Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 02:45 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PR Stanley writes: One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. 2. MOST journal publishers who recommend LaTeX give you the appropriate .cls files. Kluwer, Journal of Functional Programming, etc. Sometimes the attached manuals contain formulae. Whom did you ask, and what did you want? 3. LaTeX is NOT the one and only one. Texts which should be printed, OK, I format in LaTeX. Presentations on screen, my lectures, seminars, etc. I format in MathML, and I show using Mozilla, etc., standard navigator. Of course, making MathML by hand is like eating oysters with shells. I recommend then the script of Peter Jipsen http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html which permits you to write your formulae intuitively, and fast. And reasonably well, although the comparison with LaTeX would be difficult. This is my problem with XML --- the syntax is so verbose, people are driven to *author* in anything but XML. TeX can be authored directly, by a real person, using a standard text editor. Infinitely superior to XML. jcc ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Most proofs in mathematics use intuitive arguments, most proofs are not formalized enough in order to be checked by machines. Ok, this can be considered a deficiency of machine provers. But in the history there were famous proofs which turned out to be wrong. Remember the first proof of the four color theorem of Alfred Kempe (cited from, you guess it, wikipedia :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem ) Or remember the first trial of Andrew Wile to prove the Taniyama-Shimura-Weil conjecture for Fermat's last theorem. It is generally hard to show that a proof is incorrect if the statement is correct. You completely misunderstand the goal and nature of Wikipedia. The goal is not truth, but verifiability. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine whether a mathematical proof is correct, but merely if it is accepted by the mathematical community. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is a source-based encyclopedia, and when executed properly, its articles will reflect the biases of its sources. This should be mainstream, learned opinion in the field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V -- Doug Quale ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
Paul Brown wrote: On 10/17/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? I trust most of them to not be wrong, but I don't trust them to be right. Mathematical concepts are bit like binary search -- getting the flavor right isn't that difficult, but being concise, complete, and correct is very difficult even for experts. In non-mathematics books that I've read (econometrics, operations research, etc.), some of the bits of exposition on fundamentals (multi-var calc, stats/probability, etc.) are not wrong but not quite right. For lay purposes, wikipedia is probably fine, and any resource *that people use* that makes an effort to educate and inform on mathematical concepts deserves some thanks and support. My $0.02. I'd probably agree with most of that. I read a fair bit of stuff on Wikipedia. Some articles are really quite interesting, some are far too vague to comprehend, some are just explained badly, and a fair few are near-empty stubs. It's pot luck. Do I trust the material to be correct? Well, let me put it this way: If I read something from Wikipedia that's wrong, what's the worst that could happen? It's not like I'm going to *use* this information for anything important, so... ;-) ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Jules Bean wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *PLEASE*, show me untrustworthy Wikipedia pages. Any article on a disputed territory or open political dispute. Most articles on a controversial philosophy. Many articles on living people. Articles on controversal topics like HIV/AIDS, climate change, economics, generally things which are called conspiracy theory by enough people. You find many authors which forget good scientific style if the topic is presented in a way which contradicts to their view. Neutral point of view just means Biased view which is shared by enough people. Fortunately, articles on mathematics have several virtues which make them less likely to subject to the problems which plague the above. There is a notion of objective proof, Most proofs in mathematics use intuitive arguments, most proofs are not formalized enough in order to be checked by machines. Ok, this can be considered a deficiency of machine provers. But in the history there were famous proofs which turned out to be wrong. Remember the first proof of the four color theorem of Alfred Kempe (cited from, you guess it, wikipedia :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem ) Or remember the first trial of Andrew Wile to prove the Taniyama-Shimura-Weil conjecture for Fermat's last theorem. It is generally hard to show that a proof is incorrect if the statement is correct. there is a wide peer-reviewed literature which can be used as references, Do referees actually check every proof? there are a disproportionate number of wikipedians with mathematical ability to catch errors. Wikipedia contains the same abuse of notation as all the mathematical literature. I just like to recall the function f(x). Or see the German part of Wikipedia where people have decided to restrict the category Mathematical Function to functions with real and complex parameters and values. