User talk:Amorrow/Systematic English

Welcome. A few comments on your endeavour.

Firstly, there is no page on ProofWiki the exclusive property of a single editor, although of course everybody recognises the first editor as having a say in the direction of a page. This was the primary motivation to move this page to user space.

The second motivation is that the philosophy of encourages focused, stand-alone pages. We furthermore attempt to source everything in printed literature (and in any case, no tertiary sources like Wikipedia). Since the main namespace is reserved for theorems, this page was a bad fit.

I must admit that I'm a bit sceptical about the idea of systematic English in general, and in particular with regards to. It reads contrived and distracts, where we already have trouble enough specifying everything with adequate rigour without this added hurdle. I'd like to hear from you how you envisage incorporating systematic English, if you are so inclined, with, while respecting the principles of comprehension and rigour (which are non-negotiable). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2016 (EST)


 * It needs to be pointed out that our own style of English as defined in the relevant house style page does appear to overlap to a certain extent with Systematic English as defined here. However, my own view coincides with that of Lord_Farin who states the case adequately. --prime mover (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Political viewpoints
We try to steer clear of political comment on this site, or we are in danger of alienating even more people than we already do. Whether or not we consider certain philosophical viewpoints worthy or not, others may hold them dear, and dismissing or condemning them, however right we know we are in our self-righteous bones, is likely to cause conflict.

On we strive to consider mathematics, and only mathematics. It is respectfully requested that political and religious viewpoints are expressed only where there is a direct application to mathematics (some prime examples being Pascal's Wager and Euler's refutation of Diderot).

I trust we can see eye to eye on this -- expressions of (particularly) political and politico-philosophical viewpoints are likely to be peremptorily deleted. --prime mover (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2016 (EST)