Comment by jacksnipe
3 years ago
Controversial, but I largely disagree. I don’t think I’ve ever read the wiki page on something I’m an expert on and found any inaccuracies that weren’t due to advances in the last couple of years.
3 years ago
Controversial, but I largely disagree. I don’t think I’ve ever read the wiki page on something I’m an expert on and found any inaccuracies that weren’t due to advances in the last couple of years.
Are you a mathematician?
I am only asking because I understand that most of the higher mathematics pages on Wikipedia are written by actual mathematicians – and pretty much unreadable to anyone who is not a mathematician and already fully conversant with the topics concerned.
I am not a mathematician but yeah the pages I’m talking about are all math-adjacent. Totally fair.
Math as structural science is tangential in [[almost-all]] cases.
Maths inasmuch as WP can cover it surely didn't make heaps advances in the last decades, except perhaps in the pedagogy department (that I can source, but it is literally decades) and category theory to give the whole thing structure (also pretty much cut and dried as soon as Bourbaki, I believe, though reception may take a while).