Talk:Cantor's first set theory article/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:24, 20 December 2014

Latest revision as of 05:55, 17 December 2019

(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Archive top|status=Result|result=Article failed 29 January 2014; major issues not addressed}}

==GA Review==

{{Good article tools}}

Line 58 ⟶ 60:

That is correct: there must be such a number since there are infinitely many numbers in the interval. But it is not clear what you're suggesting should be done about it, as far as editing the article is concenrred. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

::That is what needs saying, since there are infinitely many numbers in any given finite interval there must be a number other than xn. The implication is there, but the article fails to explicitly say this is why it is proved. I don't think that step is going to be obvious to all readers. It is not even obvious that one is still left with a finite interval. (I am not disputing anything here of course, just looking at it from the perspective of someone completely unfamiliar with the material). [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

::: The fact that there are infinitely many points in every open interval is known to students in secondary-school math courses, so it seems a bit like explaining what a '''question''' is in an article that quotes Hamlet saying "That is the question." However, I suppose there's not much harm in adding that. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have rephrased the subheadings so that they are no longer questions and tinkered with the corresponding phrasing in the lead. I am afraid this is not really getting to the heart of the matter. I think some structural changes to the article need to be made to take the emphasis off this alleged dispute/disagreement. The disagreement does not seem to amount to a whole pile of beans. If it does, some sources saying so are needed. Even more, fundamentally from a GA perspective (criterion 3b), the discussion of this dispute is part of a tendency for the article to go off at a tangent to discuss Cantor's other proof(s). The non-constructive proof is the diagonal argument, no? which is not the subject of this article. I have already commented on how easily the reader can become confused over which proof is being discussed. The diagonal argument should be discussed only inasmuch as it is needed to describe ''this'' method, or in passing to say Cantor went on to use other methods. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Line 69 ⟶ 72:

::I don't entirely agree that the lack of a formal proof is problematic. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|not a textbook]] and is aimed at a more general audience. That's not to say that a formal proof would not be beneficial, but I can't see any GA criterion that is being run afoul of here. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 15:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

:::It does give the proof. The problem is it's so buried in text that it's hard to follow. Reducing it to just the formal mathematical proof, which is in there, would be much clearer. The attribution 'Cantor' is clear from elsewhere, while discussion should also be separate, or at least clearly distinguished. I don't disagree with [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK]] but where a proof is short and relevant it's often given. Here the proof is the topic of the article and as such is central, while other sections such as on whether it's constructive depend on knowing how the proof works.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small>^{[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]}<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 16:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

::::To all involved, with no progress being made since December 20, I will be closing the review in 48 hours if no progress is made.--[[User:Dom497|<span style="color:#1F75FE">'''Dom497'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dom497|<span style="color:#00308F">'''talk'''</span>]]) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

::::You're hilarious. Seriously.--[[User:Dom497|<span style="color:#1F75FE">'''Dom497'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dom497|<span style="color:#00308F">'''talk'''</span>]]) 14:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::I already made the position clear to you on your talk page, a discussion that you chose to delete with the edit summary "you're about to piss me off" rather than actually bottom out the issue with discussion. So let me be quite explicit about this: every time there is a threat to, or an actual attempt to, close this review out of process (read [[WP:GAN/I if you don't know what the process is) I will extend the review by at least a week just in case an editor who could address the issues was discouraged from doing so by the imminent closure. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}