User talk:Dkm

Welcome

Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact one of the administrators, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:

• Community Portal - To see what needs to be done, and keep up to date with the community.
• Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
• Check out our house style if you are keen on contributing.
• Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site take place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Cheers!

--Your friendly ProofWiki WelcomeBot 21:30, 12 November 2011 (CST)

House style and general protocol on this site

I see you have started some interesting editing here. However, let me please give you a few pointers, particularly concerning König's Lemma.

You have replaced the entire proof with something different, under the banner "Fixed major problems, e.g., "there are a finite number of paths from v_1" was not generally true in its context". Whether this statement is correct or not is an issue which I am about to spend some time thinking about, but that is not the point in question here.

If you determine that there is an obvious fault which needs to be corrected, note the following.

a) A typo, or a copypaste error (e.g. $\cap$ for $\cup$) can be just corrected.

b) An error of deduction, e.g. "there are a finite number of paths from v_1", is not so simply to be corrected, particularly if it requires that the proof be completely rewritten. Please raise the matter in the discussion page and state why it is (in your eyes) incorrect, and state what you would suggest needs to be done to correct and improve it.

c) Use the {{Questionable}} template on the page at the point where you believe there is something wrong, which allows you the opportunity to state briefly what the problem is.

d) If, in order to fix the proof it is necessary to completely rewrite it, in effect creating a completely different proof, then add your new proof as a second proof on the same page (or, if you feel intellectually confident enough, make yours the first proof on the page and relegate the original proof to second place).

e) However, remember that when you do rewrite a proof, please use the house style. There are several aspects to this, but the first one that jumps out at me is: don't run everything onto a single line. Split up each thought onto its own line, and while you're about it, structure the source code according to the house style that is provided for you in a link in the "Welcome" section at the top of this page.

Remember, that which is obvious to you may not be obvious to everyone else. People of all mathematical ranges use this site profitably, and it is completely against the philosophy of the site to assume a level of knowledge that equals one's own. Please take the effort to specify why something is wrong, rather than rubbing everything out and doing it your way.

I am going to take the time to structure your latest addition into the page in question in the form that I have described above (despite having other things that I would rather have been doing), but please note that it is often more tempting, when presented with a neatly presented page having been replaced with something that needs considerable work to straighten out, to revert to the original without bothering. --prime mover 03:23, 13 November 2011 (CST)