CZ Talk:Core Articles/Mathematics: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson
imported>John Stephenson
(Unwritten articles only; too many lists)
Line 12: Line 12:


::All in all, it looks pretty poorly thought out. Maybe Peter Schmitt could find time to look. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
::All in all, it looks pretty poorly thought out. Maybe Peter Schmitt could find time to look. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:::The original initiative was to list only unwritten, external and "microstub" articles, so I removed the ones that already exist. (Technically, the initiative is still in force; it's just that no-one's interested in a 'house points' system.) There are lists of this type already elsewhere, e.g. on the workgroup home pages, on Related Articles subpages, and randomly around (e.g. "[[CZ:Core controversial articles|controversial articles]]"). I think the best thing to do is to reduce the number of lists through transclusions. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 1 November 2014

Position of Category Theory in the list.

Category Theory is at or near the highest level of abstraction in mathematics and is certainly more abstract than algebra. Why is Category Th. listed as subordinate to Algebra? Thanks, Peter Lyall Easthope 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You are free to change it. Probably was put there by somebody who—like me—doesn't know exactly what category theory is. --Paul Wormer 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't see where it's gone now. It's true in a sense that CT is more general than algebra, as it includes topology, for example. But it treats it in an algebraic way, so I think it tends to be regarded as a branch of algebra.
Where is topology on the list, anyway? Can't see that anywhere either, fairly major branch.
For that matter, most of the headings don't include themselves, if you see what I mean. And we have Lie group and Group representation, but not Group. ...
All in all, it looks pretty poorly thought out. Maybe Peter Schmitt could find time to look. Peter Jackson 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The original initiative was to list only unwritten, external and "microstub" articles, so I removed the ones that already exist. (Technically, the initiative is still in force; it's just that no-one's interested in a 'house points' system.) There are lists of this type already elsewhere, e.g. on the workgroup home pages, on Related Articles subpages, and randomly around (e.g. "controversial articles"). I think the best thing to do is to reduce the number of lists through transclusions. John Stephenson 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)