User talk:Knotwork: Difference between revisions

On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Old_dogs_and_new_tricks "Does the challenge result from an initiative to edit-evolve a set of articles to a more world view?" the term "world view" is a link not to some such conception as multicultural view or non-nationalistic view or cosmopolitan view (as I, at least, evidently for some reason 'expected') but, rather, to World_view in the 'other' sense. To me this is weird to the extent that it seems grammatically wrong; that is to say, the phrase "a more world view" seems incorrect English. If the link is correct, then to my mind it seems as if the phrase should instead be worded differently, such as (maybe?) by applying something along the lines of s/a more world view/more world-views/ ; if not then maybe something like s/a more world view/a more world-wide view/ or s/a more world view/a more worldwide view/ ???

Reading my edit history from the beginning instead of from the end might seem to indicate I am an obsessive-compulsive proofreader of English. My motivation for joining wikis tends to be a desire to fix some trivial typo-type (spelling/grammar) glitch. The note(s) above could maybe serve in lieu of emailing the author of a website to point out an apparent typo on their site, or if I ever get edit privs it could serve as a to-do list for me, reminding me of things I'd've tried to fix myself to save others the labour had I been able to: action items for some day when I have spare time to go back and do stuff that once upon a time seemed to me ought maybe to be looked into or actually done. (It was when I tried to expand my scope from proofreading to editorialising or content-creating that I messed up, proofreading seems to be something I am not particularly awful at.)

Knotwork (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric_controversy : quote

They assume that

   * Competition on wikipedia is a good thing.
   * That other editors are interested in competitive editing.

This attitude is not only destructive, but the "logic" supporting it is fundamentally flawed. They think competing against each other brings progress. But progress towards what? Competition progresses towards the goals of its winner. And since the goals of the competitors are to push their own POV, the progress is actually not towards NPOV, but towards the winner's POV. In other words, competition can only breed (real, meaningful, constructive, unselfish) progress when competitors work towards the same goal. And if it so happens that the person which is trying to be NPOV "wins", then what a lot of wasted time and energy!

endquote

...Opinion, accounting for its living in userspace? Why is "fundamentally flawed" bolded instead of being a link to the proof of the fundamentality of the flaw? (Yeah, its true, I do like reading proofs, isn't that what proofreading implies/involves? ;) :D)

I have so many windows open now I am running into limitations of my hardware, on some tab of some window I've been reading that calling in the math project folk can be useful, plus I am a bit of a fan of intelligible mathematical (and mathematical physics and physics) proofs so combining that with a career in formal systems such as software languages for ideally-deterministic systems is it any wonder I'd even dig into "Laws of Form" trying to relate it to fonts and the topology of character-sets etc if doing so might help craft or discover an intelligible, executable, intelligibly-executable [something]?

I've grabbed this quote because it seems potentially relevant to research into whether co-operation can compete with competion and vice-versa. (Objective: feed, clothe, and shelter the sentient beings inhabiting Sol III; process: compete to provide all such beings all such things or compete to restrict access to such things in order to prioritise which ones get which such things soonest or in most quantity or quality? Objective: provide all such beings with all factual data and/or all factual information; procedure: ???)

Knotwork (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_and_existence_properties : quote

In mathematical logic, the disjunction property is satisfied by a logic if whenever a sentence

   \phi\vee\psi

is a theorem, then either φ is a theorem, or ψ is a theorem.

endquote

The symbol between "either" and "is" displays as a clearly different collection/assemblage of pixels from the symbol displayed by the (tex? latex?) symbol one might attempt to describe by some such term as "backslash-phi". This obfuscates my eye's tendency to recognise by visual form-recognition any intended identity between the collection, set, or assemblage of pixels designated by the backslash-phi construct and the symbol appearing between "either" and "is".

If any identity is intended between the referent of the backslash-phi construct and the referent of the symbol appearing between "either" and "is", might it not convey less apparent attempt to obfuscate if one used the same construct when the same referent is meant-or-intended?

I am not generally regarded by laypeople as particularly unsophisticated in the realm of computer-literacy, yet I do not know offhand what character-set and what font are being used to generate the symbol appearing between the "either" and the "is".

Would "then either \phi is a theorem, or \psi is a theorem" preserve the intended meaning or obfuscate it???

(In other words, is the symbol between "either" and "is" the greek letter phi? If so, why obfuscate that "fact"?)

(If two forms differ, which pixels or bits (or topological or other properties) of the difference carry which pixels or bits or segments or portions (etc) of the "meaning" and what pixelogical, bitological, segmentological, portionological (etc) laws govern which changes of meaning are accomplished by which bits, pixels, or other "properties"?)

Knotwork (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing : quote

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

   NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

endquote

"may not"? that seems potentially ambiguous, as in does it mean should not or need not ("may" is often contrasted to "can" in some dialects/traditions of eduction/upbringing (citations needed ;)) in a way that intends to attribute an implication of "you should not do that" when authorities (such as parents or teachers) tell you "you may not do this that or the other thing": even if you can do it you "may" not do it.)

"might not", "need not", "are permitted permitted not to" are examples of constructs that might (may? ;)) be less ambiguous of one possible reading, "should not", "ought not" might (may? ;)) serve better to convey the other kind of reading that I can well imagine some readers being able to read from "may not".

Knotwork (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]