User talk:Thescaryworker

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Thescaryworker! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Greetings, Thescaryworker, and welcome to that fleeting clock of the internet, RationalWiki! Thank you for joining us! I hope you enjoy your time here. If you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask, or read our guide for newcomers. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:06, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting picture. What do you plan to do with them? - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:09, 5 January 2009 (EST)

You'll see in just a sec ([[Simpson's rule]]).

That's some mighty impressive work you're doing on the mathematics articles. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Hi there Thescaryworker. Whilst I enjoy the mathematics articles you are writing, like our cat loving friend, I have to point out we are not an educational resource or an encyclopedia. Our mission is refuting the anti-science movement, fundamentalist and other whack-jobs. If you can tie your articles into that, such as "this guy is a dick who doesn't know what he is talking about here is why he is wrong". At the moment they tend to cyclically link and are slightly lacking in motivation as to why you need these things. Calculus is hugely important for a lot of things and if you can explain why you need a good working to stop yourself falling for pseudoscience rubbish that would link more into the project. Other than that keep up the good work. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 22:43, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I've started my work, with limit (mathematics), from the batch that SamHB's bequeathed to RW. More to come. I see you are already up and running. Gauss 01:31, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Sysopship

I offered, you accepted, and thus, you are a sysop. Or, as we like to call them, a janitor.

Here is your bucket, mop, and instruction manual. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Templates for math/science articles

I have created a {{Serious}} template that I think we need on all articles. We also have the 4 "math-e/m/h/a" templates from CP. They are done differently—there's just one: {{Math-level|level=N}} or whatever. Level=0 was the old math-e, and so on. Level=2 (old math-h) is the right one for all the elementary calculus things.

The reformatting of the level templates do be vertical is starting to look ugly. The horizontal strip across the top seems better. What do you think?

I have made the changes on two of your articles: definite integral and methods of integration, as well as my only (so far) article: limit (mathematics).

Gauss 11:16, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Riemann integral

We have a problem. The mathematical facts are correct, and the pedagogical presentation is good. But there's a problem with the naming of the pages and the association of material with pages. Some further rearrangement may be needed.

Most of what's in the page is what I would call "what an integral is, and how it works (both theoretical and applied) and how you might calculate such a thing by hand." That should probably just be called "integral", or maybe "integral calculus". And, of course, it's central to the whole thing. This notion of dividing the function graph into strips is what makes everything work, and it's the basis for both the theoretical definition and practical calculation.

The problem is that mathematicians use the phrase "Riemann integral" to mean only the first of these, not the second. That is, the theoretical definition of the Riemann integral is the limit, as the subdivisions get finer, of the sum of all the strips. That is, in the full epsilon-delta formalism (and I'm a big fan of that, from the limit (mathematics) article) something like "The integral of f(x) is S if, for every epsilon, there exists a fineness of subdivision such that, for that fineness and all finer subdivisions, the sum of the areas of the strips using the minimum function value within each strip, and the sum using the maximum value, are both within epsilon of S". Or something like that. It's been a while. The page "Riemann integral" should be about that definition.

So the "integral" page should be about the informal notion of dividing it into strips, mentioning the two consequences of this: (1) it's the formal definition of the integral, known as the "Riemann integral", and (2) it's the way it's actually calculated in practice. That second aspect relates to what I would call "numerical integration" (how computers do it). Or how humans used to do it. And, of course, there's much that can be said here, such as Simpson's rule, with the parabolas. Oh, sorry, I just had a bout of PESD (Post-Ed Stress Disorder). I'll be OK in a moment. These flashbacks are getting less serious, doctor. I think the medication is working.

I hope all this makes sense. I'm willing to do some of the work, if you want me to. But I see you've put a lot of careful thought into all this, and I won't step on your toes unless asked.

Gauss 14:35, 6 January 2009 (EST)