User talk:Rick Norwood

Welcome!

Hello, Rick Norwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 15:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Rick Norwood/Archive 1

Is it time yet?

Hello Rick,

Is it time yet to include the 2016 election on the media bias in the US page? Also, I find it odd that in the liberal section there is mention of specific outlets followed by largelu useless stale or dated garbage designed to minimize impact. In the conservative section it specifically mentions Murdoch. Are you not aware of the owners of Wash Post, NY Times, CNN, NBC etc.....? Or is it that Bezos, Slim, Roberts etc...are just not worthy of mentioning besides being amongst the wealthiest people on planet earth, owners of large media conglomerates and of course huge supporters of the democratic national party.

makewikipediagreatagain

Left-wing terrorism

Hi, I've listed Left-Wing terrorism in Articles for Deletion. You were involved previously when it was discussed and you may be interested. AlanS^talk 09:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... readers who think they know all about mathematics because they took Algebra I in high school...

Yes, and not only do they think they know all about mathematics, but they think they know more about it than graduate mathematicians, and even professional research mathematicians. JBW (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your phrase "in some academic literature" implies that there is "some other" academic literature where juxtaposition does not have priority. Your claim requires a citation and evidence and not mere assertion.

The evidence for academic literature where juxtaposition takes precedence is provided, the evidence where it does nottake precedence is not provided. Hence no actual bearing. 2A00:23C7:8583:D401:5DB7:30DC:A41C:3676 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start posting some (of many) here.

https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/misc/numbers/ord_ops.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/matheducation/comments/jqllct/multiplication_by_juxtaposition_vs_order_of/?rdt=44040

Note that what this shows is not that multiplication by juxtaposition does or does not take precedence. What it shows is a lack of general agreement, and the desirability of using unambiguous notation, instead of insisting that there is general agreement. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is evidence of "another notational system being used in academic literature". Academic literature is peer reviewed journals and the notation guides that they use for people to submit papers accordingly. 2A00:23C7:8583:D401:8123:7AD2:4640:F36F (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And even your Berkeley source which is not "academic literature" in the strict sense(.ie it is not the Berkley guide for submission of peer-reviewed jouranls, but rather an opinion piece) tells you explicitly that:

"Finally, the convention in algebra of denoting multiplication by juxtaposition (putting symbols side by side), without any multiplication symbol between them, has the effect that one sees something like ab as a single unit, so that it is natural to interpret ab+c or a+bc as a sum in which one of the summands is the product ab or bc. Without that typographic convention, the order-of-operations convention might never have evolved."

Mathematical notation makes no sense without juxtaposition taking precedence. So even your academic source(but not academic literature) disagrees with your position.

Reddit is not academic literature either.

Instead of engaging in edit wars for no purpose, locate a guide book of a peer reviewd journal to justify your claim of something "other". 2A00:23C7:8583:D401:8123:7AD2:4640:F36F (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And (this is no surprise) I specifically said that my sources were not academic literature. What I said is that such notation is ambiguous. That it will be misunderstood. That writing things that will be misunderstood is not a good idea, that being understood is good.

There are, of course, sources that teach that multiplication and division are on the same level. There are sources that teach that understood multiplication is on a higher level than multiplication written 2x3. There are sources that teach both are on a higher level that division. There are lots and lots of sources.

My point is that when it is easy to write unambiguously, it is better to write unambiguously. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]