Talk:Absolute value/Archive 2

The formula
I have applied for full protection of the article. Please discuss here, and not just keep on edit warring, I'm not going to 'take over', Purgy. ! dave 10:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, this is getting a bit ridiculous, here. I'm trying to correct a certain part of the page for the purpose of flow and grammar, but some other editors here wants to revert it on grounds that it looks "ugly".


 * Look, I'm not trying to pick fights here. I have the best interest with the Wiki in mind. I'm also not projecting my own views on the matter, my own ideas on what looks pretty, but I can recognize dodgy flow and grammar when I see it. Is it too much to ask for you to not use your own sense of taste to decide on things like this? Think of the way the page conveys its information; even the subtlest of details tend to have the hugest of impact in terms of clarity, something Wikipedia editors should aim for. Please, don't just decide on things just because they seem to you to be pretty.


 * At least I'm willing to relent, or even try improving what's currently been said, once I realize own mistakes in regards to editing the article. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When you make changes that claim you're correcting the grammar, but the version you corrected was already grammatical, it calls into question your competence at handling this type of article. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, saying that I don't have competence violates Wikipedia's policies concerning Civility. Even the essay that you've linked points out linking to it states to be cautious when linking it. If you happen to have problems with what I write, do not state that I am incompetent, as that would be an insult.


 * Second, whether or not it actually is proper grammar is something I'd like to question. For starters, having the explanation regarding the negative being within brackets implies it more to be a footnote to an already completed sentence rather than a continuation. It's supposed to be a continuation of said sentence since it's meant to clarify something which may be confusing to the average user.


 * And then there's the fact that I tried adding the word "follows" to the sentence before that, followed by a colon. You guys removed it on grounds that it, combined with the formula after, is supposed to be one entire sentence. Let me ask you this: Will the readers actually get the formula to be part of one sentence? Not with the way that it's presented. They'd most likely see it as something separate from the preceding words. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading mathematical formulas as important parts of sentences, rather than as separate things like figures that you can safely ignore, is an important part of mathematical literacy that your continued argumentation suggests you might be missing. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't about maths literacy. It's about clarity. We're not writing for a certain group of people. We're writing for the general public. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for the records, since I am rather unwilling to discuss matters like these:
 * In no way I asked somebody to "take over edit warring". I had no intention to do so myself, but I was at the verge to log out, when I noticed the repeated effort of Karjam to degrade the article once more again, and so wanted to have others to have an eye on it, to firmly uphold the visibility of consensus, finally leading to the mentioned relenting by Karjam.
 * I consider "full protection" of this article -rebus sic stantibus- as absolutely unnecessary.
 * For an adequate judgement on the edits by Karjam a tedious look at several, clerical details like the "&"s in non-breaking spaces or the breaking of links is required. Qualifying the edits by the non-valeur of inserting "follows" or not misses the repeatedly introduced dysfunctionality and mathematical wrongness. One might also look at the edit summaries and the contributions in previous threads here above.
 * I am firmly convinced that "typesetting" has an important esthetic component, so it really is about "pretty" and "ugly". This is of course not to say that prettiness substitutes for functionality, grammatical correctness, and encyclopedic value in general.


 * @ ! dave, I hope you do not uphold your accusation of me instigating "edit warring". Purgy (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, okay. ! dave  14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you say I was trying to degrade the article? Why do you say my own edits were "clerical" or "non-valeur"? This is what you get when you take things out of context. As I've said, at least I'm willing to relent or even improve upon the things already been said if I realized I made a mistake. One such example would be in regards to the non-breaking, which, as soon as that person pointed out its importance on my talk page, made me actually stop trying to remove it.


 * "Mathematical wrongness" is also something taken out of context. I was wrong for about one time, two or thee counting a technicality. The first one's not really deliberate, a typo caused by me forgetting to alter a certain part of the formula. The intent was to show a negative turning into a positive, which is really what's actually happening here. The latter two's just me trying to explain things the way I, in particular, understood it. Notice, however, that I eventually stopped trying to bringing back that equation in any way or form once I realized the actual wisdom within the current ones chosen. As I've already said, at least I'm willing to learn from my mistakes or even try improving on what's been said should I realize my own mistakes. This is what happens when you take something out of context.


