Talk:Atom (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
There needs to be an article on an atom as in atomic data.
Atom (order theory) and Ur-element
[edit]Re: Arthur Rubin (My edit of January 25 was apparently accidentially reverted)
Atomic (order theory) was moved to the Atomic section.
Frankly I was confused by Ur-element and how it related to atom so I omitted it. Please consider cleaning up that page to make its "atom" usage more clear. Also please try to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Ewlyahoocom 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes the context is needed, in spite of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). An alternative would be to reverse pipe as [[Ur-element|Ur-element (set theory)]], but that would be weird. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Context is only needed to disambiguate the link i.e. give the reader enough information to find the page they're looking for. Regarding these changes is there another page Atom (measure theory) II that describes a non-minimal measureable set? In fact, Atom (measure theory) doesn't even include the word minimal. (If this in an important point then please consider editing that page.) Likewise, there's no reason to include a link to set theory because no one is coming here looking for the set theory page. I agree following links can be fun and interesting but that's not really the intended use of these disambiguation pages. Ewlyahoocom 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree that describing an Atom (measure theory) as a measurable set serves any purpose. Just the link alone seems adequate. On the other hand, if someone is looking for the term atom in set theory, he won't find it here without the reference to set theory. As for the name, some authors use "atom" and some use "ur-element". We use "ur-element". What I would like to see, in regard the (measure theory) and (set theory) disambiguations, would be:
- [[Atom (measure theory)]], and [[Ur-element|Atom (set theory)]], mathematical concepts.
- or
- In [[mathematics]], [[Atom (measure theory)]] and [[Ur-element|Atom (set theory)]]
- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree that describing an Atom (measure theory) as a measurable set serves any purpose. Just the link alone seems adequate. On the other hand, if someone is looking for the term atom in set theory, he won't find it here without the reference to set theory. As for the name, some authors use "atom" and some use "ur-element". We use "ur-element". What I would like to see, in regard the (measure theory) and (set theory) disambiguations, would be:
- Context is only needed to disambiguate the link i.e. give the reader enough information to find the page they're looking for. Regarding these changes is there another page Atom (measure theory) II that describes a non-minimal measureable set? In fact, Atom (measure theory) doesn't even include the word minimal. (If this in an important point then please consider editing that page.) Likewise, there's no reason to include a link to set theory because no one is coming here looking for the set theory page. I agree following links can be fun and interesting but that's not really the intended use of these disambiguation pages. Ewlyahoocom 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that not having any description for Atom (measure theory) is preferable -- except for that "measure theory" might not be immediately understood to be a mathemathics term. In this case the description might help someone realize that they're not looking for that page. (The same argument applies to Atomic (order theory), but reading that page I still can't figure out what it's about.) If Ur-element would be better named as Atom (set theory) then please consider renaming (i.e. moving) it -- no such page currently exists. Ewlyahoocom 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Atom (programming)
[edit]An "atom" is what Ruby calls a "symbol". I don't understand this, but someone who does should add it sometime.
--AlanH 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's interesting. However, neither the word atom, nor any of its variants, appear on Ruby programming language. Ewlyahoocom 20:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah... I haven't really seen it much either. But in the PickAxe, a/k/a Programming Ruby and the best-known Ruby book (first version), in the "The Ruby Language" section, "Symbols" subsection (link!), it says: Other languages ... call symbols "atoms."
- --AlanH 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify -- Ruby doesn't call it an "atom". It's called a "symbol". But other languages apparently call it an "atom".
- --AlanH 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Check out Lisp; it mentions atoms. Also, does the mention of Prolog in the Atom disambig sort of cover what I'm after here? --AlanH 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)