Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem/Archive 5

Relevant deletion discussion
See Articles for deletion/Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction (2nd nomination). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to your good works, that article seems likely to be kept. And it serves naturally as the main article for the "In popular culture" section here.  Since that article is, in essence, a list, one question is how to summarize it here.  I propose something like the following:

==In popular culture==

Fermat's Last Theorem has attracted notice in numerous cultural works, including in movies, theater, novels, and on television; particularly in science fiction. In one example, [put an abbreviated form of the Star Trek discussion here??]. For further examples, see Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction.
 * The goal is to give a sense that there are many examples, while reserving detailed discussion for the other article and making it clear that that's where one should go to find more. What do others think? --JBL (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence has a lot of words but doesn't really say much. I think it's also more conventional to just link the "in fiction" article once, in the "Main" hatnote—repeating it is overkill. How about:
 * Fermat's Last Theorem is alluded to in many cultural works. One example is the equation $$3987^{12} + 4365^{12} = 4472^{12}$$, which is only correct to ten significant figures, and appears in The Simpsons episode "The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace". Another is Star Trek episode "The Royale", where Captain Jean-Luc Picard laments that the theorem is still unsolved.
 * This is essentially what we have already, but is a bit shorter, and has the first sentence to briefly establish context. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not too fond of the term "cultural works". How about "works of fiction" instead? Otherwise, that sounds fine to me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Explaining a couple choices I made in the draft above:
 * I don't care so much about the first sentence (I do think those words say something, but I know people have different writing styles and a terser approach is fine) but your subsequent sentences do something I was explicitly trying to avoid: they give two examples, stripped to the level of "here is a thing that exists." I think it would be much preferable to be really clear about where a reader can find multiple examples, and also provide enough details about one single example so that it is actually an interesting description.
 * the other article includes at least one example (a piece of music) that is not fiction. (I would have said that musical theater was also not fiction, although our article fiction disagrees with me.)  And the section of this article is called "In popular culture".  But, I don't feel strongly about this, either, if you think there's a good reason to use "fiction" instead.  --JBL (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A terser approach is not my style of writing, but a conscious choice per WP:UNDUE. This is a small aspect of a very significant topic. Multiple sentences for any example would be giving that example undue weight. "Readers would find it interesting" is not a reason to include it, unfortunately. It is standard practice to establish that the reader can learn more about the topic using Main instead of mentioning it in prose. In fact, I think that "for further examples, see..." may even be a violation of WP:SELFREF). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that Wikipedia policies mandate that in this situation we write one sentence about two examples from a list instead of two sentences about one example is preposterous, to the extent that it is hard to know how to engage with it. If you are able/willing to discuss the actual merits of writing the sentences that describe examples one way or the other, that might be worthwhile.  --JBL (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm willing to engage in discussion, but I can't see what reaction you expect from describing my proposal as preposterous. The example I wrote used enough detail for a reader to understand what the show's allusion was about and no more. It focused equally on the most important examples from the list, the way I saw it. Would you like to suggest alternate text that you would prefer? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is not preposterous, and I did not describe it as such. (What is preposterous is the idea that any of the policies you mentioned are useful for making the choice between two or three sentences devoted to one example versus on sentence devoted to each of two or three examples.)  My objection to your proposal is the following: in squeezing the two examples down to a single sentence, we end up with a (correctly referenced and supported) statement that twice FLT was mentioned on TV, but no sense at all of the significance of these mention, or why they're interesting.  This is also the reason I chose Star Trek rather than the Simpsons: the two Simpsons uses are basically just throwaway jokes that don't relate to the plot or storyline, and no moral is drawn from them.  The first two Star Trek sentences of the current section (including the quote, but not the parenthetical) do a much better job of showing FLT actually playing a role in a fictional work, and I would prefer to keep them over a Simpsons mention.  --JBL (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * References on The Simpsons have been studied in books. The source for this particular joke is a book which discusses FLT and The Simpsons for several pages, giving it significant weight. I can't see how exactly we would explain the significance of the mentions without delving into original research; I don't believe that the current article explains significance any further (it's just more plot detail). I think we have reached an impasse, because I consider what I wrote to be both interesting and meaningful and you do not. