![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 10 June 2013 for a period of one week. |
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I am not a mathematician or a philosopher. When I came to this article to learn what "Q.E.D." meant, I found a very concise and clear statement at the beginning of the article, which reads "The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration".
This is clear enough, but it presumes that the reader knows what a mathematical proof or a philosophical argument is and how these two items are constructed. Regrettably, I really don't know what either one of these concepts are. May I respectfully suggest that immediately after the above-mentioned paragraph, you provide a (very simple) example of a mathematical proof with Q.E.D. at the end, and also a (very simple) example of a philosophical argument with Q.E.D. at the end? I believe that this would greatly contribute to the usefulness of this article.
Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.150.42 ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Are the squares (■, □) commonly called "tombstone notations"? If so, it should be included. -- Menchi 05:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
i think that the acronym Q.E.F. deserves a page for its own. [1]
"In English speaking countries the letters can also mean "Quite Easily Done" or, occasionally, "Quite Eloquently Done", or humourously "Quite Enough Done", "Quite Elegantly Done". A more colloquial translation might be "See, I Told You So".
"In Asian speaking countries, the letters sometimes mean, "Question Easy Done", in a parody of Chinglish."
The difference in meaning is not very clear here. It says how Euclid used it, but without actually saying what it means. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
References
What is the Greek notation of those words? Is it ωπερ ηδηι δηιχαι?
How about changing that to
? And why would this be restricted to asian countries now that it is not ungrammatical any more? -- MarSch 12:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I also remember QED being used in the Guns of Navarone, among others. Since that section is open to the addition of lots and lots of links and instances, without any objective criterium as to what to add and what not to add, is it really wise to have it? Shinobu 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I observe the "Popular usage" section has grown since. diff Q.E.D. is a very common phrase and the "Popular usage" section will keep growing for ever, getting less and less interesting. Unless I remove it, that is. Which is exactly what I'll do. Shinobu 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in the see also section. Although I think trying to record every instance of popular usage is a futile and pointless endeavor, you are free to go ahead if you disagree. Yours faithfully, Shinobu 12:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Being a user that apparently added one of the back-breaking entries to this section (the HBO citation), I find it a little surprising the extent of dominion over this page exerted by one user's wholesale clipping of the popular usage section. Perhaps their explanation could have at least been worded differently, on the more practical side, rather than sounding smarmy and petulant. Eudy7 07:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
More Concrete Explanation: I agree the history of your discussion with Shinobu largely handled the issue with pragmatism. I see the potential for excessive growth of the section, given enough time. I'm not above admitting my comment may just be sour grapes -- I find it regretful that my contribution became the catalyst for every other section contributor's work getting clipped. And my initial reaction to Shinobu's final two sentences in the comment which explained the mass edit is the source of my "smarmy and petulant" accusation. Upon another reading, I still extract a degree of flippancy in the those final two, short sentences at the close of the explanation. It's simply my interpretation, and I could be completely wrong on the question of the writer's tone or intent. Overall, the specific matter is rather insignificant in my opinion and the underlying principle doesn't rise to any level I feel needs strident debate. I simply felt a strongly worded comment was in order to remind anyone inclined to remove large amounts of material that they are removing someone's inspiration and effort, however tiny. Cheers.-- Eudy7 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the linked Latin lexicon (which shows the morphology), you'll notice that erat is the imprefect active indicate form of the "be" verb [see Perseus morphology as well], which corresponds exactly to the Greek ἔδει (imperfect active indicative). It is not a subjunctive or imperative form. I understand that many Mathematicians take the expression as "was to be," but I figure that is due to the fact that they are expert in Maths, not translating languages (they also often add the word "that", i.e., "that which", though the word is entirely absent from the Latin [and Greek] phrase). Is there any evidence from Latin lexicographers or grammarians, that erat can be translated as "was to be"? It seems that "was" or "was being" is the accurate translation. See 2nd conjugation ("-at" ending) 3rd person translation of the imperfect (="was") and Uses of the tenses in Latin grammar (imprefect="was").
Another related issue is that even if by some obscure convention or nuance it could be translated "was to be," that doesn't convey the ancient or current use of the expression. Where "was to be" implies "but might not have been", the whole point of appending it to some propositions and not all of them, was to point up the fact that the author thought that they had proven that proposition beyond all dispute. When QED is used today, it is used the same way — not to say the weaker "I think I've shown this," but the much stronger "I have shown this, period."