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Mathematische_Funktion) In conclusion I would not trust Wikipedia. But this holds for the rest of the world, too. Scientists must always have a basic stock of scepticism, especially for well known and widely accepted facts/believes. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *PLEASE*, show me untrustworthy Wikipedia pages. Any article on a disputed territory or open political dispute. Most articles on a controversial philosophy. Many articles on living people. I hope I don't have to give examples. Certainly I don't wish to discuss any of the above topics here. Fortunately, articles on mathematics have several virtues which make them less likely to subject to the problems which plague the above. There is a notion of objective proof, there is a wide peer-reviewed literature which can be used as references, there are a disproportionate number of wikipedians with mathematical ability to catch errors. Jules ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On 10/17/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? I trust most of them to not be wrong, but I don't trust them to be right. Mathematical concepts are bit like binary search -- getting the flavor right isn't that difficult, but being concise, complete, and correct is very difficult even for experts. In non-mathematics books that I've read (econometrics, operations research, etc.), some of the bits of exposition on fundamentals (multi-var calc, stats/probability, etc.) are not wrong but not quite right. For lay purposes, wikipedia is probably fine, and any resource *that people use* that makes an effort to educate and inform on mathematical concepts deserves some thanks and support. My $0.02. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mult.ifario.us/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
Dan Weston writes: I find the mathematics is more accurate on http://www.conservapedia.com Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;) Since decent people here pointed out how my sarcasm may be blessing and useless, I must ask (living so far from the Bible Belt that I miss all standard American connotations...) Are you serious? (Not about the checking by the Lord, but concerning the quality of that conservapathologia?) My favourite citation, (apart from such obvious and meaningful things, as underlining the fact that Stalin appreciated Darwin, and now you know what to think about...) is the definition of point in geometry as an infinitely small dot. If you are not satisfied, you go point itself, and you read that A point can be represented on paper by a dot; however the dot is not a point, but only represents it. Because the actual dot contains millions of molecules of ink and other substances, whereas the point exists as an abstraction only. And you can die happy. === Jerzy Karczmarczuk ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Generally, yes. Another site you might want to cross check with is Wolfram Research's Mathworld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, PR Stanley wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul To a first approximation - trust but verify. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you mean Philippa. I believe Phillipa is the one from an alternate universe, who has a beard and programs in BASIC, using only gotos for control flow. -- Anton van Straaten on Lambda the Ultimate ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
The trustworthy articles on Wikipedia have references that can be checked, and read. The ones without references are not to be trusted.. Dave Barton - Original Message - From: Philippa Cowderoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia? On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, PR Stanley wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul To a first approximation - trust but verify. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
David Barton writes: The trustworthy articles on Wikipedia have references that can be checked, and read. The ones without references are not to be trusted.. Let's apply (illegally) some recursive reasoning. Why should we trust Dave Barton? He didn't give any references either! Seriously. *PLEASE*, show me untrustworthy Wikipedia pages. But NOT stub pages, visibly waiting to be completed. I do not claim that there aren't any. Encyclopaedia Britannica is not checked by the Almighty either... But I dont like accusations without explicit proofs. There are constant revisions of W_P, and established protocols to solve disputes. And, remember that already the invitation to editing says plainly that articles without references are routinely removed. Jerzy Karczmarczuk ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia -- if not ordained directly from the Almighty, then at least by his earth-bound agents! No, but seriously, I agree with Le Hacker Soleil, news of wikipedia's inaccuracies is greatly exaggerated. