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
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
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
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
[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
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,
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
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
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,
: 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
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!
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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⑈
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