So both in terms of grammar and practice, "was to be" seems wrong. Remember, just because various Math sites say "was to be" doesn't mean it is correct — the lexicographers and grammarians must decide the issue of the proper translation of a Latin phrase. I'm open to correction on all points, however. -- MonkeeSage 07:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"what was to be demonstrated" is simply bad English; it does not make sense. "Quod" translates as "that", according to my (inferior) source. "That" is a pronoun. "That which was to be demonstrated" makes sense in English, even though it is a sentence fragment (god forbid). I changed the translations in the article to make sense in English and to accord with "quod", but if anyone can improve them, go ahead. Just make sure the English satisfies the prime requirement of translation (aside from poetry), i.e., makes sense. Zaslav ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I would recommend to move/rewrite/get permission/include the article QED by robin hartshorne. at the moment i add this as an external link. Marhahs 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As a teaching assistant / grader in mathematics, I'd like to point out that students (and journal authors) should only use "QED" appropriately -- to me, at least, it makes a very strong statement that the proof-writer is proud of their proof. There's nothing wrong with being proud, but it's annoying when QED is overused. I suggest only using it when you prove something in a very elegant fashion, or for a novel proof. In all other cases, the "tombstone" or "halmos" suffices. There are several ways to write a halmos in latex; one simple way, that works most of the time (depending on where the last line of your proof ends) is \hfill $\square$.
Of course, this is only my opinion, but I suspect others might agree. Agree, disagree? Lavaka 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I deserve the blame for this since I started it with "qcfd", but the proliferation of foreign equivalents of "qed" is getting ridiculous. I can defend "qcfd" in that French is a major mathematical language, but without disrespect to the Finnish I can say that only they will ever see "mot". I don't want to draw the line arbitrarily, but maybe the foreign translations can be reduced to just the French, German, and Russian (the canonical three other mathematical languages) and a note that other equivalents can be found in the language-specific wikipedias in the sidebar. Ryan Reich 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The German form of Q.E.D is, accoridung to Duden - die deutsche Rechtschreibung not capitalized. The correct version, or at least the version that can be found in most German literature is "q.e.d." 78.53.217.212 ( talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How do you say it? I always thought you just said, "Q(cue) E(ee) D(dee)," but my professor told me it was pronounced like "cued," or even like "kood (like in kudos)." Which way is correct? Ye Olde Luke 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a Latin teacher who was a stickler on pronunciation. The proper way is: KOO-ode A-raht deh-moan-STRAHN-doom. They always pronounced every letter the same way every time. This is the way they would pronounce it in Roman times. This is not the "church" or "scientific" variety of Latin. Gregbard 10:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Apropos of some of the earlier discussions (from a long time ago) up on this page, I've decided to snip all of the material on QED that doesn't have to do with proofs, or doesn't have to do with its classical meaning. Not that popular takes on the phrase aren't potentially interesting, but as I noted in the edit comment, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The potential for humor on this subject is endless (three letters could mean almost anything, especially in a language with so many words) but most of it is not notable. Rather than let the article collect junk, I'm inclined to say that anything of this nature should come with a source, or leave in a hurry. Ryan Reich 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether anyone else thinks it might be a decent idea to add a small section at the bottom of this article about the acronym's usage in notable movies, etc. (Captain Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End comes to mind during the Locker scene). Exigence 06:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I would recommend scrapping the Babel fish example as well. There's nothing special about the use of the abbreviation in the book; by this standard, just about any work where any proof (or "proof") is made could be included. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the Ice Princess section should be reworked. As it is, it doesn't make sense.-- Slowlikemolasses ( talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I would've just asked this on the user's talk page, but it was an anonymous edit, so I thought I'd voice my question here. Is diff an improving edit? Should it be undone? etc. — metaprimer ( talk) 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else heard the backronym "Quadrilateral Ends Discussion"? Or am I the only one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singingwolfboy ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
why can't they just write QED at the end instead of some symbol???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.243.53 ( talk) 00:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a haphazard collection of information, but a short sentence on the existence of humorous (or supposedly so) backronyms does belong in an encyclopaedia that deals with the subject in a thorough manner. The most common of these seems to be Quite Easily Done, so I'm adding a small reference to that in Section 2.-- Jchthys ( talk) 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS; random factoids are OK if sourced; otherwise not. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Does this count as a "reliable source"? 71.175.12.187 ( talk) 16:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what this means. What do the quotes around "write" signify? Is it referring to proofs generated by a computer program, or just to the mundane fact that people use word-processors and desktop publishing software to write up proofs? Either way, why would this encourage the use of other symbols? Needs clarification. 86.134.12.220 ( talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
Unicode descriptions of characters are usually WRITTEN IN UPPER CASE. I don't know what the style guide says but I would expect e.g. U+0013 CARRIAGE RETURN.
