User talk:Aleksander Stos/ComplexNumberAdvanced

I believe I understand the purpose of this page, and it's pretty cool. It makes sense in math and logic, and any topic (such as physics) that is subject to formalization and formula-ization--but what, exactly, are you doing? How can you sum it up or articulate it? We might find a better name than "essentials" once you answer that question. Note what it says at the bottom of CZ:Subpage Pilot about how to add new subpage types. --Larry Sanger 08:04, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

In particular, does it matter that the items listed here be essential? Is it also important that they be listed formally? Is there an analog you would recommend for other non-formal fields like literature or zoology? --Larry Sanger 08:10, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Primarily, I wrote it for myself, to see *what* my idea is (ie. I posed myself your question ;-) ) and whether it makes sense. I admit that I didn't take part in the Subpage Pilot. I'll read it and then give an answer. Aleksander Stos 11:22, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

OK I took a look at that. What I meant can be best described in geek terms as a "reference manual", as opposed to "tutorial", some more advanced stuff. Among the optional subpages proposed on CZ:Subpage Pilot I do not find my entry, but could define it as a more advanced/dense counterpart to "tutorial" and "student" subpage (notice that the latter is intended for younger students). Note that IMHO our basic version of maths articles by definition (many discussions) looks like "tutorial" or "younger student" in the above sense.

Actually I could define the subpage I play with by the reader I'd like to address. This is a slightly more advanced user of maths, as opposed to layman. A student that has already heard of/know something about the subject but want to recall what it was exactly. A more advanced/graduate student who already acquired basics of general math culture and want to attack a new notion (so that the "reference manual" is intended to be reasonably self-contained). Yet more advanced students/PhD students of maths/stats/physics/"hard sciences" who may want to verify definitions/theorems they use. And why not teachers of these students. Or just someone who knows already the basics and wants to go a bit further. IMHO all these people might find our basic form of math articles too easy, too sparse or --at worst-- annoying to read through and filter out the needed info. Notice that I do not put in question the basic form of our articles itself; actually I think that the basic version should be aimed at someone who wants to be introduced into the matter with the minimum of prerequisites, at least for some basic/general/non-specialist topics.

So "reference manual"/"essentials" pages are meant to be more succinct, well formalized (this could be the main difference with the basic intro), sometimes even more precise (well, in the basic article we assume we may be often informal). On the example of the Complex number we see that the "manual" is half as long and formally covers just a bit more of relevant maths -- and yet can be reasonably expanded. So the "manual" page may by definition go further, beyond what is contained in the basic version. On second thought I'd like to see also some illustrating examples, computations, and, yes, proofs, whatever useful staff that pays for itself -- so not only "the core definitions" could be allowed. Consider that with our approach we can hardly insert any proof in the basic version. Our approach is not a bad thing --we know why and what we are doing-- but the lack of advanced stuff might be also a great disadvantage for a ultimate reference source in spe.

That said, I'm open to any other name that could describe the aim of the page.

The bottom line is that I shall translate it into a more concrete subpage proposal as indicated on the pilot page. Aleksander Stos 15:14, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

On reflection I moved this to a new title, "advanced presentation". So not only essentials but --as described initially-- a presentation adapted to more advanced user. While still somewhat redundant with the basic version, it is much more compact and can/will be extended with more advanced stuff. For example there could be more place for proofs and computational examples. If we have such a subpage we can even suppress the formal definition from the basic presentation (at some point it was already considered before approval). With such a subpage we can effectively layer our information. Aleksander Stos 08:07, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi Aleks,

I noticed you have a Section called References. This usually refers to texts used or texts with further information. You are using it for Footnotes. This is just a question of terminology, but is it incorrect. --Ruth Ifcher 23:16, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! Aleksander Stos 03:00, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I see that your plans have evolved from something that I would call a crib sheet (a list of definitions, formulas and theorems) to an advanced presentation. Both can be useful, but they are very different. For instance, in an "advanced presentation" I would also expect motivation (e.g., why do we define the complex exponential by that power series?), but not an a crib sheet. It seems however that you removed all motivation from the article.

However, even though advanced versions of articles are useful, I can't help thinking that they are at the moment not the most important gap in Citizendium that needs to be filled. Of course, if advanced versions is what people want to work on, then that is what they should work on, but it doesn't seem a priority when there are still so many basic articles that need to be written. -- Jitse Niesen 08:10, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Basically, I agree with your points. This is just an experiment -- and there are many other perhaps more important gaps to fill. Now, this text is something "in the between" and if it aims to be "advanced presentation" it should include motivations. Well, I my humble self would prefer to work on "advanced presentations". Recently I noticed the work of Paul Wormer. As it stands, it also better fits into "advanced presentations" than our "basic" formula (but of course the content may evolve and I do not know the actual preferences of Paul).

All this is just a speculation and a background for a possible future discussion on the shape of our math articles. Those who are interested in it are welcome to answer the two following general questions.

1. do you think crib sheet is preferable to an "advanced presetation"?
2. do you personally prefer to work on "advanced" stuff?

Aleksander Stos 02:53, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

1. No. 2. Depends on the subject and my mood.

I now realize that my last paragraph above ("However, even though advanced versions of articles are useful, I can't help thinking …") was written under the assumption that we cannot have XXX/Advanced without first writing a normal (basic) article on XXX. However, that is not necessarily the case. Stand-alone advanced presentations are also useful, just like stand-alone tutorials or signed articles, etc. If we allow for stand-alone advanced presentations, then my argument that they're not a priority loses much of its value. -- Jitse Niesen 23:59, 24 August 2007 (CDT)