 * In regards to "pretty" and "ugly", what's your definition of them? Without knowing the actual definition, we won't be able to properly follow it, since we won't know what you see as pretty and ugly. Besides, Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view, neither supporting nor against any sort of subjectivity; while the relevant policies are within the context of neutrality in regards to the main page itself, the fact so remains that it speaks heavily against subjectivity in regards to edits. Heck, even the Manual of Style does not speak itself in terms of "pretty" or "ugly". Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "... as follows:" or "... by the formula" instead of "... as" would be fine, and maybe infinitesimally more accessible than the current phrasing. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I could live with either of the suggestions above. I do think that having the pharse "since $x < 0$ implies $−x > 0$" be in parentheses is better though since it is something of an aside. Paul August &#9742; 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to be an aside; I know this, for I was the one who first tried adding on to that sentence; the "aside" thing originally never existed the first place. It's not meant to be an aside, but rather a continuation of the sentence in an attempt to complete it. The sentence can't stand on its own; it's too vague for that to work. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Karjam: Up to now you edited this article 9 times, starting at 30.Nov.2017. All but the last of these edits contained more than one of the following defects:
 * layout faults (&nbsps;, parens pairing) (4x)
 * breaking link syntax (3x)
 * introducing grammaticals to correctly phrased sentences (6x)
 * introducing un-mathematical lingo or even outright flaws (5x)

I am inclined to see this ignoring of the obvious consensus (8x) as starting a modified edit war, possibly even trolling. The ongoing affirmation of best intentions appears as not credible to me. Even the above claim of an "aside" having not existed before is untrue, the relevant content is now repeated, rightfully within parens.

I apologize for having projected this behaviour into the future by writing "repeated effort of Karjam to degrade the article once more again" instead of neutrally referring to the past, only.

Besides preferring not to be addressed under "guys", I stop commenting on this at my sole discretion until further notice. Purgy (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic aside: In many current dialects of English, "guys" or "you guys" is used as an informal gender-neutral second-person plural pronoun. But I can see that it could be grating if you have other meanings of the term in mind that don't fit. I wouldn't want to be a bonfire effigy either.) —David Eppstein (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Purgy and Karjam, there is a reason we have WP:NPA etc. The highly personalized comments are completely unhelpful.  There are a very small number of (fairly dry, unemotional) substantive issues here, and there is no reason discussion cannot be focused on those.  --JBL (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Joel here. Paul August &#9742; 14:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC) PS. I do however understand Purgy's frustration. Paul August &#9742; 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then you guys are agreeing with me as well. None of this would've happened had neither Pergy nor David used their sense of taste to judge my own edits. Seriously now, one of the very first edits done by them states, essentially, "I like this phrasing better". I believe that was David Eppstein; correct me if I am wrong. In addition, Pergy's the one who brought up the issue of "pretty" and "ugliness" into the equation, something that's inherently subjective in nature (in other words, going against the spirit of WP:NPA, etc). What does not help here is that someone who's supposed to be someone highly respected, as well as someone higher privileged than most here, agreeing with them. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, read WP:BRD, or read it again if you have read it before: When you have made an edit, and another editor disagree with it, then you have to discuss in the talk page until a consensus, before restoring the reverted edit. Everybody has a subjective opinion, including you, and the role of talk page discussions is to reach a state of the article that is convenient for most people. Therefore, the reverts of your edits were fully conform with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You have no reason for complaining about this.


 * This page is not for complaining about other's comments. It is for discussing how improving the article. Thus, if you believe that your edits improve the article, you have to explain why it is your opinion. In the preceding discussion, I have seen what motivates Purgy's opinion, but for justifying your opinion, I have seen nothing else than complaints about other's behavior. D.Lazard (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD states itself to be optional right from the very first sentence. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This has never been about myself. Quit stating this to be about my own opinion. Besides, you're not supposed to have an opinion whenever you edit a page; WP:NPV and related policies prove that. What I was doing, what I already stated several times now, was to edit the article for the sake of clarity for that particular segment of the article.

I know for the fact that even the slightest of nuances within a particular wording can make a huge impact as to the final result. Me altering the grammar within seemingly nitpicky ways was just proof of that assessment; my line of reasoning regarding my wordings were given already. While it's true that I did indeed make a lot of mistakes, at least I gave up ensuing them once I realized them to be such. However, the things that I'm certain of, things that weren't mistakes, were still reverted on the grounds of being "ugly". (While they did state other things like "grammar" issues or them going against clarity, is that really the real reason here?)