It is also important to make a distinction between a character (which has a semantic function) and a glyph (which is the way it is represented).
Opinions? Best SimonTrew ( talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not necessary or desirable to pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. Jchthys' did just that, adding no value or comprehension, just words. I am tempted to revert immediately, but I am being nice. Since I have had no response on user talk pages I will do so shortly unless I get a reply. I see absolutely no use in this edit, in fact I think it comes close to vandalism. SimonTrew ( talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
how much more relevant in modern culture can a smart radio station with the call letters kqed be? i say leave it. XKV8R ( talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In spanish
Q.E.D.!= queda entonces demostrado
because it is like "is then shown" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_erat_demonstrandum fix it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.9.42 ( talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone have a short paragraph handy that could be cited showing an example of the common usage of QED? All this talk about the abbreviation, not one example showing its use... 134.193.238.42 ( talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Greek, so I'm unclear on the exact difference... but "quod erat demonstrandum" could definitely be read as "what was required to be demonstrated" -- since the future passive participle often carries the implication of obligation in Latin, particularly when used with forms of "esse" such as "erat" -- and "demonstrated" is synonymous with "proved" in this context, so is there really any difference in meaning here at all? I'd say if anything the difference is a result of the process of translation and not any actual difference in meaning. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This explanation of QED blows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.119.113 ( talk) 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In one place the article translates as "which was to be demonstrated", and in another "what was to be demonstrated". Which should it be? Is the second even correct English (other than as a question, which is obviously not the intention)? 86.181.200.87 ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what the best term would be, but physics nerd does not seem to be an encyclopedic term. -- Techdude 42 ( talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The starting summary/description doesn't give nearly a clear/good enough description of the acronym - particularly given its wider cultural usage now, for humorous effect (mocking an obvious untruth, by appending it with Q.E.D., to lend it more absurdity).
The current introduction/summary/description ought to be scrapped in entirety, and rewritten. Arfed ( talk) 01:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of the alleged "examples" of Q.E.D. equivalents in other languages are really stretching it. "Q.E.D." doesn't stand for anything in Japanese or Korean; "かく示された" and "これが証明すべきことだった" are literally translations of "thus proven" and its alternate forms, and not what Q.E.D. actually stands for within those languages. There is a difference between saying that Q.E.D. is used when mathematics is taught in those countries and claiming that it stands for something within those languages, and the table provided is supposed to pair up equivalent abbreviations with what they stand for. Many of the bad examples (Persian, Norwegian, Japanese, etc.) have got to go. The table is not for listing the equivalents and direct translations of "and thus proven" within each language, it is used to denote what languages have their own equivalents to Q.E.D. -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Thus is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
מה שהיה להוכיח הראש ( talk) 11:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I see the translations from Latin and Greek have been discussed ad nauseam above, but I'm still confused. (I have a working knowledge of Latin; none of Greek.) The "Etymology and early use" section currently claims that a direct translation of the Latin is "that was to be demonstrated" (with which I would agree); but that translating from the Greek "can produce a slightly different meaning. In particular, since the verb "δείκνυμι" also means to show or to prove, a different translation from the Greek phrase would read 'The very thing it was required to have shown.'" Where's the discrepancy? To demonstrate, show or prove are all pretty much synonyms; while "the very thing" is more emphatic but still means effectively the same as "that". The two translations are subtly variant in emphasis, but there's no "different meaning". Some rewording or clarity required. Q.E.D. GrindtXX ( talk) 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Supreme Court uses the phrase, QED, as abbreviated, in its famous decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), at p. 634. Specifically, Justice Scalia criticizes Justice Breyer's employment of “a judge-empowering ‘ interest-balancing inquiry’ ” that invariably reaches an “interest-balanced answer,” viz., that “[b]ecause handgun violence is a problem, […] the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.”
