SkipCaptcha
710
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + +
no edit summary
::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::: Your suggestions are great guidelines to start with, but I'd appreciate just a bit more specific guidance. The fact that all editors have been doing whatever they see fit is the reason that the math articles are presently so inconsistent in depth and scope. If someone could just create a set of guidelines about a) what topics merit their own CP pages and b) the extent to which we should favor motivation and examples over precise definitions, it would make editing much easier. I appreciate that including definitions risks becoming too jargony, but including the definition of something like a group seems to me essential for any reasonable treatment. Is this talk page the appropriate forum to discuss such guidelines?
:::::: In any case, I'll try to write a few articles on differential geometry the level that I think is appropriate. This will probably entail beefing up the motivation on [[differential geometry]] and adding a page about Gaussian curvature for surfaces in R^3, with motivation for the more general situation. I will also write a page about minimal surfaces, with particular reference to the 3d case, but perhaps some discussion of mean curvature. Once these are up, please tell me what you think! After that I may work on [[algebraic topology]], but that topic looks like it will require a substantial amount of cleaning of the existing pages to a more appropriate level. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)