User talk:Timwi
Welcome
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!
- --Your friendly ProofWiki WelcomeBot 07:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
1+0=1
You've requested a proof that 1+0=1. In what context do you intend this? Do you want a proof from Peano's Axioms? --Dfeuer (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect a treatment from the basic axioms of mathematical logic is required, as that's the standard approach at undergraduate level. A certain amount of work has been done towards that end but there is plenty still to do before going down that route, as there are as many different formulations of the axioms as there are of source works documenting them, and unifying all the approaches has proved daunting up till now and has not yet been strategised. --prime mover (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- A proof from Peano's Axioms would work, yeah :) — Timwi (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- 1+0=1 from Peano's Axioms is immediate from those axioms, so why would that be a sufficiently worthwhile exercise as to raise it as a wanted proof? --prime mover (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- We already have the whole of natural number arithmetic proved from Peano's axioms (more or less, there may be gaps but not major ones). Feel free to browse. --prime mover (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Maintenance tags
I thoroughly appreciate and encourage your enthusiasm displayed. How about you notify me if you think that you've brought a page up to house standard, and then I "inspect" and comment where necessary? This way, you'll learn quicker and we are assured that maintenance tags aren't prematurely removed. You can drop notes at my talk; that way, I certainly won't miss them. --Lord_Farin (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A word about splitting pages
I note that you've started some of the long-overdue refactoring work where sine and cosine pages have been split. Please beware of the citations at the bottom, which refer to specific sections of specific books. Take note of the previous/next links (where they exist) in these citations. It is essential (for given values of essence) that the integrity of these be maintained, as they provide a linear path through each of these source works specifically matching its linear structure.
When you split a page up you inevitably break this flow - or at least render it so that it no longer matches the contents of the book. The only way this can be repaired is by the owner of such a source going in and amending those links with specific reference to the source work.
Therefore, whenever you perform such a page-splitting exercise, please put a WIP template at the bottom, e.g. "WIP|Sort out citations" (within double-curlies, obviously) so that there is a flag in place to alert the guys to the fact that this needs to be done. Otherwise we won't know that they're broken. If you feel really keen, drop a note onto the talk page of the person who put that citation link there in the first place (this can be found out by casting an eye over the View History page).
As it is, there are several pages in trigonometry / analysis which will need to be attended to, but as it has been a particularly busy day on here today I'm not going to be able to find them all without help. Are you in a position to be able to notify me as to pages with citations on? Then I can fix them in due course. Many thanks. --prime mover (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- They should all be listed on Special:WhatLinksHere/Sine_and_Cosine_of_Sum, no? — I went through this one and fixed all the “obvious” links, but when I ran into the book references, I notified Lord Farin of it. Next time I’ll add the WIP template, thanks! — Timwi (talk)
- That's just for Sine and Cosine of Sum - there was so much happened yesterday I did not have the opportunity of going through everything to see whether the same thing had been done to other pages as well. The global replace of "Sine and Cosine" to either "Sine" and "Cosine" in the split-out versions of this page also caused confusion when the link to "Sum of Squares of Sine and Cosine" got amended to the non-existent and mon-meaningful page titles "Sum of Squares of Sine" and "Sum of Squares of Cosine". It's fixed now - it was not a big task - but I was concerned that there may have been other similar stuff that I had missed. No worries. --prime mover (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I’m pretty sure I only majorly changed Sine and Cosine of Sum. Almost everything else I did was to create new pages and to fix only minor errors on other pages. I’m sorry about messing up the link to Sum of Squares of Sine and Cosine; that’s what I get for search & replace I guess, but then again, this is why this is a wiki, so people like you can double-check and fix it :) — Timwi (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Subpages for single-proof theorems
Please note that it is not required to split every theorem and proof; this is only required when two or more proofs of the same theorem are present. --Lord_Farin (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right. I wasn’t going to split things like crazy. :) I guess I created a new single-proof page straight in the split format yesterday because I anticipated that more proofs might come later. — Timwi (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not wrong; just unnecessary at this point :). --Lord_Farin (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)