Please leave new messages at the bottom. Thanks!
Archives: Archive 1 (June - July 2008)
Part of speech of article titles Edit
Please see my comments at Mathematics talk:Guidelines#Part of speech (and please respond there, if you wish). I don't think we should rigorously adhere to the nouns-for-titles convention of Wikipedia. I'll add more comments there later (tomorrow??) to flesh out my ideas a little more. - dcljr 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we really want to have articles for each minor category of ideas? For instance, do we want to have separate pages for even and odd functions if they can be both covered in an article for real-valued functions? I am all for being thorough, but I wouldn't want to leave any reader of this wiki with the sense of having to dig through several pages to learn about a set of ideas that may be, say, covered in a single lesson in a math class.
Localhost00 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, not really.. ---ko (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
New skin Edit
Edit summaries Edit
I notice you're omitting edit summaries on many of your edits. Including edit summaries makes tracking page changes a lot easier for other users. You can set the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" entry in your user preferences (under "Editing") to remind yourself to always provide one. - dcljr 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
my proof article for 0! = 1 Edit
Why did you remove my proof for 0! = 1?
You redirected it to an article. You do realize that there are plenty of generic articles, and separate proof articles, right? I wrote a proof article.
So why undermine other peoples work? What I contributed was valid... Im sorry you dont appreciate that, but that is a matter of your own cognitive capacity.
"Null product"? Give me a break. You pretty much advocate a "just accept it", "because teacher told you" mentality.
Im not sure if youre aware of this, but most things in math have been proven, not assumed. You are asserting an attitude of blind acceptance without justification.
You could have kept the null product article separate, you could have linked to it from within the proof article... or you could have even embedded the null product as a fourth approach to the proof in the proof article. But no. Instead to remove valid and more rigorous justification in favor of "NARF, it just is."
Is there a math wiki on the internet that actually has admins worthy of being admins? Because I would love to move there. Where intelligence and rational thought are promoted.
--126.96.36.199 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just see the Wikipedia article on empty product, won't you? --koイsuru (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- One more thing, we don't need to complicate things. If there's a simple, a very simple explanation for something, then why not use it?
Can you help with my policy questions? Edit
Hi Koisuru. I placed a question about math.wikia policy on the mathematics wikia forum, but have received no reply. Could you help me with these questions, or, if not, notify someone who can that these questions exist? Thanks. Dnessett 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've been a bit inactive here for while, I'm watching it; but well... I guess you can just do what you want. :) Or notify the other admins first: Special:ListUsers/sysop. –koisuru (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Fractal and Chaos Edit
When I come to visit this Wikia, I saw interesting picture icon in the homepage. The picture is related to Chaos and Fractal. So, I am wonder whether this Wikia discusses about those issues.