181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 230:
Line 230: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Bezout, etc. etc.: new section
And here's our dictionary of terms. (3.0 edition)
And here's our dictionary of terms. (3.0 edition)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12621914298&v=app_2373072738&ref=search#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12621914298&v=app_2373072738&ref=search#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162
== Bezout, etc. etc. ==
I've been given some nice graphing software (by a former editor on this site!), and I think I can create some nice graphs for your material on Bezout's theorem. My guess would be that the things we would want are
*A parabola and a slanted straight line, showing two intersections.
*Two ellipses, similar but rotated from each other, showing four intersections.
*Two cubics—exaggerated Chebyshev polynomials to show all the kinks—tilted relative to each other, and showing nine intersections.
I have created the third of these.
Do you agree that that's about the quantity and examples that are appropriate? They will have to be uploaded by the same mechanism as before—email to Jpatt.
Now my question. You seem to be interested in putting this stuff (along with a lot of other stuff) in the "majoring in math" article. It seems to me that this material should be in a page by itself. The same could be said for many of the other items. What is your vision for "majoring in math"? Is it OK to make brief mention of all these topics and then point to the various other articles? Or do you want it to be more or less self contained?
On other matters, the vector space stuff looks very interesting. I find myself drawn in many directions at once, with nowhere near enough time to do what I'd like. I've been doing some stuff with deduction/induction (as you may have noticed), and several other topics have caught my attention. And I haven't finished with the "number" hierarchy! I think rationals, reals, and complexes are done, but there are integers and natural numbers still to do. And I'd like to do a really good jobs with Peano's axioms as part of the natural number overhaul. And, of course, put Dedekind's "God made the integers..." quote at the top of the whole thing :-) And I still haven't finished the real analysis, what does "compact" really mean, etc. etc. So little time, so much to do.
Speaking of induction/induction, DWiggins needs watching, as SRFoster did before him. They both seem to have a modus operandi of: put in something that looks plausible but is in fact obviously wrong to any mathematically literate person, then repeatedly argue the point when called out on it. (There are a few people from farther back who also did this sort of thing.)
There are probably some other things to talk about, but that's enough for now. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 18:00, 31 October 2009 (EDT)