04.23.08
I dare you
If there is a mathematician in the readership I dare you you to translate the following into plain English:
“Any ring can be seen as a preadditive category with a single object. It is therefore natural to consider arbitrary preadditive categories to be generalizations of rings. And indeed, many definitions and theorems originally given for rings can be translated to this more general context. Additive functors between preadditive categories generalize the concept of ring homomorphism, and ideals in additive categories can be defined as sets of morphisms closed under addition and under composition with arbitrary morphisms.”
No those are not shiny rings they are Math rings, they are sets with certain properties that make them useful for mathematicians to study for long periods of time and make sweeping generalizations, like the preceding, that make me wonder if I learned anything in that class at all. Nope, I sure didn’t.
The reason I mention anything is because I truly feel that although Wikipedia has its faults, it is the fount of all information. If the snippet isn’t factual and or scholarly, then tell me where the error is and we’ll fix it together ok? and that is what make3s it perfect.
Wendylady said,
April 23, 2008 at 14:50 0
Huh!? The amount of brain power that is needed to even read that statment equation is beyond my realm of thinking. Good luck to any who atempt to comtemplate it!
gillsmoke said,
April 23, 2008 at 21:48 0
See that’s what I’m saying, and I took group theory as a part of my math minor. People tell me all the time why Wikipedia is bad, really bad. Mostly because it isn’t scholarly. I say Harumph! It’s called peer review In a journal but crap because it is even more democratic, for reading and writing? Encyclopedia Britannica has a closed judging system but still finds itself issuing errata for factual errors.
crseum said,
April 23, 2008 at 22:06 0
math rings….pretty. I stopped reading when I saw the word preadditive (did i see that word?)However, I call shenanigans on your harumph Sir.
luckybuzz said,
April 24, 2008 at 17:16 0
Did I tell you the story about how my friend’s 4 year old son has discovered the joys of writing and editing Wikipedia articles?
I’m just sayin’. It’s fine for basic, early info, but relying on it for facts? Uh. I wouldn’t. I mean, he’s a smart 4 year old, but still….
gillsmoke said,
April 25, 2008 at 19:03 0
Hey what were the topics, because even if he did the changes today chances are they have been fixed. Average repair for defacement is about 2 minutes. The people who create the content are deeply involved in maintaining it. Did you ever see the 9/11 changelog animation. minute by minute updates. amazing.
Now I would never advocate it for scholarly research. Nor would I say it doesn’t have faults. I would however say that as a source for general or obscure information you can’t top, 50,000 contributors. I’d still put it in front of Encyclopedia Britannica.
You Ivory Tower types are soo snooty. Ya know not everybody has access to those fancy research databases or know how to use them right if they did.
Please, let us remain friends for the sake of H. Buzz-Bob.
crseum said,
April 25, 2008 at 23:33 0
Oh FOR GOD SAKES HOW MANY WILL YOU DRIVE AWAY THROUGH YOUR SLAVISH DEVOTION TO WIKIPEDIA!
wendylady said,
April 26, 2008 at 08:12 0
Only time will tell crse how many walk away. But we know the mind behind it is a firm believer in knowledge is power. Even if it is an abscure power that no one else is aweare that you have.
gillsmoke said,
April 29, 2008 at 17:37 0
All of them, if I must.
Soon not even my wife will come.