Content deleted Content added
new section on not being able to find the cited dedication |
→too detailed: Reply |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 209:
The famous dedication "to the Type 650 computer" is not present in a scan I have of the 3rd edition of volume 1. Perhaps it was removed? Can we confirm which editions it appears in and clarify the article? [[User:Faught|Faught]] ([[User talk:Faught|talk]]) 18:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
: Update - I found the scan of the 3rd edition on the Internet Archive, and it does have the dedication, so perhaps my scan is incomplete (I don't remember where I found it online). [[User:Faught|Faught]] ([[User talk:Faught|talk]]) 18:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
== Volume 4 splitted in subvolumes 4A, 4B, .. ==
Instead of referring to 4A, 4B as volumes it would be more correct to use the term subvolumes 4A, subvolumes 4B, ..
<br>So for example:<br>
Volume 4B consists of material evolved from Fascicles 5 and 6<br>
May be changed in:<br>
Subvolume 4B consists of material evolved from Fascicles 5 and 6<br> [[Special:Contributions/93.42.64.227|93.42.64.227]] ([[User talk:93.42.64.227|talk]]) 09:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
: No, they are called volumes everywhere, by Knuth and by the publishers. You seem to be proposing your own new terminology. (And they ''are'' separate volumes, in the sense of ''“A single book of a publication issued in multi-book format”'' as you can see if you pick one up; it's just that the ''names'' of the volumes happen to be "1", "2", "3", "4A", "4B"…) [[User:Shreevatsa|Shreevatsa]] ([[User talk:Shreevatsa|talk]]) 04:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I agree with "volume". [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 04:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
== too detailed ==
Why is the table of contents replicated in this article? It's completely unnecessary. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:NONFICTION]], I've removed the larger of the two table of contents. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 15:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
::I'm following Knut's work on TAOCP for forty years. The detailed section that is reputed unnecessary, is very important to follow the evolution of this fundamental work. Pre fascicle are strongly linked to the index entries. I'd like have it again. It's an error consider detailed content a duplication. [[Special:Contributions/93.35.206.177|93.35.206.177]] ([[User talk:93.35.206.177|talk]]) 10:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:::A proposal: reinsert detailed conted using an open/close section, closed by default [[Special:Contributions/93.35.206.177|93.35.206.177]] ([[User talk:93.35.206.177|talk]]) 10:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:::[[WP:NONFICTION]] says {{tq|an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included}}, and I think we should adhere to that guideline. If you'd like to write prose about the development path, then I think that would be welcome -- but of course it will need references provide encyclopedic content. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 20:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
| |||