![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not a complete sentence:
The website contains many articles and reviews which claim that new context-based and constructivist math programs, many of which were funded by the National Science Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.129.187 ( talk • contribs)
There needs to be better info on the group itself, particularly its makeup. There's also been a lot of criticism of them, but there's nothing mentioned here. -- C S (Talk) 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone else bothered by this title? A quick look through college-level math sites and wikipedia suggests that 'mathematically correct' is a meaningless, or possibly redundant, term. I might suggest that this page be a disambig page with a link to "mathematically correct(website)" and an explanation stating something like " 'correct' is not a term used in mathematics. Equality, Validity, and Provability are used instead. See also Mathematical logic and Logical value.
If I had studied more high level math, I would make the change. Dialectric ( talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's fine to use words like "correct" or "incorrect" when talking about math. For example, mathematicians will say "this proof is incorrect," by which they mean that there's a mistake and therefore it's not a real proof. Even though they're talking about mathematics, they still talk about it in English. Of course, a "computer" doing math would say "this collection of statements is not a proof of statement X" instead of "this proof of statement X is incorrect," but people doing math don't actually talk like computers. So the word "correct" here is fine. YZEMA ( talk) 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The article as posted prior to my revisions last week and as restored by Jd2718 is extremely biased and written from the perspective of someone who shares the agenda of the Mathematically Correct group. Looking over the past edits, this is not surprising, as most of them have been done by easily identifiable contributors with a history of following Mathematically Correct agenda. As such, the article is not encyclopedic in the slightest by is a pure propaganda.
I don't know who Jd2718 is and I don't really care. If he wants to eliminate bias, restoring an earlier biased version is not an appropriate solution. I made my best attempt to present a value-neutral description. Of course, I have my own perspective on the subject--given that the topic is rather controversial, it is not too surprising. However, every change I made is factual, not speculative. Compared to the original, my version contains less polemic nonsense and gives a more accurate description of the group's activities. The information is easily verifiable.
Let me suggest another thing. Consider, for a moment, Jd2718's self-description concerning Wiki:
Is not really an encyclopedia. It is a cruft pit for grown up boys, and a propaganda pit for politics and history. Neutral Point of View? Pure fiction. Where it works (eg math) it doesn't matter. I work in my union. I know there are at least two sides, and they are opposed. I have no interest in neutrality, real or pretended.
JD, if you don't know what you are talking about, refrain from editing. If you don't like what I wrote, fix the language, don't resort to a knee-jerk reaction of restoring completely fictitious, self-serving text. If you don't think you are up to the job (and judging from your own comments on neutrality, you are not), find someone else who can do a plausible job. You don't have to be objective, but you can at least try. Lone.cowboy ( talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article contains major factual errors. The article falsely claimed that the website went down c. 2013, and looking through it, the last update was no later than 2007, not 2003; in particular, one of the current links on the main page is an article preprint published in February 2007. It is, however, scant on references, especially secondary ones. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not a complete sentence:
The website contains many articles and reviews which claim that new context-based and constructivist math programs, many of which were funded by the National Science Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.129.187 ( talk • contribs)
There needs to be better info on the group itself, particularly its makeup. There's also been a lot of criticism of them, but there's nothing mentioned here. -- C S (Talk) 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone else bothered by this title? A quick look through college-level math sites and wikipedia suggests that 'mathematically correct' is a meaningless, or possibly redundant, term. I might suggest that this page be a disambig page with a link to "mathematically correct(website)" and an explanation stating something like " 'correct' is not a term used in mathematics. Equality, Validity, and Provability are used instead. See also Mathematical logic and Logical value.
If I had studied more high level math, I would make the change. Dialectric ( talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's fine to use words like "correct" or "incorrect" when talking about math. For example, mathematicians will say "this proof is incorrect," by which they mean that there's a mistake and therefore it's not a real proof. Even though they're talking about mathematics, they still talk about it in English. Of course, a "computer" doing math would say "this collection of statements is not a proof of statement X" instead of "this proof of statement X is incorrect," but people doing math don't actually talk like computers. So the word "correct" here is fine. YZEMA ( talk) 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The article as posted prior to my revisions last week and as restored by Jd2718 is extremely biased and written from the perspective of someone who shares the agenda of the Mathematically Correct group. Looking over the past edits, this is not surprising, as most of them have been done by easily identifiable contributors with a history of following Mathematically Correct agenda. As such, the article is not encyclopedic in the slightest by is a pure propaganda.
I don't know who Jd2718 is and I don't really care. If he wants to eliminate bias, restoring an earlier biased version is not an appropriate solution. I made my best attempt to present a value-neutral description. Of course, I have my own perspective on the subject--given that the topic is rather controversial, it is not too surprising. However, every change I made is factual, not speculative. Compared to the original, my version contains less polemic nonsense and gives a more accurate description of the group's activities. The information is easily verifiable.
Let me suggest another thing. Consider, for a moment, Jd2718's self-description concerning Wiki:
Is not really an encyclopedia. It is a cruft pit for grown up boys, and a propaganda pit for politics and history. Neutral Point of View? Pure fiction. Where it works (eg math) it doesn't matter. I work in my union. I know there are at least two sides, and they are opposed. I have no interest in neutrality, real or pretended.
JD, if you don't know what you are talking about, refrain from editing. If you don't like what I wrote, fix the language, don't resort to a knee-jerk reaction of restoring completely fictitious, self-serving text. If you don't think you are up to the job (and judging from your own comments on neutrality, you are not), find someone else who can do a plausible job. You don't have to be objective, but you can at least try. Lone.cowboy ( talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article contains major factual errors. The article falsely claimed that the website went down c. 2013, and looking through it, the last update was no later than 2007, not 2003; in particular, one of the current links on the main page is an article preprint published in February 2007. It is, however, scant on references, especially secondary ones. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)