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, if the Simpsons is the best example by some measure, then write two sentences about it that summarizes in an appropriate, encyclopedic way what the sources say about it, and get rid of Star Trek instead. --JBL (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted that there is a whole other article on the topic, why do we need anything more in this article than a link to it from "See also"? Anything more than that is either redundant duplication of content in the other article or else content in this one that should be in that one and not here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that's how summary style works. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Summary style describes how to summarise content of an article on a subtopic of the main topic, but that comes into effect only if the subsidiary article is a subtopic of the main topic. In this case, although it is clearly related, it is not a subtopic: it is not about the theorem. An analogous case is Julius Caesar, which is an article about the ancient Roman soldier and politician of that name. Julius Caesar (play), on the other hand, is not about that person, and so it does not have a summary in the article Julius Caesar. There are many other examples following the same principle: a summary section belongs in a main article on a topic if the subsidiary article is about an aspect of the topic of the main article. In this case that means that a summary section would be suitable for a secondary article if it were about an aspect of the mathematical theorem known as "Fermat's Last Theorem", but the article Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction isn't, just as the article Julius Caesar (play) isn't about the real person who is the topic of Julius Caesar. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept that it's an edge case but I think it is a subtopic: it is about an aspect of the theorem; specifically, a part of its legacy. And the legacy of subjects is something we include in that subject's page. But I don't see WP:SUMMARY defining what a "subtopic" is; it's more about "is this a section which would normally go in this article, but is too long". Hence we get splits for things like sequels to a movie—the sequel was clearly never part of the original movie but WP:SUMMARY applies nonetheless. The nutshell template describes the splitting process which is precisely what happened to this article in 2007 in this edit. So it seems to me like WP:SUMMARY is a pretty good fit here. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on it; I think the proposed rewrite by Bilorv is not valuable to any likely reader and that a See-Also link would be better, but I think that a short-but-still-readable version of the section would be worth having. --JBL (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone who has not participated in this discussion have any comments? We seem to have reached a stalemate where none of us are happy with the current contents of the section, but no replacement has consensus. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we perhaps vote on what to do: I have created a sub-section. PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is premature, and also not the right way to go about it (which would be to open an RfC). --JBL (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not know, I am inclined to leave you to discuss further. But maybe it would help to make a list of the points at issue and discuss them one by one. For me there are at least these points (+ my opinions): should section exist (yes!)? how many examples (2!)? how much detail in examples (terse)? how many links to main (1)? What in introductory sentence (not what p~ c~ means, do say in what role FLT appears: represent v. diff problem, peg for in-jokes, &c?)? PJTraill (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me be precise about why it is not necessary: obviously I have a strong view about what would make a good example, but if three other people say "we disagree, the single-sentence snippets get the point across and 2 examples is better than 1," the right thing to do would be for someone to edit the article in accordance with that consensus (that happens to have me not part of the majority view). I am not entirely convinced we have reached that point yet, but also it is not necessary to have a full RFC to get there.  --JBL (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Voting
Anybody who cares (contributors and debaters: ), please vote for one of (or any further proposals):
 * Keep – the current version as of 2018-10-08.
 * Remove – remove the section and only refer in  See also , as suggested by.
 * New text 1 – in first post of the section by
 * Fermat's Last Theorem has attracted notice in numerous cultural works, including in movies, theater, novels, and on television; particularly in science fiction. In one example, [put an abbreviated form of the Star Trek discussion here??].  For further examples, see Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction.
 * New text 2 – as per first reaction to JBL by
 * Fermat's Last Theorem is alluded to in many cultural works. One example is the equation $$3987^{12} + 4365^{12} = 4472^{12}$$, which is only correct to ten significant figures, and appears in The Simpsons episode "The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace". Another is Star Trek episode "The Royale", where Captain Jean-Luc Picard laments that the theorem is still unsolved.
 * PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC), updated PJTraill (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * tagging votes with user's names is literally "ad hominem", and semantically near. Could you, please, revise the suggested tags?
