This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see the final para has been made a separate duplicate page at mathematical rigour. I don't see this as an improvement, and suggest it be redirected again. Charles Matthews 13:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is biased in favor of rigor. It assumes that rigor is good as opposed to an often unnecessary straightjacket and associates it with concepts like intellectual honesty. This article is prejudiced against "nonrigorous" forms of thinking. Critical
For the record, the user Critical ( talk, contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.
For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk, contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page, Chalst's talk page, and Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
"on the grounds that we, none of us, can entirely master our own presuppositions"
This is an overly broad declaration. While probably accurate, it lacks the rigour necessary for a blanket statement. ;) I'd modify it with an appended "presummably" or somesuch. -- 24.22.227.53 04:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
"Mathematical rigour is often cited as a kind of gold standard for mathematical proof."
This is not a definition. --
Jtir
10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the medical section since it has its own article and is conceptually unrelated to intellectual and medical rigour. I also put in some more section breaks, and hopefully we can find some references. -- SilverStar 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
The term 'Rigour' as in to be rigorous with methodology and the medical term 'Rigor' need to be disambiguated.
Typing 'Rigor', the correct spelling of the medical terminology, directs the search to this page, the page for 'Rigour/Rigor'. Therefore I suggest a page to disambiguate the two terms.
I cannot find any info on creating a disambiguation page so I have left this message for a more experienced user to implement the change.
-- Mad macs 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"With the aid of computers, it is possible to check proofs mechanically by throwing the possible flaws back onto machine errors that are considered unlikely events.[3]" What does this even mean? I am a computer science major and this seems completely random to me. The reference is to an article that mentions that very rarely RAM has an error (which is then likely caught by the hardware / os). This is certainly NOT something that someone using a computer to check proofs would be thinking about. There is a lot of quality to be said about this, but the above is drivel. What about machine programs to check sentential calculus theorems? What about programs designed to derive geometric proofs from axioms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.230.151 ( talk) 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Why does this redirect here, when there is no discussion of the term? It's more specific than "intellectual rigor" and deserves a separate treatment. -- Belg4mit 02:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The software section should be on its own page. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This sentence is long, unwieldy, and opinionated: "Formal codification of mathematical theories (as one would ideally expect of any mathematically rigorous technique or pedagogy) will reduce both the scope for misinterpretation of mathematical results (by enabling their precise communication) and will eliminate ambiguity in the description of mathematical material (words cannot be reasonably used to describe complex mathematics arguments – though formal languages, set theories and mathematical symbolism can and do)." The whole section on mathematical rigor needs some cleanup. Triathematician ( talk) 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
removed
A religion, too, may be worn lightly, or applied with rigour.
as that adverbial sense is not directly related to the intellectual rigour which the rest of the article is about. This sense of the word is typified by the example "Luke suffered the rigours of the Padawan training under Yoda's stern guidance". There's some conceptual relation no doubt but not what this article is about. They're both "hard stuff" I guess. 76.180.168.166 ( talk) 05:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I did a google search for the the text, "Hardware memory errors are caused by high-energy radiation from outer space, and can generally be expected to affect one bit of data per month, per gigabyte of DRAM" and could not find anything with that title. I'm assuming from the context the article would argue that the phenomenon described relates back to the idea of "rigorous proofs"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhaBubba ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see the final para has been made a separate duplicate page at mathematical rigour. I don't see this as an improvement, and suggest it be redirected again. Charles Matthews 13:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is biased in favor of rigor. It assumes that rigor is good as opposed to an often unnecessary straightjacket and associates it with concepts like intellectual honesty. This article is prejudiced against "nonrigorous" forms of thinking. Critical
For the record, the user Critical ( talk, contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.
For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk, contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page, Chalst's talk page, and Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
"on the grounds that we, none of us, can entirely master our own presuppositions"
This is an overly broad declaration. While probably accurate, it lacks the rigour necessary for a blanket statement. ;) I'd modify it with an appended "presummably" or somesuch. -- 24.22.227.53 04:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
"Mathematical rigour is often cited as a kind of gold standard for mathematical proof."
This is not a definition. --
Jtir
10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the medical section since it has its own article and is conceptually unrelated to intellectual and medical rigour. I also put in some more section breaks, and hopefully we can find some references. -- SilverStar 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
The term 'Rigour' as in to be rigorous with methodology and the medical term 'Rigor' need to be disambiguated.
Typing 'Rigor', the correct spelling of the medical terminology, directs the search to this page, the page for 'Rigour/Rigor'. Therefore I suggest a page to disambiguate the two terms.
I cannot find any info on creating a disambiguation page so I have left this message for a more experienced user to implement the change.
-- Mad macs 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"With the aid of computers, it is possible to check proofs mechanically by throwing the possible flaws back onto machine errors that are considered unlikely events.[3]" What does this even mean? I am a computer science major and this seems completely random to me. The reference is to an article that mentions that very rarely RAM has an error (which is then likely caught by the hardware / os). This is certainly NOT something that someone using a computer to check proofs would be thinking about. There is a lot of quality to be said about this, but the above is drivel. What about machine programs to check sentential calculus theorems? What about programs designed to derive geometric proofs from axioms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.230.151 ( talk) 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Why does this redirect here, when there is no discussion of the term? It's more specific than "intellectual rigor" and deserves a separate treatment. -- Belg4mit 02:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The software section should be on its own page. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This sentence is long, unwieldy, and opinionated: "Formal codification of mathematical theories (as one would ideally expect of any mathematically rigorous technique or pedagogy) will reduce both the scope for misinterpretation of mathematical results (by enabling their precise communication) and will eliminate ambiguity in the description of mathematical material (words cannot be reasonably used to describe complex mathematics arguments – though formal languages, set theories and mathematical symbolism can and do)." The whole section on mathematical rigor needs some cleanup. Triathematician ( talk) 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
removed
A religion, too, may be worn lightly, or applied with rigour.
as that adverbial sense is not directly related to the intellectual rigour which the rest of the article is about. This sense of the word is typified by the example "Luke suffered the rigours of the Padawan training under Yoda's stern guidance". There's some conceptual relation no doubt but not what this article is about. They're both "hard stuff" I guess. 76.180.168.166 ( talk) 05:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I did a google search for the the text, "Hardware memory errors are caused by high-energy radiation from outer space, and can generally be expected to affect one bit of data per month, per gigabyte of DRAM" and could not find anything with that title. I'm assuming from the context the article would argue that the phenomenon described relates back to the idea of "rigorous proofs"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhaBubba ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)