Talk:Mathematics

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)