 * No harm meant: I do not see the tags as an attack on or invitation to attack or discuss anyone’s character as a distraction from the merits of their arguments. But since you feel that way I have changed them; unfortunately I could not think of meaningful names.
 * Fermat's Last Theorem is alluded to in many cultural works. One example is the equation $$3987^{12} + 4365^{12} = 4472^{12}$$, which is only correct to ten significant figures, and appears in The Simpsons episode "The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace". Another is Star Trek episode "The Royale", where Captain Jean-Luc Picard laments that the theorem is still unsolved.
 * PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC), updated PJTraill (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * tagging votes with user's names is literally "ad hominem", and semantically near. Could you, please, revise the suggested tags?
 * No harm meant: I do not see the tags as an attack on or invitation to attack or discuss anyone’s character as a distraction from the merits of their arguments. But since you feel that way I have changed them; unfortunately I could not think of meaningful names.

Votes:
 * New text 2 gets my vote. (Maybe not perfect but good enough, no point listing types of medium or repeating the link, two examples is about right.) PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's obvious that new text 2 is my preferred version, but next text 1 would be my second choice. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * New text 1, perhaps with some tweaks and failing that, Removal. A problem with the alternative is that in calling a non-equation an "equation", confusion is certainly introduced. A much longer explanation would be needed to set this straight and I do not see any advantage in spending more time on this coincidental curiosity. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel "which is only correct to ten significant figures" clarifies it, though I concede "equation" was a bad blunder of a word choice. Would "alleged equality" or "approximation" not suffice? There's definitely a concise rewording to be found if this is your only concern. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd rather prefer a closing sentence in the lead, linking to the "fiction", just stating the popular occurrences without any examples and without a separate paragraph. But I don't really care. BTW, getting 10 digits of a 50-digit integer correct, might impress Homer, but certainly not Lisa, thinking of gravitational waves. Purgy (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It violates MOS:LEAD to mention something in the lead and not the body. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Assertion" or "claim" would do the job. PJTraill (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies
I apologize for the wording of my edit summary, under scrutiny at length in the threads above. If I had the capability, I had revised it long ago, not only for the use of wrong words, but mostly for not unmistakably expressing my assumptions, intentions and expectations then. Furthermore, I was not aware of the specific custody (discretionary sanctions) infoboxes are under. Obviously, at least one(?) admin thinks that I'd better be warned, before being found by discretion to be violating them.

My assumption before reverting the addition of the IB was that MarkH21 is aware of not only singular objection to the application of his product. Nevertheless, I assumed the addition as a not explicitly forbidden edit, even when not fully de rigeur to my measures, because of the known, denial-inclined discussion held at the TP of PMath. In contrast, I then considered my revert as fully appropriate - I am not so sure now, but rather feel somehow intimidated (I am repeatedly templated, I was indef'd meanwhile, ...). I then intended to find out whether the author's enthusiasm or the reservations formulated on TP:PM prevail in the discussion. I expected, since it is a math topic, a realistic, businesslike discussion, I did not expect the observable lobbyist driven escalation. Purgy (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re "at least one(?) admin", no is not an admin. And it's a bit rich their templating you regarding discretionary sanctions, given that they've edit warred over the template and you haven't. Paul August &#9742; 13:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, although the ability to alert another editor to discretionary sanctions is not reserved to admins. I most certainly do not mean it to be taken as any reflection on your actions, but to acquaint you with the constraints under which we discuss these issues. I would like the opportunity to debate fully the issue at hand in a civilised manner, but that must include granting each of us the opportunity to raise reasoned objections to points made by others, without falling back to personal insults such as I have been subjected to.
 * If you want to criticise my alerting another editor to the presence of discretionary sanctions in these discussions, then take it to the appropriate DR forum, where I'll be pleased to refute your charges. Otherwise, I'll treat your baseless sniping in the manner it deserves. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your apology. Leaving aside the edit summary, your initial revert was fine. Paul August &#9742; 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This was so close to exactly the right thing to say, and then you called your fellow editors on the other side of this dispute "lobbyist driven" rather than "motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia and differing with me on some of the details". Do try to assume good faith. Nonetheless, thank you for the thrust toward greater collegiality. If you're surprised that professional mathematicians could get worked up about minor technical quibbles, then you haven't spent a lot of time around professional mathematicians. { Finally, I'll just affirm that reverting was in bounds; it was the edit summary that bothered me. Lagrange613 14:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A revert with the stated reason of Undid revision 883585716 by MarkH21 (talk) I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so is anything but fine.
