User talk:P0807670

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, P0807670, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

And don't forget, the edit summary is your friend. :) – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cauchy sequence

I am just wondering if it was you who made this edit. If so, please note that it was not correct. sin x being rational does not imply x = pi*k/n. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was, I'm sorry for the false statement. I meat to say that using Pi was one way of getting a rational value of Sin(x) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P0807670 (talk • contribs).

OK. But note that using pi is neither necessary nor sufficient. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform convergence

Hi. I undid your edit at Uniform convergence since the added symbolism is hard to understand. In general, since Wikipedia is read not only by mathematicians, it is good to keep the notation as simple as possible. And one more note. Please use an edit summary when you contribute. It helps explain why you change something. You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary, I'll use it from now on. About the edit though, I strongly feel that both the symbolic defenition and the textual defenition should be there. It's a lot easier for many people to grasp the idea from the symbols though I recognize the need for the textual defenition. I guess it comes down to you, Mr. Alexandrov so let me know P0807670 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I like symbolical things also. But the vast majority of people would disagree. Also, I think the way you used it was not very standard. In my experience as a mathematician people don't use \Leftrightarrow in definitions, rather, they prefer "if" or "if and only if" or "iff". People use \Leftrightarrow in proofs as far as I know and in theorem statements.
If at some point you feel strongly that a symbolic definition is really necessary, then perhaps you could add it in addition to the definition in words, rather than replace it. But please note again that symbolic things may decrease the readability of the articles rather than increase them for our audience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1)"add it in addition to the definition in words, rather than replace it." I did not replace the textual defenition, what I did was : "symbolic defenition " i.e:"the textual one"
2)I'll take your advice and drop the \Leftrightarrow in stating the defenition. I'had made it a standard for myself to write defenitions in this way, I forgot that this was just me.
So check it out,( Uniform convergence ), I hope you like it this way. P0807670
Cool. But just note for the future that in most cases symbolic definitions make articles less readable, not more readable. So one should not add symbolic definitions too often. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)