User talk:Tkojar/Sandbox/Bounded convergence theorem for Riemann integrals

Please stop moving posts under my name. Keep them public to everyone so that I can receive help from other volunteers. --Tkojar (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

There are much much worse proofs out there that you haven't put under any one's sandbox. For example, the proof for Central limit theorem is in fact using Levy Continuity theorem, which is the meat of the proof. At the very least all my proofs are complete. But for the format I need help. --Tkojar (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

I have followed the following house rules: a)use display style b)separate sentences by linebreaks c)if using other theorems, include their links d)use qed e)include sources. --Tkojar (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

a) Learn when and how to use displaystyle. It's documented in the help pages.

b) Agreed, this has improved, but very far from being perfect.

c) No, link to everything, theorems and definitions. I see no links in this page at all. There is not even a category. The whole philosophy of this website is based on the concept of being able to find the definition of every concept used, and to be able to trace any proof back to first principles.

d) It would be better to use the qed template. I would suggest you investigate the use of templates -- in this particular case by looking at the proofs that others have created and following their lead.

e) Again, please see if you can work out (by following examples) how to use the template which gives the sources.

If you prefer create some public sandbox, but do not put them under my name. I do not want them to be associated with me. --Tkojar (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Nope, sorry, I don't get why this is a problem. You wrote it, your username is forever associated with it by means of the page history attached to it.

Summing up: It has always been my belief that mathematicians should be autodidacts, to a greater or lesser extent, and that includes learning the house style of the wiki to which you contribute. You have been pointed towards the help pages a few times now, and in those pages there is a considerable amount of useful material which should answer some of the questions you have (in particular, the use (or not) of displaystyle, which you admit is giving you problems). --prime mover (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

The point of wiki is that the creator is irrelevant.

I agree with having some sandbox. Just don't put them in a user-based sandbox. We are only volunteers. If no other volunteer wants to improve on it, then let it get deleted. --Tkojar (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

The advantage of putting it in your sandbox is there is less likelihood of someone else deleting it. Communal sandboxes sometimes get purged, and important material gets lost.

Fine. I prefer that. Let me get punished by having the content get deleted. --Tkojar (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

That is your belief and you shouldn't try to enforce it on the way others learn. I personally learn better by working on a communal pool of posts. I've already it edited other posts.--Tkojar (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Yes, a few, but unfortunately (I have to say this), a number of those edits were not useful. One edit in particular duplicated material that already existed, and so it regrettably had to be deleted. And I will say this: if you can't learn, you can't teach.

Fine and that is how I learn, by seeing what changes stay or get removed. My way of learning is through feedback. So please do not try to enforce your beliefs on others.--Tkojar (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

There are already categories such as "tidy articles" and "help needed". So just keep them there. Stop putting them under user-based sandbox. --Tkojar (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

"help needed" is for contributors who need help from others to complete the proof. The "tidy" category is for pages which (usually, generally) adhere to the general philosophy of the house style, but need some work still to be done to make them perfect. That is not the case here. Maybe if you were to attend to the missing links this may be rethought. This is not an idle suggestion, links are a vital aspect of $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$.

I think you are overreacting. Show me a theorem I typed that was not complete from first principles. Just because you want links, doesn't mean they always exist.--Tkojar (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

You are also not as rigorous with other existing posts. For example, the Central limit theorem proof is still incomplete; it uses the Levy continuity theorem, which is not even linked let alone proved. --Tkojar (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2019 (EDT)