Something I'd like to point out: Even before I realized my mistakes, even before I basically kept the article as-is (only attempting to correct the grammar), at least one of these editors did a personal attack. More specifically, David Eppstein called me "incompetent", the same way he did within this discussion, itself. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said. Go back and read it again more carefully this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "[...]it calls into question [my] competence at handling this type of article". In other words, you were saying that I was incompetent. You've even linked to that guideline on "Competence is required"; why do you think it gives a warning that linking to it can be seen as an insult? --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have again left out the important part, the subject of the sentence. What is the subject? It is not you as a person. It is your actions here on this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying my own actions are incompetent, eh? At least one other person on this wiki had tried calling me out for using "personalized baggage" (technically wrongfully as well). If you are to claim that my own actions are incompetent, at least put it into terms everyone can agree to instead of yourself, only, for that's what "personalized" means. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Guys, why are you saying I'm violating WP:NPA and the like? If I'm attacking something, it would be the decisions of those who really are violating it, not them, themselves. I'm attacking their logic, not the person. Heck, I knew of this rule even before I discovered this. I even held back on this matter; notice that in spite of my snark and rhetoric, I actually stopped myself from calling others "fools". Really was tempted, and even almost did, before wisdom took hold of me and made me realize that wouldn't fit the spirit of Wikipedia.

What I'm really speaking against here is the sheer fact that those attacking me are using subjectivity to judge whether or not a particular wording and the like should stay on the article. Seeing as though things like WP:NPV exist the first place, I find this to be particularly dodgy. They claim that they're doing this since "prettiness" is very important, but nowhere does it state Wikipedia has to look pretty, not even the official Manual of style. Besides, whether something's pretty or ugly, that actually depends on the person doing the judgement. Thus, it's a losing battle in either case, since no two people can agree on this sheer matter.

Do not bring my past so-called mistakes into the factor here. If I made a mistake and I realize it, I'll actually relent on that sheer factor. Notice that in all my own edits, the things I do realize to be mistakes, I no longer repeat. This isn't about me adding "dodgy grammar", even if they were dodgy to begin with. As it stands, much of the reverts happen because at least three others here, including a supposed trusted someone with a high amount of privileges, believe them to be "ugly"; the times I did make genuine mistakes, they chose to revert, rather than correct or build upon.

Even if I am in the complete wrong, I want to resolve this as quick as possible. The main page can't remain protected forever; what about the other editors of Wikipedia? Call me out for complaining about the actions of others, it doesn't matter. This discussion is about their actions, them and mine. In fact, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that they had a problem with what I was doing, and that at least one of them decided to "protect" this page from further edits precisely due to this and then asking us to discuss this sort of thing here. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that we have had a user state explicitly that they find being addressed as "guys" insulting, the fact that you continue to do so after being asked not to demonstrates either a deliberate personal attack or (more likely) an alarming disinterest in paying attention to what anyone else here has said. And your reduction of everyone else's argument to be solely about aesthetics has the same feel. If you are unwilling to read what we have already written, what is the point in continuing to play along with your argumentation? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I can't refer to you three under that term, what else can I refer to you as? Besides, context indicates I was not merely referring to Purgy, here. I was referring to him, you and !Dave.


 * Also, you're assuming there can only be two different scenarios, here. This is a False Dilemma; what if I certainly didn't notice him saying that? What if, as I've said, I was not referring to him specifically, but rather to all the guys here? You know, for someone who wants to accuse me of not listening to others, you certainly trying to angerly bring me down. Isn't that a personal attack?


 * We're supposed to be resolving this issue, not accuse each other of wrong-doing. Contrary to what I seem to be doing, I'm not criticizing your actions, saying them to be wrong. That's a subjective issue, all the same. Rather, what I really am saying is that what's actually going on here may not be following actual Wikepedia policies, since not only do you three use subjectivity to judge an inclusion within an article (a technical violation of WP:NPV), you also have the guts to do personal attacks.


 * If it's bad enough for others to accuse me of doing personal attacks, you don't have an excuse, all the same. I was wrong to get angry, yes, but at least I realize my mistake now. Do you? --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I've already stated my case. If you want me to not to question the practices of others, don't question my practices as well. Since we're supposed to be discussing the content of the article itself, what I do and how I do things, combined with you guys as well, will have no longer anything to do with this discussion; only the end product, the article itself. Therefore, don't do personal attacks, etc.

Here's my case again: My edits were made in an attempt to make the article more clear; you may not realize it, but even the incredibly subtle has an huge impact upon the sentence's clarity. Sure, I've made mistakes, but have you noticed that once I realized I made mistakes, I refrain from repeating them? In fact, my last edit was basically what the article is now, only with attempts at adjusting the grammar.