Whatever the merits of Heller (I agree with its disposition, for whatever that may be worth), one must respect Justice Scalia's masterful prose. OzzyMuffin238 ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 10 June 2013 for a period of one week. |
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I am not a mathematician or a philosopher. When I came to this article to learn what "Q.E.D." meant, I found a very concise and clear statement at the beginning of the article, which reads "The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration".
This is clear enough, but it presumes that the reader knows what a mathematical proof or a philosophical argument is and how these two items are constructed. Regrettably, I really don't know what either one of these concepts are. May I respectfully suggest that immediately after the above-mentioned paragraph, you provide a (very simple) example of a mathematical proof with Q.E.D. at the end, and also a (very simple) example of a philosophical argument with Q.E.D. at the end? I believe that this would greatly contribute to the usefulness of this article.
Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.150.42 ( talk) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Are the squares (■, □) commonly called "tombstone notations"? If so, it should be included. -- Menchi 05:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
i think that the acronym Q.E.F. deserves a page for its own. [1]
"In English speaking countries the letters can also mean "Quite Easily Done" or, occasionally, "Quite Eloquently Done", or humourously "Quite Enough Done", "Quite Elegantly Done". A more colloquial translation might be "See, I Told You So".
"In Asian speaking countries, the letters sometimes mean, "Question Easy Done", in a parody of Chinglish."
The difference in meaning is not very clear here. It says how Euclid used it, but without actually saying what it means. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
References
What is the Greek notation of those words? Is it ωπερ ηδηι δηιχαι?
How about changing that to
? And why would this be restricted to asian countries now that it is not ungrammatical any more? -- MarSch 12:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I also remember QED being used in the Guns of Navarone, among others. Since that section is open to the addition of lots and lots of links and instances, without any objective criterium as to what to add and what not to add, is it really wise to have it? Shinobu 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I observe the "Popular usage" section has grown since. diff Q.E.D. is a very common phrase and the "Popular usage" section will keep growing for ever, getting less and less interesting. Unless I remove it, that is. Which is exactly what I'll do. Shinobu 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in the see also section. Although I think trying to record every instance of popular usage is a futile and pointless endeavor, you are free to go ahead if you disagree. Yours faithfully, Shinobu 12:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Being a user that apparently added one of the back-breaking entries to this section (the HBO citation), I find it a little surprising the extent of dominion over this page exerted by one user's wholesale clipping of the popular usage section. Perhaps their explanation could have at least been worded differently, on the more practical side, rather than sounding smarmy and petulant. Eudy7 07:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
More Concrete Explanation: I agree the history of your discussion with Shinobu largely handled the issue with pragmatism. I see the potential for excessive growth of the section, given enough time. I'm not above admitting my comment may just be sour grapes -- I find it regretful that my contribution became the catalyst for every other section contributor's work getting clipped. And my initial reaction to Shinobu's final two sentences in the comment which explained the mass edit is the source of my "smarmy and petulant" accusation. Upon another reading, I still extract a degree of flippancy in the those final two, short sentences at the close of the explanation. It's simply my interpretation, and I could be completely wrong on the question of the writer's tone or intent. Overall, the specific matter is rather insignificant in my opinion and the underlying principle doesn't rise to any level I feel needs strident debate. I simply felt a strongly worded comment was in order to remind anyone inclined to remove large amounts of material that they are removing someone's inspiration and effort, however tiny. Cheers.-- Eudy7 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the linked Latin lexicon (which shows the morphology), you'll notice that erat is the imprefect active indicate form of the "be" verb [see Perseus morphology as well], which corresponds exactly to the Greek ἔδει (imperfect active indicative). It is not a subjunctive or imperative form. I understand that many Mathematicians take the expression as "was to be," but I figure that is due to the fact that they are expert in Maths, not translating languages (they also often add the word "that", i.e., "that which", though the word is entirely absent from the Latin [and Greek] phrase). Is there any evidence from Latin lexicographers or grammarians, that erat can be translated as "was to be"? It seems that "was" or "was being" is the accurate translation. See 2nd conjugation ("-at" ending) 3rd person translation of the imperfect (="was") and Uses of the tenses in Latin grammar (imprefect="was").
Another related issue is that even if by some obscure convention or nuance it could be translated "was to be," that doesn't convey the ancient or current use of the expression. Where "was to be" implies "but might not have been", the whole point of appending it to some propositions and not all of them, was to point up the fact that the author thought that they had proven that proposition beyond all dispute. When QED is used today, it is used the same way — not to say the weaker "I think I've shown this," but the much stronger "I have shown this, period."
