question again, but in an differnet orientation. Furthermore, Buddhism has generated a lot of culture upon Korean culture, but with Christianity it might destroy to some extent its culture, and at this rate, the Koreans may be the first group of Asians like the Hawaiians to face cultural destruction. I'm not purposely condemning about Christianity, even though I was a Christian. If this offends you, then I"ll apologise.
- If there is anything wrong gramatically wrong in my sentence structre, I strongly urge you to help me correct the sentences into proper English.