On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell [email protected] wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder [email protected] wrote:
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items which we regularly include.
That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover it) would be on wikisource.
The actual proof itself, yes.
I would hope that an explanation for mathematical peons like myself would also be forthcoming. Whether that would be more appropriate to Wikipedia or Wikibooks is a matter for conjecture.
That could be a problem since I suspect any explantion would first require teching the person something that amounts to a maths degree
Generaly I would assume a good article on a mathmatical proof would include it's history, why it matters, the proof itself if it is short enough, a summery if not and if required a summery that makes sense to people without a Phd in the subject.
I assume a pop culture section would take care of its self.
I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of "meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me... -- Phil --
It is meant to be for text books and instruction manuals
-- geni