So both in terms of grammar and practice, "was to be" seems wrong. Remember, just because various Math sites say "was to be" doesn't mean it is correct — the lexicographers and grammarians must decide the issue of the proper translation of a Latin phrase. I'm open to correction on all points, however. -- MonkeeSage 07:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"what was to be demonstrated" is simply bad English; it does not make sense. "Quod" translates as "that", according to my (inferior) source. "That" is a pronoun. "That which was to be demonstrated" makes sense in English, even though it is a sentence fragment (god forbid). I changed the translations in the article to make sense in English and to accord with "quod", but if anyone can improve them, go ahead. Just make sure the English satisfies the prime requirement of translation (aside from poetry), i.e., makes sense. Zaslav ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I would recommend to move/rewrite/get permission/include the article QED by robin hartshorne. at the moment i add this as an external link. Marhahs 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As a teaching assistant / grader in mathematics, I'd like to point out that students (and journal authors) should only use "QED" appropriately -- to me, at least, it makes a very strong statement that the proof-writer is proud of their proof. There's nothing wrong with being proud, but it's annoying when QED is overused. I suggest only using it when you prove something in a very elegant fashion, or for a novel proof. In all other cases, the "tombstone" or "halmos" suffices. There are several ways to write a halmos in latex; one simple way, that works most of the time (depending on where the last line of your proof ends) is \hfill $\square$.
Of course, this is only my opinion, but I suspect others might agree. Agree, disagree? Lavaka 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I deserve the blame for this since I started it with "qcfd", but the proliferation of foreign equivalents of "qed" is getting ridiculous. I can defend "qcfd" in that French is a major mathematical language, but without disrespect to the Finnish I can say that only they will ever see "mot". I don't want to draw the line arbitrarily, but maybe the foreign translations can be reduced to just the French, German, and Russian (the canonical three other mathematical languages) and a note that other equivalents can be found in the language-specific wikipedias in the sidebar. Ryan Reich 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The German form of Q.E.D is, accoridung to Duden - die deutsche Rechtschreibung not capitalized. The correct version, or at least the version that can be found in most German literature is "q.e.d." 78.53.217.212 ( talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How do you say it? I always thought you just said, "Q(cue) E(ee) D(dee)," but my professor told me it was pronounced like "cued," or even like "kood (like in kudos)." Which way is correct? Ye Olde Luke 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a Latin teacher who was a stickler on pronunciation. The proper way is: KOO-ode A-raht deh-moan-STRAHN-doom. They always pronounced every letter the same way every time. This is the way they would pronounce it in Roman times. This is not the "church" or "scientific" variety of Latin. Gregbard 10:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Apropos of some of the earlier discussions (from a long time ago) up on this page, I've decided to snip all of the material on QED that doesn't have to do with proofs, or doesn't have to do with its classical meaning. Not that popular takes on the phrase aren't potentially interesting, but as I noted in the edit comment, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The potential for humor on this subject is endless (three letters could mean almost anything, especially in a language with so many words) but most of it is not notable. Rather than let the article collect junk, I'm inclined to say that anything of this nature should come with a source, or leave in a hurry. Ryan Reich 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether anyone else thinks it might be a decent idea to add a small section at the bottom of this article about the acronym's usage in notable movies, etc. (Captain Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End comes to mind during the Locker scene). Exigence 06:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I would recommend scrapping the Babel fish example as well. There's nothing special about the use of the abbreviation in the book; by this standard, just about any work where any proof (or "proof") is made could be included. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the Ice Princess section should be reworked. As it is, it doesn't make sense.-- Slowlikemolasses ( talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I would've just asked this on the user's talk page, but it was an anonymous edit, so I thought I'd voice my question here. Is diff an improving edit? Should it be undone? etc. — metaprimer ( talk) 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else heard the backronym "Quadrilateral Ends Discussion"? Or am I the only one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singingwolfboy ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
why can't they just write QED at the end instead of some symbol???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.243.53 ( talk) 00:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a haphazard collection of information, but a short sentence on the existence of humorous (or supposedly so) backronyms does belong in an encyclopaedia that deals with the subject in a thorough manner. The most common of these seems to be Quite Easily Done, so I'm adding a small reference to that in Section 2.-- Jchthys ( talk) 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS; random factoids are OK if sourced; otherwise not. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Does this count as a "reliable source"? 71.175.12.187 ( talk) 16:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what this means. What do the quotes around "write" signify? Is it referring to proofs generated by a computer program, or just to the mundane fact that people use word-processors and desktop publishing software to write up proofs? Either way, why would this encourage the use of other symbols? Needs clarification. 86.134.12.220 ( talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
Unicode descriptions of characters are usually WRITTEN IN UPPER CASE. I don't know what the style guide says but I would expect e.g. U+0013 CARRIAGE RETURN.
