Content deleted Content added
Line 27:
It doesn't read like a textbook, it reads like an encyclopedia article on a mathematical subject, indeed it doesn't try to teach the subject, but presents it, as it should. This article, on a notable mathematical subject, is entirely approppriate, and looks similar to thousands of other math articles (just click on some of the links in the article, e.g. [[Convex function]]). This is not the place to argue for a change in inclusion criteria for scientific/technical articles. Editors try to make articles as accessible as possible, but it can't be done at the expense of a proper encyclopedic presentation of the subject, which demands to faithfully render what the sources say (per [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]), so imposes a minimum of rigor, symbols and jargon. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 22:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
:Hrafn, I see from your userpage that you spend a lot of time with evolution related articles. I can't tell whether you have much background in mathematics. Speaking as somebody who does, I can say that an appropriate prerequisite for this article is multivariable calculus, which is (here in America) usually a second-year college course. Lots of science and engineering majors are required to take this course, so there are really quite a lot of people out there who might understand the article. The article is much less intimidating than some of our really specialized mathematical articles (e.g., [[spectral sequence]] is not likely to be understood by anyone who is not at least a math graduate student). However, I think that even very advanced articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. Such topics are covered, for example, in specialist encyclopedias such as the Springer [[Encyclopedia of Mathematics]]., so there's no reason why they can't also be covered here. [[User:Ozob|Ozob]] ([[User talk:Ozob|talk]]) 01:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
== Unicode symbols ==
| |||