Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mathematics"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Clarification for future readers) |
(Ban me! Now! No, seriously, do it! I'm waiting........................) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT) | : Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Sometimes, more ''is'' better. Case in point: [[Riemann hypothesis]]. Why the hell are the "non-trivial zeros" of any significance? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis Wikipedia], of course, provides a much more comprehensive article, giving you at least a clue of how significant an effect the hypothesis has on the study of prime numbers, for starters. | ||
| + | :: But, no matter, I can tell that Conservapedia does, indeed put a much higher value on mathematical (addition) problems than on the standard CAPTCHA challenge of deciphering squiggly letters. ;) --[[User:Onit|Onit]] 09:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)] | :: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)] | ||
: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT) | : Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:01, June 11, 2008
This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GroupsAndFields (talk)
- Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.
- Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- Sometimes, more is better. Case in point: Riemann hypothesis. Why the hell are the "non-trivial zeros" of any significance? Wikipedia, of course, provides a much more comprehensive article, giving you at least a clue of how significant an effect the hypothesis has on the study of prime numbers, for starters.
- But, no matter, I can tell that Conservapedia does, indeed put a much higher value on mathematical (addition) problems than on the standard CAPTCHA challenge of deciphering squiggly letters. ;) --Onit 09:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
- [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this Philip J. Rayment 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]
- Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as MathWorld, we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. Foxtrot 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)