Jump to content

User talk:Dirsaka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Dirsaka, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Justiyaya 06:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirsaka, thanks again for trying to improve Wikipedia. About your edits on Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem, they were reverted largely because they were not referenced, and the edit included your signature, which should never be used in mainspace. Moving forward, I would strongly suggest that you not attempt to add your edits back in, but to attempt to improve another article on Wikipedia, or try working on another WP:TASK. Starting editing, as you might have experienced already, is really frustrating, some of the links above can really help with mitigating some of the frustration, so please give some of them a read, thank you :D Justiyaya 06:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLinuz and Bbb23: Why did you remove my parenthetical note indicating what I thought was a logical error in the "Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem" Wikipedia article? Was my note illogical? Can we avoid an editing war? Dirsaka (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

[edit]

Notes and signing by typing four of ~ DO NOT go in the body of an article. Discussions - signed comments - are created on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to add the following to 2.5 of "Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem" just after "In this particular case,... (x,y|x',y').": [Note: Φ, Φ', and Ψ are known to be of degree k only under the assumption that Q is of degree 0. The preceding step makes Q to be of degree 1, violating this assumption, thus invalidating the induction step from degree k to degree k+1.] Is this note correct logically, is it formatted properly, and is it otherwise proper to add to the Wikipedia article? I had not planned on citing any references, since the logic of the note is completely elementary. Dirsaka (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on logic (college and career in biochemistry). As to format: No. Do not use single brackets, nor the word "Note". Given the recent history of edits, I recommend having a discussion on the Talk page of the article. You can invite other editors who have had recent involvment in the article using a ping invite such as David notMD. You can propose revisions to the article there. 'Sign' your comments there. In all the work I do, I live and die by references, but this article is reference free, and oddly, uses "We..." And in most instances I would call what you propose as "original research," which is forbidden. But again, different rules may apply. I wish you and all other mathimaticians well. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After second look, do not bother to invite WikiLinuz or Bbb23. They were reverting you on bad format, not their interest in Gödel. The history of the article (View changes at top menu) show first, that the "We..." dates back to the original creation, as does the paucity of references, and so little editing over recent time that you may find no one is responding to an attempt to start a discusion. David notMD (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third look: I see that section 2.5 already has a Comment. Perhaps at the end of 2.5 you can add your content as a Comment rather than a Note within brackets. David notMD (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lleft a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics with the hope that some math-experienced eyes will look at the Talk discussion. David notMD (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Dirsaka 2022-7-30

[edit]

I invited discussion about my proposed Comment, but the only one who seemed interested in discussing it was Felix QW, and he, except for a few initial comments critical of the proposed Comment, on his own talk page indicated he couldn't discuss it further right away, but would later. I waited six months for further discussion from him, at which point, in accordance with standard Wikipedia policy, the proposed Comment in my sandbox was deleted by an editor. I requested that it be restored, and on July 25, 2022 it was. I decided not to wait any longer, and have put my Comment into the article. If anyone has criticisms of it, it would be better that he/she discuss them with me first instead of modifying or deleting the comment without such discussion. Dirsaka (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Felix QW, about his deletion of my comment

[edit]

Felix QW- After your deletion of my comment, the Wikipedia article still had one comment, just after the induction lemma, which comment expresses the editor's opinion, without any "reliable sources" references. In addition, the main body of the article contains material, including the statements in parenthesis and the sentence just before that, which are not in Gӧdel's paper, but the article gives no references for these.

Both are just before the article's dubious (it is part of the "proof"'s obvious fallacy in the induction, which you told me you thought was the proof's cleverest part) replacement of Q (necessarily, for the induction hypothesis to be satisfied, of degree 0) by a term which has degree at least 1, thus violating the induction hypothesis (which you, for some reason, said we were through with, even though the next step uses it to show that not(Phi) is provable). There is a link here which leads to an article I have written describing this error in more detail. You would do well to read and understand it.

I did not try to delete the whole Wikipedia article, just point out the induction's error; that it is an error is easily verifiable using elementary information about induction, in fact just basic logic, which probably doesn't need a reliable reference, although I listed one, Aristotle, in my comment. Dirsaka (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirsaka&oldid=1194532838"