 * WP:CONLOCAL makes it clear: The relevant community-wide guideline is MOS:INFOBOXUSE:  When there has been no prior discussion and consensus among the editors at a given article, the reversion of the addition of an infobox on no better grounds that "I think they should have asked first" is an affront to WP:BRD and all our normal editing policies. You should not be encouraging it. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Civility
Above has accused  of incivility. I believe that both editors should cool down. Using words like "pretending", “ludicrous”, "worthless" do not usually contribute to a collegial discussion. And yes "tone" of course matters, especially in a "textual discussion". Please let us all try to be less aggressive and more collegial. And apologies are always a good thing. Paul August &#9742; 13:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by my accusation. As for your accusations against me:
 * "No. There is no requirement for prior consensus in order for any editor to make an edit. Pretending that consensus for inclusion has to be established first is anathemic to to how Wikipedia works." What would you like to see substituted for "pretending"? "Incorrectly claiming", perhaps? I'd be happy to make that amendment.
 * "It is ludicrous to suggest that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is "an inappropriate source". What would you like to see substituted for "ludicrous"? – "risible", "illogical", perhaps? Feel free to suggest an alternative and I'll make the amendment.
 * "Your objection on grounds that you disagree with that common understanding is worthless." I fail to see what is uncivil about pointing out to another editor that their argument (that they disagree with how the general population understands the word "conjecture") will carry no weight with the closer of the discussion. I'd be most grateful if you would clarify your objection to my phrasing, and perhaps suggest what else I could have written to convey the same intent and I'll be glad to comply.
 * Now, let's have a look at the partisan way that you've approached this point. I see no criticism from you of: "laying down the law"; of "shows just more than a bit of hubris"; of "you apparently cannot tell the difference between a verb and a noun"; of " I find your contributions so far to be misguided and worthless"; and of "only your royal fiat that counts".
 * Are those examples also worthy of your criticism, or is one side of the debate immune from your condemnation? You're a respected member of the community and an administrator of long-standing, so I'm sure I can count on your understanding of the importance of even-handedness in trying to calm a debate. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Prior" consensus to infobox on FLT
From a bureaucratic POV, void of any context, one is correct in claiming the right of adding that box, but some editors seem to be unaware of a previous held discussion at the TP of Project Math, inclined to "not using this box". Even setting aside this fact, I am convinced of my right to revert the addition, and to require a discussion on the article's TP for reaching a consensus on including that box. Upsetting the BRD-process for me not explicitly referring (in an edit summary!) to a discussion elsewhere seems wrong under any circumstances. Re-adding the box prior to a consensus looks like the possible start of an edit war to me. Purgy (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that you certainly had the right to revert the addition and ask for a consensus afterwards. I believe that the objections to "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so" were rooted in the word "here" and "BEFORE" which means that you are requiring a separate consensus for each individual article before an infobox may be added to that individual article (so different from the WikiProject Mathematics discussion which was about the infobox in general). Indeed, it is not standard to require consensus for each individual iteration prior to addition. I don't know if it was your intention to make this distinction though. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Consensus can change. WikiProjects are useful for editors with shared interests to coordinate their activities, but consensus on their talk pages are not binding on the community generally; this is why, in this case, we have a separate TfD process that does not just reduce to pointing to WP Math. Invoking the arguments over at WP Math is fine—good, even, since it has bearing on this discussion. But the time to do that is when you revert or right after, not two days on. This is the "D" part of BRD. I've seen a few invocations of BRD in this conversation that seem premised on the idea that it justifies reverting any bold edit for whatever reason, as if it ended with "R". As BRD says, "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." Lagrange613 14:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lagrange, The addition of the box had no rationale ("Add infobox" was the edit summary), which isn't helpful either. A bold edit to include has to carry not an explanation of what step was taken (blindingly obvious when the diff is examined, but an explanation of the reason behind it (see the top of WP:EDIT SUMMARY: "this helps others to understand the intention of your edit" - no-one has any idea of the intention of the edit in this case). Removal of a bold edit is a challenge to that edit - that much is obvious, particularly when the intention is unclear (in this case why add an IB?; what about it improves the article?, etc).