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Barton writes: The trustworthy articles on Wikipedia have references that can be checked, and read. The ones without references are not to be trusted.. Let's apply (illegally) some recursive reasoning. Why should we trust Dave Barton? He didn't give any references either! Seriously. *PLEASE*, show me untrustworthy Wikipedia pages. But NOT stub pages, visibly waiting to be completed. I do not claim that there aren't any. Encyclopaedia Britannica is not checked by the Almighty either... But I dont like accusations without explicit proofs. There are constant revisions of W_P, and established protocols to solve disputes. And, remember that already the invitation to editing says plainly that articles without references are routinely removed. Jerzy Karczmarczuk ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On 10/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Weston writes: I find the mathematics is more accurate on http://www.conservapedia.com Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;) Since decent people here pointed out how my sarcasm may be blessing and useless, I must ask (living so far from the Bible Belt that I miss all standard American connotations...) Are you serious? (Not about the checking by the Lord, but concerning the quality of that conservapathologia?) I think he might have been being sarcastic. But I can't be sure. Anyway, regarding the original question about WIkipedia: I don't trust anything on Wikipedia (or in textbooks, or the ICFP proceedings, or when someone's telling it to me...) -- I apply critical reasoning to what I read there, same as with everything else. If you've read enough Wikipedia articles, you know when things smell bad. Citations (doesn't have to be a lot, but every article should have at least one) to reasonable published sources are a good tip-off that an article is legitimate. And as others have said, math articles don't tend to attract a lot of the kinds of people who would insert deliberately wrong information. As with the Haskell mailing list, you just have to watch out for unintentionally wrong information (and enough people watch the math articles that this probably tends to get fixed quickly.) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Chevalier * catamorphism.org * Often in error, never in doubt There are no sexist decisions to be made. There are antisexist decisions to be made. And they require tremendous energy and self-scrutiny, as well as moral stamina... -- Samuel R. Delany ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
shai dorsai On Oct 18, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:53 , John Meacham wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:31:10AM +0100, PR Stanley wrote: Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Certainly! I honestly think wikipedia is one of man's greatest achievements, and it is just in its infancy. For what it's worth, I'm withholding judgement on Wikipedia until it matures a bit (they're still learning how to deal with editorial issues IMO) --- but when I first heard about it I couldn't help but think of the Final Encyclopedia. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
Some content I have found beneficial in the past when I have stumbled into misunderstandings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PR Stanley writes: One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. 2. MOST journal publishers who recommend LaTeX give you the appropriate .cls files. Kluwer, Journal of Functional Programming, etc. Sometimes the attached manuals contain formulae. Whom did you ask, and what did you want? 3. LaTeX is NOT the one and only one. Texts which should be printed, OK, I format in LaTeX. Presentations on screen, my lectures, seminars, etc. I format in MathML, and I show using Mozilla, etc., standard navigator. Of course, making MathML by hand is like eating oysters with shells. I recommend then the script of Peter Jipsen http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html which permits you to write your formulae intuitively, and fast. And reasonably well, although the comparison with LaTeX would be difficult. 4. The LaTeX community name is Legion. You don't need Wikipedia to find everything about, all examples you ever would need. Ask concrete questions. 5. I don't understand what has it to do with 'trusting' Wikipedia or not... Jerzy Karczmarczuk ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
At 01:48 19/10/2007, you wrote: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 02:45:45AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PR Stanley writes: One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. Don't forget that PR Stanley is blind. Latex page sources are infinitely superior to unadorned images of unknown providence. Stefan I've sent him an email explaining roughly how the screen reader technology works. Unfortunately, Mathml has a long long way before it can be classed as an alternative to Latex. Cheers, Paul ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:06:21AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefan O'Rear writes: ... Latex page sources are infinitely superior to unadorned images of unknown providence. Of course, most certainly! But I failed to understand the relation to Wikipedia. OK, I see. If you look at the sources, several pages have the img ... accompagnied by the source... img class=tex alt= y = c_i x^i \, src=blah.png / However, extracting this from the Web page seems extremely painful... I never thought somebody would need that... Jerzy K. Extremely painful? The whole *point* of alt text is that it transparently replaces the image for people who can't see images. At least my browser of choice does it. Stefan signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
PR: I think that an email to Tim Gowers would yield LaTeX source for the pdf articles in his Princeton Companion to Mathematics, in case it has articles on topics you care about: http://gowers.wordpress.com/category/princeton-companion-to-mathematics/ On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Stefan O'Rear wrote: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 02:45:45AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PR Stanley writes: One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. Don't forget that PR Stanley is blind. Latex page sources are infinitely superior to unadorned images of unknown providence. Stefan ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
