User talk:Lord Farin/Backup/Help:Editing/House Style

The d of Calculus

Looks like the Aligned Material section:

$\ds \frac d {dt} H \left({U}\right) = d H \left({U} \right) \cdot \dot U = \Omega \left({X_H \left({U}\right), \dot U} \right) = \Omega\left({X_H \left({U}\right), X_H \left({U}\right)} \right) = 0$

isn't following the style tip from the earlier The d of Calculus section:

When writing calculus operators, use a non-italic form for the $\d$, that is, write it as \d. So you would have:

$\ds \frac {\d y} {\d x}$

Good call. I have been less than conscientious in making sure they all fit the style. Hence: "... fashions change, and it is more than possible that this convention is fading out as being fiddly and unnecessary."

It's a nice-to-have, but it's not consistent. I will update the one you pointed out now. --prime mover 12:28, 16 May 2011 (CDT)

Are there any guidelines or rules for using pictures in proofs? How about pseudocode in proofs involving algorithms? --Emichael 12:33, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

None at all. If it works, it's in. Enjoy.

Lots of our geometry diagrams have been drawn using GeoGebra, which rocks a fat one. Recommended. As for pseudocode, put it in tt tags and see if it works. --prime mover 13:10, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

Incidentally, there is also a specified tag for code, which we haven't really had a cause to use: < code > (without the spaces, obviously). f(x) = 3x^2. I think it's supposed to render a bit more nicely than just tt, especially in large blocks. --Alec (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2011 (CDT)

I tried both the tt and the code tags, and I must confess I hated them both instantly. They make the text look tiny and they space it in an odd way that makes it hard to read. I also dislike the way that the code tag makes the math phrases not compile. If this was a computer science wiki I could see the use that kind of thing, but for use in math proofs I think that just normal text would be best. Are there any dissenting opinions?--Emichael 19:21, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

I would agree, except that I'm pretty sure the tt/code tags SHOULDN'T render that small (the pre and source lang tags seems to do the same thing, actually). If you look at articles on other wikis that use those tags, they render the font at a normal size. I suspect that this is due to something weird in the way MediaWiki is installed, although it could be something weird with MathJax (who knows what that could mess with, and I don't remember how tt looked on Symbols:R for example before we switched). For now I'd probably just stick to normal text, and if Joe feels like taking a look at some point and figures out what's going on, we could always switch it later. --Alec (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

I'm not particularly worried. I'd rather not get too hung up on appearance and rendering to the exclusion of getting the results in place. I'm happy enough with the URM work, for example, despite the fact that the "tt" approach cause the code to be tiny. It's been like this for a couple of years so it's MediaWiki not MathJax. SO just do what you like as regards the result, we can sort out the presentation as we go. --prime mover 00:24, 4 June 2011 (CDT)

Subset notation

I find it a bit hard sometimes to distinguish visually between $\subseteq$ and $\subsetneq$. Since ProofWiki aims to be as easy to read as possible, I propose the following solution: use the $\subsetneqq$ symbol instead of $\subsetneq$—it's much easier to distinguish from $\subseteq$. --Dfeuer (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's genuinely a problem on certain browsers / media then I see no reason not to. --prime mover (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition:Proper Subset amended as appropriate. --prime mover (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably more about certain eyes, and how well they focus on computer screens. As my nearsightedness has gotten worse, my glasses have gotten stronger, and my close vision has gotten more strained. I'm sure I'm not the only one with such issues. --Dfeuer (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)