User talk:Unzerlegbarkeit.html



All rights renounced. Do whatever you want with my contributions. I'm afraid this user can't do cardinal arithmetic very well at all...

Welcome!

Hello, Unzerlegbarkeit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'm afraid I ventured to move Unzerlegbarkeit. We prefer to use English terms where English does (thus even Square-free integer and Hilbert's Theorem 90, although that one's close). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hereditarily countable

I found a hard-copy of the book here, although I'm not quite sure what to do with the floppy disk enclosed, not having a computer old enough to have a floppy disk reader. I agree with your analysis, that form 31 should imply form 172 with your definition of HC; and &omega₁ is clearly HC with the definition stated there, so 172 becomes trivially false. (I don't have a jstore subcription which covers Jech, so I can't comment as to which definition is his.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming of article on excluded middle as consequence of AC

I moved the article Diaconescu–Goodman–Myhill theorem to comply with WP standards on endashes, and then went looking for double redirects to fix. Then I got a little concerned at noticing that you had moved the article from an earlier name on the grounds of "priority".

My concern is this: We are not supposed to create new terminology. The name Diaconescu–Goodman–Myhill theorem seems perfectly reasonable as a name, but if it is not already used in the literature, then it should not be the article title. Possibly the article could be moved to a descriptive title such as proof that excluded middle follows from the axiom of choice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I think you'll find Goodman-Myhill theorem and Diaconescu theorem. I don't think the joined name is common at all (either way). Arguably we should even differentiate their two theorems, but making two articles would be about as pointless as "constructive proof" and "nonconstructive proof". Dunno. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case the article should be placed at the more commonly used (not necessarily the more historically accurate) of the two names, with a redirect from the other name. Then the lede should say something like

In constructive mathematics, the Goodman–Myhill theorem, also called the Diaconescu theorem, ...

--Trovatore (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. As to which to go with, I'd be guessing. Google seems to think Diaconescu's theorem is most common. I'm going with that, but I won't oppose anyone changing it to whatever. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Initial context setting

When you start an article by saying

The Diaconescu–Goodman–Myhill theorem states that the full axiom of choice is sufficient to derive the law of the excluded middle, or restricted forms of it, in constructive set theory.

then the lay reader can read the whole first sentence without finding out that mathematics is what the article is about. I changed it so that it says:

In mathematical logic, the Diaconescu–Goodman–Myhill theorem states that the full axiom of choice is sufficient to derive the law of the excluded middle, or restricted forms of it, in constructive set theory.

(Also, note that "displayed" TeX should be indented by a preceeding colon. My edit also took care of that.) Michael Hardy (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the indent tip. As for context, I did end with "in constructive set theory", which I think is where an "in" makes sense. How about I just hyperlink "theorem"? Now it seems a large majority Wikipedia articles do start with "In X, Y is a Z that P, Q, and R" but it just seems off a lot of the time. Focusing on the subset of well-written Wikipedia articles, they often don't (e.g. what's on the front page now).

In any case, as with the minor naming issue above, I'm going with that, but I won't oppose anyone changing it to whatever. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

super-recursive algorithm

A few words of advice here.

I tried to get this article deleted, largely on the grounds that there is no true peer-reviewed literature on the subject. There seems to be, but closer inspection reveals nothing solid, only glancing references, plus some papers Burgin published in a special issue for which Burgin was a guest editor. (Springer monographs are not peer-reviewed, so his book doesn't count.)

But lack of true peer review in this case is not surprising, is it? It's very hard to take this kind of theorizing seriously. And you can see where Burg-- uh, I mean "Multipundit" -- is going now, in your recent discussion: "How dare you suggest merging this into hypercomputation -- super-recursive algorithms include all of computing theory, and anyway, hypercomputation is hardware, not theory!" (Even though hypercomputation actually has no working hardware, because it's based on bad theory; and even though Multipundit resorts to arguments of "more sophisticated hardware" to "explain" why some of his flavors of Turing machine are more powerful than others.)

Vaughan Pratt called it correctly, I think: the relevant policy here is WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, the topic is mathematically a bit rarefied, and Burgin has managed the appearance of peer reviewed publication on the topic, so the chances of getting WP:FRINGE applied in this case are quite small, unless the issue is taken up by an admin who understands what's really at issue here. And what are the chances of that?

I think the level on which this kind of article needs to be taken up is higher. It's not the application of existing policy, but the formation of new policy, a policy framed in answer to this question: why doesn't Wikipedia have a process for deletion/merging/due-weight in which judgment is limited to expert opinion, not just consensus on the part of anybody who bothers to involve himself? As things stand, all it takes is one raving inclusionist astride the RfD queue, and you can't get an article like this handled appropriately. After all, the consensus in the last AfD discussion among those who were actually computer scientists or logicians (or who, like me, had enough formal education in the area to see through Burgin's nonsense) was clear enough: this stuff is garbage, it hardly merits mention. So why didn't the article get thrown out or merged into "hypercomputation"? "No consensus".

What were the adjudicating admin's credentials in this subject area? None. (Sandstein's not stupid -- far from it. Computing theory is just not Sandstein's specialty, which is law.) Among the small minority who insisted on "keep" one can find Colonel Warden, the author of overspending -- pretty strong evidence of someone a bit unclear on the distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia". Colonel Warden's style of argument on that article's talk page is also, er, shall we say, instructive?

Why do editors like this Colonel Warden have such power in cases like these? Because, in cases like these, Wikipedia policy is lacking. That's where you need to go with "super-recursive algorithm": to proposing new policy. Arguing with Burgin/Multipundit will get you nowhere. (Or worse: it will get you only to a state of anger.) The more you disgree with Multipundit, the more condescending he will become. Believe me, it's not worth it. Yakushima (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)