This has never been about my own personal tastes. If it was, I would've said the relevant words. In other words, it's not about me thinking "pretty" or "nice". Besides, isn't judging content based around personal tastes discouraged around here? --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your second paragraph "stating your case" has no actual content related to the article: the first phrase of the first sentence is a description of your motivations, the second phrase of the first sentence contains assertions about clarity but does not say anything about the actual sentences in question, the second sentence is entirely about your behavior, and the third sentence is entirely about your behavior. There is nothing here to engage with.  --JBL (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Karjam, Wikipedia's rules need to be interpreted by the community of editors to reach consensus. When one editor insists that s/he is right, and all the other (experienced) editors on the page disagree, it's a good sign that the isolated editor should rethink her/his approach. --Macrakis (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you quit talking about me and instead just answer my mere words? WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and all that. I don't need to provide anything specific regarding to those sentences. A quick look at the article's history shows that an edit war nearly started out between me and a few others over the very things I've described.


 * Besides, I've already described them: Adding the word "follows" to one particular sentence and rewriting another so that a certain piece of information would no longer be within brackets (since it's not supposed to be a side note, due to the vague nature of the original sentence itself; the only reason it exists the first place was due to me noticing it to be too vague for its own good).


 * The rest of my edits were done in folly, one way or another. They no longer have any baring on this discussion (other than the fact that the others tried using them as "evidence" for me defaming the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karjam (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Let's not discuss about me, nor practices of the others. I kept misunderstanding you guys, and you keep misunderstanding me. This isn't a battleground after all, so let's not get in each other's antics. (I apologize to all that I got angry with. I shouldn't had, since well, Wikipedia isn't a battleground.)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, you guys seem to be having trouble with the grammar that I've used. My edits may be derogative or not, but what makes the grammar presented any more different than your own? I made mistakes when editing the article, yes, but I am under the impression that no grammar is inherently wrong. Besides, some of my edits was not done for proper grammar, but rather since the assumption they were proper grammar might not get into the common sensual ground. In other words, it's not as obvious from mere sight that it's supposed to be proper grammar; what I'm referring to here is the fact that the formula and the preceding statement is supposed to be one single sentence.

Also, why nitpick over minor details? You have the right to complain about me attempting to change the explanations, about me using the term "cancellation" seeming incorrectly, but my most recent edit in this regard was just to change the punctuation.

As it stands, until everything's been cleared up, and until a certain undetermined time has come past, I may not edit this particular article again. Doesn't seem like a good idea for me at the time. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you asked ...
@Paul August: The repeated, deteriorating edits by Karjam and the (linguistic) improvement by Macrakis brought me to focus on the root of the desire for an additional reasoning - the definition, thereby rendering superfluous any ex-post explanation of why the given property does hold.

I am strongly convinced that Karjam's (and his cohort's) view, on "cancelling out" (it's really called this) two minuses being a preferable and sound enough reasoning, is based on a general flaw in elementary math education, considering this "rule" as heaven sent, and not as a provable property in the setting of ubiquitous numbers. One consequence of this inconsiderate "two minus cancel" is, imho, also the reason for not easily accepting the bi-valent introduction of $$i$$ by $$i\cdot i = -1$$, as opposed to $$(-1)\cdot(-1) = 1\cdot 1 = 1$$, and preferring (for purely historical reasons?) $$i = \sqrt{-1}$$, rather vague, if not undefined, at the time of introducing $$i$$.

I was even tempted to replace the definition in this article by
 * $$|x| = \begin{cases} (+1)\cdot x, & \mbox{if } x \ge 0 \\ (-1)\cdot x,  & \mbox{if } x < 0, \end{cases} $$

but imagined this to have no chance under WP-community's supervision. Thanks for asking.

P.S. to any passer-by: I'd like to know about possibilities to substitute "\phantom" in WP. Thanks. Purgy (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Safe to say, my own explanations does not take into account complex numbers. Not that it's meant to, seeing as though it's meant more for the phenomena of real numbers rather than those imaginary.


 * I can now see what you about my explanation being flawed, however, seeing as though absolute value also has applications within that field. --Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

On the first ...
... line of this wikipedia article: " x, |x| = −x for a negative x" Is simply not true, i would like to have edited it myself but i do not know the mathematical language used in this article. It should of course be |-x| = x =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrkiller (talk • contribs)
 * No, if x = -2, then |x| = |-2| = 2 = -(-2) = -x. Paul August &#9742; 20:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)