PR Stanley writes: One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. 2. MOST journal publishers who recommend LaTeX give you the appropriate .cls files. Kluwer, Journal of Functional Programming, etc. Sometimes the attached manuals contain formulae. Whom did you ask, and what did you want? 3. LaTeX is NOT the one and only one. Texts which should be printed, OK, I format in LaTeX. Presentations on screen, my lectures, seminars, etc. I format in MathML, and I show using Mozilla, etc., standard navigator. Of course, making MathML by hand is like eating oysters with shells. I recommend then the script of Peter Jipsen http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html which permits you to write your formulae intuitively, and fast. And reasonably well, although the comparison with LaTeX would be difficult. 4. The LaTeX community name is Legion. You don't need Wikipedia to find everything about, all examples you ever would need. Ask concrete questions. 5. I don't understand what has it to do with 'trusting' Wikipedia or not... Jerzy Karczmarczuk ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:53 , John Meacham wrote: On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:31:10AM +0100, PR Stanley wrote: Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Certainly! I honestly think wikipedia is one of man's greatest achievements, and it is just in its infancy. For what it's worth, I'm withholding judgement on Wikipedia until it matures a bit (they're still learning how to deal with editorial issues IMO) --- but when I first heard about it I couldn't help but think of the Final Encyclopedia. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:31:10AM +0100, PR Stanley wrote: Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Certainly! I honestly think wikipedia is one of man's greatest achievements, and it is just in its infancy. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 02:45:45AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PR Stanley writes: One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I don't understand you. WHAT YOU WANT? 1. Many articles in Wikipedia typeset math formulae as *images*, you don't really see the LaTeX sources. Some formulae are typed through plain HTML. Don't forget that PR Stanley is blind. Latex page sources are infinitely superior to unadorned images of unknown providence. Stefan signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
Hi thank you for all your replies. One of the reasons I'm interested in Wikipedia and Wikibook is because you're more likely to find Latex source code used for typesetting the maths. Latex is the one and only 100% tool right now. A lot of publishers use Latex but try to get anything from them in electronic form. I think it'd be easier to find water on Mars. Cheers, Paul ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
Stefan O'Rear writes: ... Latex page sources are infinitely superior to unadorned images of unknown providence. Of course, most certainly! But I failed to understand the relation to Wikipedia. OK, I see. If you look at the sources, several pages have the img ... accompagnied by the source... img class=tex alt= y = c_i x^i \, src=blah.png / However, extracting this from the Web page seems extremely painful... I never thought somebody would need that... Jerzy K. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:31:10AM +0100, PR Stanley wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul Yes, unless they look like they were written by a crackpot. It's kinda hard to introduce errors when any sufficiently unobvious fact is accompanied by a proof sketch. Stefan signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
The mathematics is probably the most reliable part of Wikipedia. -- Dan On 10/17/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
I find the mathematics is more accurate on http://www.conservapedia.com Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;) Dan Piponi wrote: The mathematics is probably the most reliable part of Wikipedia. -- Dan On 10/17/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
I like wikipedia for mathematics quite a lot. However, I thought I might direct attention to the in-progress Princeton Companion to Mathematics: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/hello-world/ On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Dan Weston wrote: I find the mathematics is more accurate on http://www.conservapedia.com Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;) Dan Piponi wrote: The mathematics is probably the most reliable part of Wikipedia. -- Dan On 10/17/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
On Oct 17, 2007, at 22:25 , Dan Weston wrote: I find the mathematics is more accurate on http://www.conservapedia.com Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;) I Kings 7:23? :p -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Do you trust Wikipedia?
It is truly irresponsible to post such interesting links on a mailing list! :) I resent and thank you for the last couple hours. On 10/17/07, Dan Weston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find the mathematics is more accurate on http://www.conservapedia.com Their facts get checked by the Almighty Himself! ;) Dan Piponi wrote: The mathematics is probably the most reliable part of Wikipedia. -- Dan On 10/17/07, PR Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Do you trust mathematical materials on Wikipedia? Paul ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
