Thatwhichislearnt

Improving the article

Phrases like "I also have no doubt that every argumentation about [whatever] is only a lack of understanding of {...]'' suggests fear of hearing them because they might affect some fixed opinion, which for a student in the middle of a thesis may indeed be a problem. But to improve the Wikipedia article we should focus on the issue under discussion rather than make general statements. Here the issue is: should the Wikipedia article start with codomains? I first learned the concept in 1969 from various books (Lang, Arbib), and out of tradition used it off an on in publications. However, I started avoiding its use in 1993 when various ramifications indicated one can [nearly] always do better without. As mentioned, I can send you a list of (factual!) arguments. Since I am still collecting arguments to the contrary, it would be helpful to hear about your experiences favoring codomains. Boute (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I am not interested. The entire development of presenting mathematics in the language of categories attests for how viewing functions as morphisms, rather than relations, is successful at representing ideas in mathematics. So much that not only entire areas of mathematics adopt this language, like Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry, Algebra itself, Harmonic Analysis, but there are even foundational approaches, like Univalent foundations, set in this language. Arguing whether an accidental lack of a feature in an earlier definition that became popular is beneficial or not, when the language can be adapted successfully regardless of the choice, is crank territory. Not for me. Moreover, I know what your arguments are going to be. They can be summarized as "in an introduction to calculus, distinguishing functions by codomain is too much noise for students". I agree. The benefits of a definition depend on the use and context. Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"I know what your arguments are going to be" sounds quite prejudiced. Your continued reticence to share your own experiences with certain mathematical issues suggests they are limited and recent. Again the crux of the matter is: do you want to participate in improving the article by making proposals based on arguments? Thus far, your extraneous responses to posts by various other people do not inspire confidence, but you can change that by adopting a more scientific mindset. Your decision. Boute (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning

Your recent editing history at Determinant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D.Lazard (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Function (mathematics) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am trying (simultaneously) to address all concern raised in the talk page. How should that be accomplished without editing? In the new edit I added exactly what their revert claims was missing. Please explain how to proceed. Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Provide proposed wording on the talk page and proceed to editing the article only after agreement is secured. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with that. Will do. Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

How to format text in Wikipedia to look like a quotation, in order to put in the talk, the text of the edit visually separated from the commentary? Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You can use e.g. {{tq|look like a quotation}} to obtain look like a quotation. Maybe there are other possibilities, too. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Function (mathematics). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [1] MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)