Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Snervi - "→Disappointingly poor quality article: " |
|||
Line 23:
::::While it is understandable that it could be seen that way, there are no separate approaches and there is no superiority of the variational approach as it is one and the same. It is the way chosen to present the topic that can lead to misuse and misinterpretation. I agree with your statement from the historical perspective and acknowledge that "The history of the method" section should describe how the method was originally implemented, the shortcomings of that original implementation and how it was given a full mathematical framework later on. The idea to pick a superior formulation is flawed since (as I said before) there is just one, however, from the point of view of the use and implementation of the method, there are several ways to get it wrong. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Snervi|Snervi]] ([[User talk:Snervi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Snervi|contribs]]) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::I still do not see why your overall description and the previous version cannot coexist. You need to provide published sources for any critique of what is in the original section. Simply asserting the superiority of your version is not enough. And continuing to revert other editors work is considered edit warring and can result in your be blocked for editing.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 05:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
== History ==
| |||