It is also important to make a distinction between a character (which has a semantic function) and a glyph (which is the way it is represented).
Opinions? Best SimonTrew ( talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not necessary or desirable to pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. Jchthys' did just that, adding no value or comprehension, just words. I am tempted to revert immediately, but I am being nice. Since I have had no response on user talk pages I will do so shortly unless I get a reply. I see absolutely no use in this edit, in fact I think it comes close to vandalism. SimonTrew ( talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
how much more relevant in modern culture can a smart radio station with the call letters kqed be? i say leave it. XKV8R ( talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In spanish
Q.E.D.!= queda entonces demostrado
because it is like "is then shown" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_erat_demonstrandum fix it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.9.42 ( talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone have a short paragraph handy that could be cited showing an example of the common usage of QED? All this talk about the abbreviation, not one example showing its use... 134.193.238.42 ( talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Greek, so I'm unclear on the exact difference... but "quod erat demonstrandum" could definitely be read as "what was required to be demonstrated" -- since the future passive participle often carries the implication of obligation in Latin, particularly when used with forms of "esse" such as "erat" -- and "demonstrated" is synonymous with "proved" in this context, so is there really any difference in meaning here at all? I'd say if anything the difference is a result of the process of translation and not any actual difference in meaning. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This explanation of QED blows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.119.113 ( talk) 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In one place the article translates as "which was to be demonstrated", and in another "what was to be demonstrated". Which should it be? Is the second even correct English (other than as a question, which is obviously not the intention)? 86.181.200.87 ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what the best term would be, but physics nerd does not seem to be an encyclopedic term. -- Techdude 42 ( talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The starting summary/description doesn't give nearly a clear/good enough description of the acronym - particularly given its wider cultural usage now, for humorous effect (mocking an obvious untruth, by appending it with Q.E.D., to lend it more absurdity).
The current introduction/summary/description ought to be scrapped in entirety, and rewritten. Arfed ( talk) 01:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of the alleged "examples" of Q.E.D. equivalents in other languages are really stretching it. "Q.E.D." doesn't stand for anything in Japanese or Korean; "かく示された" and "これが証明すべきことだった" are literally translations of "thus proven" and its alternate forms, and not what Q.E.D. actually stands for within those languages. There is a difference between saying that Q.E.D. is used when mathematics is taught in those countries and claiming that it stands for something within those languages, and the table provided is supposed to pair up equivalent abbreviations with what they stand for. Many of the bad examples (Persian, Norwegian, Japanese, etc.) have got to go. The table is not for listing the equivalents and direct translations of "and thus proven" within each language, it is used to denote what languages have their own equivalents to Q.E.D. -- benlisquare T• C• E 09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Thus is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
מה שהיה להוכיח הראש ( talk) 11:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I see the translations from Latin and Greek have been discussed ad nauseam above, but I'm still confused. (I have a working knowledge of Latin; none of Greek.) The "Etymology and early use" section currently claims that a direct translation of the Latin is "that was to be demonstrated" (with which I would agree); but that translating from the Greek "can produce a slightly different meaning. In particular, since the verb "δείκνυμι" also means to show or to prove, a different translation from the Greek phrase would read 'The very thing it was required to have shown.'" Where's the discrepancy? To demonstrate, show or prove are all pretty much synonyms; while "the very thing" is more emphatic but still means effectively the same as "that". The two translations are subtly variant in emphasis, but there's no "different meaning". Some rewording or clarity required. Q.E.D. GrindtXX ( talk) 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Supreme Court uses the phrase, QED, as abbreviated, in its famous decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), at p. 634. Specifically, Justice Scalia criticizes Justice Breyer's employment of “a judge-empowering ‘ interest-balancing inquiry’ ” that invariably reaches an “interest-balanced answer,” viz., that “[b]ecause handgun violence is a problem, […] the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.”
Whatever the merits of Heller (I agree with its disposition, for whatever that may be worth), one must respect Justice Scalia's masterful prose. OzzyMuffin238 ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)