User talk:Chadbald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is quite interesting, but I'm not sure if it belongs in an encyclopedia instead of a journal of mathematics. I feel like an encyclopedia isn't really where I would look for a mathematical proof.

It certainly could not be published in a research journal, since it's something everyone learns in secondary school. But why would this be an inappropriate place for a mathematical proof? Hundreds--maybe thousands--of mathematical proofs appear in Wikipedia, and with most of them, if you were to nominate them for deletion, you'd get a hundred or so "keep" votes and one or two "delete" votes from crackpots (that's what happened with proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π). Michael Hardy 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you will find content of value here, but I'm afraid you have begun at a trouble spot.

The article "Proof that 0.999... equals 1" discusses a topic that has long attracted attention on the web and in newsgroups. We have proof articles when the proofs themselves are sufficiently educational. Unfortunately, this particular topic attracts a lot of the wrong kind of attention. We get those who refuse to accept standard mathematics (which this is). We get those who enjoy causing trouble and thumbing their nose at everyone. We get adamant advocates who insist that their poor writing excels, despite objections. This latter category includes even stranger creatures like Melchoir, who insisted that the proofs were "original research", and that every word and phrase and assertion must include a citation. If you would like to read a more sensible version of the article, try this one. (If you would like to see some of our other proof articles, we have a list. The proofs of Fermat's little theorem are a good example.)

The topic is usually first encountered when one has little mathematical sophistication. First we learn about finite decimal expansions like 0.84375, which is ²⁷⁄₃₂. For these expressions, different digits mean different numbers — except for trailing zeros. Having just learned that, we are then told that we can have "infinite" decimal expansions, which violate that rule! Compounding our difficulties is the fact that we simply do not have the mathematical tools and experience available to us at that point in our education to properly address this puzzling new fact. Few teachers at that level have the necessary sophistication to understand a proof for themselves, and even university-educated students rarely study the necessary topics in foundations of real numbers. So the equality remains a mystery, and helpful sound explanations are almost impossible to find.

Furthermore, it is quite possible to define non-standard systems of numbers by small alterations of standard definitions, and in some such systems the equality does not hold. So there is a larger discussion that justifies why the standard is the standard.

Consequently, many people find this article, and some of them want to change it. Few have the necessary background, but they don't know that. Thus the article becomes a battleground, as does its talk page. It's not pretty to watch.

I recommend that you gain broader experience with Wikipedia before tangling with changes to this article, whether in content or in title. Come back to it in a month or so. That will give you a chance to have more positive experiences and to learn how the strange culture and policies of Wikipedia shape things. --KSmrq^T 09:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't mean to mess in anybody's personal hornets' nest. Thanks for your concern. I just had some questions was all. Maybe people find my questions useful, maybe not. I have no intention of making the slightest edition to your 0.999... article. By the way, I certainly have found and will continue to find Wikipedia an invaluable source of information. Thanks again. Chadbald 04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a page dedicated to questions for all mathematical topics, the mathematics reference desk. Talk pages have a different intent, though sometimes they get diverted.

Wikipedia collects information that may be hard to find elsewhere, but at the bottom of each page is a tiny link to a disclaimer, which should be taken seriously. Specifically, it would be foolish to rely on anything you read here. Maybe it's excellent, maybe it's rubbish, and it can rapidly change from one to the other in a single edit. Recommended reading is the article "Criticism of Wikipedia", and this eye-opener.

Which is not to say Wikipedia is useless, only that it's not reliable. Use it as entertainment, and as a suggestion of what may be true, and you'll be fine. --KSmrq^T 09:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks once again, but I wouldn't want you to waste your worry on me. I'm well-acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of wikiland. Also, if you look again, you might see that my question regarded the structure and purpose of the article (perhaps helpful, perhaps not; time will tell, I suppose), not a dedicated mathematical question. But I will keep that in mind in case I ever do have one of those. My question may have been birthed in ignorance, but the ignorant are precisely whom encyclopedic endeavors should benefit. As a prominent near-Eastern figure once said, the well have no need of a physician, but the sick. And please don't let my blank page fool you into thinking I haven't been watching and reading here for a long time. It's only because I know and love Wikipedia that I would think to add my voice to it. That reminds me: it seems we share a passion for fixing typographical errors. It does give one a sense of satisfaction to be able to correct them rather than simply stare in awed frustration. And thanks for being vigilant. It's people like you that help to keep this project as clean and accurate as it is. I remember how pleased I was with the way Wikipedia responded to a recent and public fiasco regarding the Colbert Report and the Wikipedia article on the State of Oregon. Naturally, I don't expect you were personally involved with fixing that bit of vandalism, but I appreciate the part you play in the principle that keeps this place working. Chadbald 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)