User talk:Ascii

= Sandbox =


 * Sandbox

= Desk =


 * Sampling
 * Sampling Notes
 * Sampling Notes for Theorems
 * Propositional Logic
 * Implication
 * Set Theory
 * Relation Theory
 * Mapping Theory
 * Order Theory
 * Algebraic Structures
 * Group Theory
 * Number Theory
 * Topology
 * $GCSE$
 * Set Theory


 * Mathematicians Level $1$
 * Mathematicians Level $2$
 * Mathematicians Level $3$

Theorems

 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Non-Reflexive
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Not Reflexive
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Not Antireflexive
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Symmetric
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Not Antisymmetric
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Non-transitive (Old: Coprime Relation for Integers is Non-Transitive)
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Not Transitive
 * Coprime Relation for Integers is Not Antitransitive


 * Reflexive Reduction is Largest Antireflexive Relation which is Subset
 * Antireflexive Relation equals its Reflexive Reduction

Predicate Logic

 * User:Ascii/Rule of Generalization

Elementary Polynomials
The objective is for to lay out these concepts from elementary to advanced.

Polynomials

 * Definition:Monomial (Redirect: Definition:Mononomial)
 * Definition:Binomial
 * Definition:Trinomial
 * Definition:Polynomial


 * Definition:Polynomial/Term
 * Definition:Polynomial/Coefficient
 * Definition:Polynomial/Like Term (Redirect: Definition:Like Term)
 * Definition:Polynomial/Unlike Term (Redirect: Definition:Unlike Term)


 * Definition:Like Term Collection (Redirect: Definition:Collecting Like Terms)

Specific Polynomials

 * Definition:Linear Polynomial
 * Definition:Quadratic Polynomial
 * Definition:Cubic Polynomial

Equations

 * Definition:Linear Equation
 * Definition:Linear Equation/General Definition
 * Definition:Quadratic Equation
 * Definition:Cubic Equation

= Messages =

Refactoring
Hi,

I notice you've got stuck into some of the outstanding refactoring tasks. Normally we strongly discourage new contributors from doing this, as there are a number of pitfalls which can cause a lot of extra work (we have been bitten by this badly in the past). But you're doing a good job on this (a really good job), so it makes sense to leave you to it.

Please note that if there are source works cited at the bottom of these pages, the "prev" and "next" links usually need to be reviewed by someone who has direct access to those source works. If this is the case, can you please place an invocation of the SourceReview template at the top of the Sources section, to alert anyone on maintenance duty that this needs to be attended to?

Minor adjustments will be made to pages you edit in such a manner -- OCD affects different people in different ways. Please don't worry. --prime mover (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2019 (EST)


 * Thank you! I will from now on. -- 05:04, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Further notes on refactoring
Please don't refactor a page unless there is a specific invocation of the "refactoring" template.

Many thanks --prime mover (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2019 (EST)


 * Okay. I will not from now on. -- 07:25, 23 January 2019 (EST)


 * Of course, if you see something that looks like a candidate for refactoring, put a message on the talk page of that page. Note that just because a page has been organised into subheadings (e.g. a Necessary Condition and Sufficient Condition page) does not necessarily mean it needs to be split up into separate pages.


 * If there are:
 * a) source works which present only part of the proof (e.g. the Necessary condition and not the Sufficient condition) then we would refactor to split them up, so as to cite only the direction that is in the source. And even then we don't always do this.
 * b) multiple proofs for one section, but not for the other (there are a few proofs like this), then splitting the page and putting multiple (for example) "Necessary condition" proofs in their own pages makes sense.


 * But if the page just happens to be a multi-section proof (e.g. a proof that a structure is a group, or metric space, or equivalence relation) does not mean we have to split the page. (Unless there are multiple proofs, all instructional and interesting, for just one section of such a proof.)


 * Hope this helps. --prime mover (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2019 (EST)