User talk:JewleZ

Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact one of the administrators, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:
 * Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
 * Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
 * Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
 * Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers! prime mover (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

House style and protocol
You are invited to study the help pages to read up on house style, and the general protocol concerning the inclusion of links to definitions and results upon which a given proof rests.

While your recent amendment to Subgroup of Solvable Group is Solvable may be an improvement (it may be, I haven't checked it), it clearly does not match our presentational standards.

If you compare this page to others, you will see what is meant. --prime mover (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

What is going on?
I removed an obviously wrong proof and added 2 correct ones and not only did the wrong proof just get put back in place, my correct one gets called handwavy because i called the trivial group the trivial group? Am i getting joked on?


 * It's not clear that the original proof is "obviously wrong", and we are reluctant to accept the word of a brand new contributor without at least an attempt made to explain why it is "obviously wrong".
 * Yes it is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Literally just look at the first quotient defined. The top is smaller than the bottom. Im sorry, but that is something everyone should notice. Have you even read it?
 * I have reread the proofs. I see no difference between $\dfrac {H \cap G_i} {H \cap G_{i - 1}}$ (from original proof) and $\dfrac {N_{i + 1}} {N_i}$ (from proof 3). Both "tops" are larger than the "bottoms". Is that the only issue? (But again this discussion is more suitable on the talk page for the theorem itself.) --RandomUndergrad (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Left hand side. The top is an Intersection with G_{i-1} the bottom is G_{i-1}.
 * Huh. Perhaps it was a simple typo, that each $\paren {H \cap G_i} \cap G_{i - 1}$ from that point on is supposed to be the subset product $\paren {H \cap G_i} G_{i - 1}$? Then this group could be larger than $G_{i - 1}$, and then the Second Isomorphism Theorem can be applied and the rest follows? --RandomUndergrad (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably was, but it was repeated twice. Thats why I rewrote the Proof below following the spirit. It definitely destroys understandability and readability and should be removed or fixed.
 * There is no "trivially" on . Our site philosophy is to link to whatever result is used to back up every statement made. Just because it's trivial to you, because you're obviously very clever and fully aware of that fact, does not mean it is obvious to everybody. This isn't Math Stack Exchange, for example, where intellectual arrogance is praised and encouraged. To the contrary, we aspire to the standard that every page that can be landed upon by a complete novice can theoretically, by clicking on the embedded links within the body of the work, be understood. If you fail to include those links, either to explain the notation used or to justify the statement made, the page is of suboptimal value.
 * I literally called the group only containing the identity the trivial group. Thats literally just the name I have read and seen everywhere. I seriously even doubt you read any of it.
 * What else put my back up, placing you in serious danger of being categorised as a troll, was deleting the citation at the bottom of the page.


 * You are more than welcome to contribute to this site, but if you post up non-compliant work, you must expect it to either be reworked to make it compliant, or to have maintenance templates placed on it so that those who do the hard work of maintaining site standards know that it is there to be worked on.
 * The site standard seems to be just be the first google result of a statement and the proof of it given is not only unreadable but plainly wrong. With a nonsensical quotient stated 3 times.


 * Sorry, I thought all the above was trivially obvious. --prime mover (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with prime mover: I do believe that your proof is not necessarily wrong (I do not have enough expertise to claim anything stronger), but some results needs to be filled in before it can be validated. The current definition of a solvable group is:
 * This i have no problem with. I have a problem with keeping wrong proofs around "just because". I only stumbled upon this site because this majorly confused a friend of mine, who was aware of the fact, but wasted an hour trying to make sense of that.
 * $G$ is a solvable group it has a composition series in which each factor is a cyclic group.


 * and I have seen the definition of a solvable group using "derived series of $G$ eventually reaches the trivial subgroup of $G$", but as seen from this red link, this definition and the equivalence to the other definition has not been documented here yet (a place to start is perhaps Definition:Derived Subgroup).


 * $\map D H \le \map D G$ also seems trivial (I think I can see directly $\map D H \subseteq \map D G$, which is enough to finish the proof), but we also need a page documenting the result, no matter how trivial it is. (Maybe something like Derived Subgroup of Subgroup is Subgroup of Derived Subgroup?) It would seem that the result is then reached after (implied finite) induction. Maybe the proof would be clearer if you linked "trivial" to Definition:Trivial Group. (If you used other results, link them if possible.)


 * I do believe your intentions are sincere, but please do not delete proofs even if they are flawed: if you believe a proof to be incorrect, please raise it on the talk page explaining why you think it is wrong, so we could possibly salvage it. (Case in point: see Talk:Exists Bijection to a Disjoint Set) --RandomUndergrad (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I literally did salvage it. Proof 3 is literally exactly what was aimed to be done but correct.


 * For the record, I made no assertion that either of the proofs presented by User:JewleZ is actually "wrong". What I take issue with is the assertion made by User:JewleZ that the original proof was wrong and therefore was worthy of being completely removed and replaced with something supposedly "better". I beg to reference this FAQ: Help:FAQ/Questions about contributions/You undid my corrections.


 * I'm so sorry that I disliked the first google result of the statement being an obviously wrong proof, if one would just read it.


 * Hence I followed site protocol and set up a structure whereby all proofs are now available to be viewed on an equal footing. None of the work done by User:JewleZ has been removed, apart from the filler-words and other irrelevancies.


 * I also direct you to the caveat below the edit page, which you are encouraged to take to heart. --prime mover (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)