Talk: Revised Pehan Notation

Revision[]

@Licorneuhh

Please remember that this wiki is a formal place to archive googology. Even if you update your source, you should not remove the description on the original definition in this wiki.

If you want to reflect the updated definition, please add the new source with the precise retrieval date to the article, and refer to it. (Even if the url is the same, the retrieval date can distinguish the distinct sources.) Please do not remove the description on the original definition, but just add a new description of the updated definition.

This wiki is not a place to check whether your notation is well-defined or not in order to complete your notation. Once you created an article on your notation by yourself, please keep in mind that the article will be restored in order to archive googology, even if you update the definition.

Thank you for your contribution.

p-adic 11:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Licorneuhh

As I wrote above, please do not replace the citation to the original description. For example, if we cite a description "blah" in the original source and you replace "blah" in the original source by "blah-blah", you should not replace a sentence ""The original description was "blah" "" by ""The original description was "blah-blah" "", because then it will be a fake. Instead, you can add a sentence ""The updated description was "blah-blah" "" instead of replacing it.

p-adic 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Current version" section ?[]

Hey guys,

should we create a "Current version" section, to make the comprehension more clear after all the updates ?

User:Licorneuhh 03:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You can choose either choice. In that case, please do not remove the original versions.

p-adic 05:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, although this is not directly related to the construction of the article, I recommend you to try to write a non-separated definition of the whole system in your website. Then it is much easier to debug your notation by yourself. In order to make a notation well-defined, it is good to remember that a function is a pair of the domain and the correspondence. One biggest problem which avoids you debugging in an appropriate way is the lack of the precise definition of the domain. Once you clarify the domain, then you can easily check whether there is precisely one rule applicable to each valid expression or not. Since your construction of basic level and geometric level is quite good, I think that you can improve yourself soon. (For more information of how to make a well-defined notation, "General Setting" section in my guideline to create a computable notation might partially help you.)

p-adic 06:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nirvana Supermind's unconstructive edits[]

Somewhy the vandalist started to target this article.

The user is repeating to remove the information that the updates solved actual issues.
The user is repeating to replace "Another update has" by "Another update have".

Stop making an unconstructive edit. You should not avoid Lecorneuhh's honest trial to make the own notation well-defined.

The sources are the following:

p-adic 05:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving[]

@FudamentalSeq

This wiki is a place to archive googology, and hence such a drastic removal is inappropriate unless we hold discussion in the talk page. If you have a good reason, then please show it here, and try to discuss it, instead of deciding to remove the half part of the article.

If you found something wrong, please correct it, or ask others to explain the validity.
If you did not find something wrong, please explain why you want to remove or replace it. (e.g. Violation of the policy, term of use, or laws.)

Then we can understand why you suddenlly removed contents. (Note that there is one vandalist who intentionally repeats to remove most parts of arcties in this wiki, and hence it is seriously important process, in order to avoid the vandalist stating something like "We can freely destroy aricles without any discussion, as policy does not forbit it!") Thank you.

p-adic 00:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Related to this topic, I propose that we decide either one or both of the following directions:

To move "Current Definition" section at the top of this article, as this is the most important section in the article in my opinion, as the ill-definedness of past versions and the updating history are not specific for this notation. (On the other hand, there are several notations created by another user whose updating history is the most notable content due to some cheating and manipulation by the creator of the notations. In that case, the same reasoning is not applicable.)
To move the history of the updating in each section to a new single summarised section, in order to make points clearer.

Does anyone have opinions?

By the way, I will also propose at the talk page of site policy that when we create an article of our own notations, then it is strongly recommended to check the well-definedness and to ask others to seriously check the well-definedness, because such notations submitted in this year include so many errors. As far as I know, there were few articles created in this way until this year. It is partially good, because users become not hesitating to create new articles. However, it will cause decreasement of notations in articles if the situation continues. (Indeed, one vandalist is continuing to post incomplete own notations with manipulations.) Therefore it is reasonable to clarify such a mild guideline for users. If someone has some opinion on this, please tell me. (Of course, I will ask opinions again when I will propose this at the talk page of site policy.)

p-adic 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)