 * Trying to quote parts of a guideline while pointing out "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is a little ironic, no? That there has been a spate of back and forth on the box is unsurprising, but when Purgy removed a bold edit - as he is entirely entitled to do, absolutely no-one should have re-added it: the matter should have been bought straight here without further editing to include an IB or not. I see Purgy has has a DS notice slapped on him; the same sanctions are applied to ALL people who joined in the edit warring around it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes including, who edit warred to restore the template twice, and who was also the one who "slapped" the the DS notice on . Paul August &#9742; 11:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think RexxS has already been given the template before, if memory serves me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The point of the DS alert is to let editors know that discretionary sanctions are available in the area. The documentation also makes it clear that anyone who "slaps" a DS notice – as Paul August so inelegantly puts it –  is clearly aware of the DS sanctions, as of course I am. As for your accusation of "edit-warring",, I'll simply state that I'm not prepared to see perfectly reasonable edits reverted for bogus reasons {"lack of prior consensus" indeed!) and without any engagement on the talk page. You may feel it's a good idea to encourage such behaviour, but I'll suggest that your administrative skills would be better employed in tamping down the shrill rhetoric and unnecessary ad hominems on this talk page. It is possible to carry out these debates in a civilised manner; it is possible to make legitimate criticisms of other arguments without being subject to personal attacks in retaliation. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A minor correction : I was the one who was first to be inelegant in the use of the "slapped" above. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, . Although looking at it, I do think your use was far from inelegant. In my defence, I can only say that I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-bureaucracies can have guidelines. The point is that we don't carry questions of whether mathematical statements over to the Division of Mathematics Articles, Formatting Department, Infobox Working Group—we discuss as a community and come to consensus. I think WP:EDITSUMCITE is quite sensible in saying the summary should summarize the edit and explain it "if you think other editors may be unclear as to why you made it". I've never had any trouble interpreting edits that add content as motivated by a desire to complete the article. Reverts should be better motivated than "get consensus before doing this". Lagrange613 14:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather clear that not all edits the "add content" are beneficial, and I've never tried to be the mind-reader who decides what an editor's motivation is in making any edits. If something is added that is not an improvement, of course it should be reverted, and to complain about the hollowness of one edit summary when the initial summary was equally hollow seems such a tiresome waste of everyone's time. I think the question of the edit summary has now been done to death, particularly given the "Apology" section below. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of prolonging the issue, I agree with 's points in general, but would like to take the opportunity to reinforce that benefit is key to justifying edits. If editor A adds an infobox with the summary "I think this improves the article"; and editor B reverts with the summary "I think this makes the article worse - let's discuss it on talk", you certainly won't see any complaints from me. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Protection
I’ve lifted the protection of this article. However, as yet I see no consensus for adding the proposed template. Please no more edits regarding the proposed template until such time as a talk page consensus has been reached. Paul August &#9742; 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Plain English...
The following sentence...
 * "In plain English, these papers by Frey, Serre and Ribet showed that if the Modularity Theorem could be proven for at least the semi-stable class of elliptic curves, a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem would also follow automatically".

...is a joke right??? Or is there some new meaning of "plain English" that I am unfamiliar with? FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Plain English" refers to the sentence you have quoted, not to the papers of Frey, Serre, and Ribet. Do you find this sentence difficult to understand, in broad outline? Do you have any suggestions for how it might be rewritten to be easier to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In plain English, agreed. "In plain English" in context in the article, adds nothing to the sense, and nothing to help the reader; it is not even elegant temporisation, but slovenly and functionless padding. If someone objected to something like that in my writing, I would remove it with apologies &mdash; and with thanks. JonRichfield (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)