Category talk:Floor of x+m over n

I don't think we should be having categories for single proofs... wouldn't it be better to just put this in the general category of floor functions? KarlFrei (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2018 (EDT)


 * It's not categories for single proofs, it's categories for single results which have multiple proofs.


 * And I do think we should. What's your argument against? --prime mover (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2018 (EDT)


 * Oh I see. My only argument is that it leads to a rather large number of categories, at least, I assume that there are very many results with multiple proofs (I have certainly encountered a lot already). Hence I would personally try to have less categories. To my mind, a category should be something that people could be looking for. But, if I am in the minority... KarlFrei (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2018 (EDT)


 * The general strategy of with respect to categories is for a result to be easily found.  This is helped by having smaller categories; so, for example, if you want to find this result, you'd look in the "Floor Function" category. It is seen that there exist a modest $49$ results (as of this moment) in this category, and all can be presented on one screen.


 * Some categories have many results in them, and many of those results have multiple proofs. If you have all those proofs in that same category, it bulks it out so you can't see them all on the screen at once, and if it goes over $200$ pages in that category, you have to page through them to find the result you want.


 * It is neater to put the main result in the main category, and the proofs of that result in a subcategory to keep them out of the way.


 * Browse, for example, Category:Conjunction to see the extent of the problem. All those subcategories keep the details hidden away, allowing the results themselves to be comprehended in one go.


 * The initiative to do this consistently with all multi-proof results is a fairly recent development, and is work in progress. One problem that remains outstanding is to distinguish visually between subcategories which contain results pertaining to a genuine sub-concept (e.g. "Subgroups" as a subcategory of "Group Theory"), and those categories containing multi-proof results. At the moment they are all just bunged in the main category. A programmatic technique needs to be developed (e.g. a template) so as to allow multi-proof results to be placed into a consistently-named "results" subcategory; as for "Examples of Group Theory", a subcategory "Results pertaining to Group Theory", or however it needs to be worded. Then the categories will be clearer still. --prime mover (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2018 (EDT)