# Talk:Main Page

Welcome to the general discussion page of $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$. Please add any new discussion topics at the bottom of this page. |

## Archives

Archive 1 |

## Archive

I have created Archive $18$.

Steady as she goes, Mister Shoeless. --prime mover (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

## Alternative axiomatic systems

I've been considering doing some work on axiomatic geometries such as Axiom:Hilbert's Axioms or Axiom:Birkhoff's Axioms. However, I've been undecided on how to structure the pages for this. We already have a lot of geometry results from Euclid, and I'm hesitant to put these in as "alternative proofs," when they use subtly different definitions, etc. Sometimes, the proof is only even applicable to the single system.

My working idea is to a convention such as:

etc. I've noticed similar "use the page name while changing the namespace" tricks is a few places on this site, so this has precedent. It would also help ensure that we don't accidentally reference a result that hasn't been proven for this particular system. If it becomes desirable, we can of course transclude or link to them from the "main" page.

Any thoughts on implementing this convention? Any other options to consider? --CircuitCraft (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

- No, do it like

and transcluded into the master page. --prime mover (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

## Quotient: Page naming and distinctive terminology

Currently battling with how to name and categorise pages concerning the concept of quotient and its related concept partial quotient.

I have moved the existing "partial quotient" page to partial denominator as that's what it's named in the context of continued fractions. Then there is a disambiguation page Definition:Partial Quotient.

It remains to uniquely and generically come up with ways to differentiate the concept of a quotient as a result of division in the context of a field, in which the division is complete, and that as a result of an application of the Division Theorem in all its various applications: integers, polynomials, general Euclidean domains, etc.

Somewhere in there we will also need to establish the concept of a partial quotient in the concept of a long division, the main page of which still needs to be written. (This is of course an instance of the Division Theorem process, but still needs to be thought through.

Complicating this is that the term "partial quotient" only applies to the Division Theorem technique if there is a remainder. If the remainder is zero, it's not called a partial quotient.

Any ideas? --prime mover (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We currently have Definition:Quotient (Arithmetic) and Definition:Quotient (Algebra) which as names are not all that useful.

- The two contexts appear to be Definition:Field Theory and Division Theorem, so Definition:Quotient (Field Theory) and Definition:Quotient (Division Theorem) would provide greater clarity than Definition:Quotient (Arithmetic) and Definition:Quotient (Algebra) in my opinion. --Leigh.Samphier (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

- I have a problem with Definition:Quotient (Field Theory) in that it is the definition used for basic real division which you do in school. Nobody in school knows what "field theory" is, so we run into the same issue we do on a regular basis, that is: losing the pre-University readers who will mistakenly think that they are out of their depth. --prime mover (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

- How about Definition:Quotient (Division) and Definition:Quotient (Integer Division) for Definition:Quotient (Arithmetic) and Definition:Quotient (Algebra) respectively? --Leigh.Samphier (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

- The simple and obvious answer is once again the best! Will take this on in due course. --prime mover (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

## Server Offline Yesterday

Anomaly? Scheduled? Hacked? --Robkahn131 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

- Yes, it was out all this morning from at least 07:00 till about 13:30 GMT on 05-01-2024, and the same happened yesterday 04-01-2024 from about 10:00 to 13:45 GMT.

- I sent an email to the admin asking if there was anything going on, but had no reply.

- Has someone been taking an xml dump? --prime mover (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

## Interesting date

For the first time in a year or two the digits are all even in the date.

Such dates form a Cantor dust.

Discuss. --prime mover (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

## Page quality standards

Sorry, it's cropped up again. What's the general consensus, those who are around and active, on source code quality and maintainability?

Is the current regime too harsh, or is there a serious method to my insistence on a regular pattern?

I maintain that consistency and accuracy of pattern helps crystallise an idea in mind. The more structured the pattern, the easier the mastery. --prime mover (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

- I don't find the current approach harsh. The expectations around structure are well thought out and are more flexible than you might first think. But you do have to overcome a natural resistance to creating pages. And you need to develop a way of working that means that you don't lose sight of what pages you have created / are working on.

- Documenting maths proofs in the detail required is more onerous than what might be presented in a maths course or book, but thats the nature of what is being attempted. Every page on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ can be an entry point to some maths topic for someone, and so this places a huge burden on every page. Its unavoidable.

- I guess my question back to you, is what is being asked to be relaxed and why would we want to relax it? What is to be gained? --Leigh.Samphier (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

- The consistently high quality of contributions from most regular contributors is testament to the fact that it is possible to learn the $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ presentation style and source code convention quite quickly. As mathematicians, it is expected that contributors (particularly younger ones) should have no trouble learning new stuff, and hence should be able to commit to this.

- Either contributors cannot learn new stuff, which would be dismaying and regrettable, or they just don't want to, and believe that they are special enough and important enough for the house rules not to apply to them. My personal opinion on this matter is that while the first would be regrettable, the second is unacceptable. --prime mover (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

- The quality of contributions of new users, (self included back in 2020), is not where it needs to be. We are all trying to co-create something valuable here. I would prefer we hold each other accountable. I am a fan of the current regime - call it like you see it. Some of us take some small measure of joy in reading the commentary. --Robkahn131 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

- Endorsed. --prime mover (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

## CPU intensive operations

Twice this week at around 07:00 or 08:00 UDT, $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ has been failing to connect with a 502 or a 504.

Investigation shows that at this time the CPU was running at 100%.

Not sure what's causing this, but if anybody out there has been running a task which has been taking several hours to complete, like, for example, "Export Pages", or anything else along those lines, can you please fess up? --prime mover (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)