[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    Re: [Wikipedia-l] An idea
From:       Stephen Forrest <stephen.forrest () gmail ! com>
Date:       2005-06-09 0:46:45
Message-ID: 2ea1ace505060817463f2e2122 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 6/8/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eh, it's quite possible, .. for example in making a example for a math
> article you might stumble on something somewhat novel, but often in
> mathematics we can empirically confirm the truth of something in a way
> which doesn't assert POV. So you might say that NOR is less important
> in articles about math. ... but at the same time, it's not like
> placing something in an article gets people to test the proof, so NOR
> is still potentially valuable there because the majority of 'great new
> mathematical ideas' are actually wrong. :)

Yes, and even when the result is true, it may not be especially new
(by itself) or important.  Convincing mathematical cranks that an
apparently-new true result they've found is not the most sensational
result of modern mathematics seems to be harder than convincing them
that an false claim is false.

Determining what ought to go in a WIkipedia article about a
mathematical seems to me to be as subjective as any discipline.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]