|Reasons I don't think Wikipedia is Total Bullshit
||[Mar. 31st, 2005|06:35 pm]
even though I admit it's not, like, the ultimate solution to the problem of collecting and organizing human knoledge or anything like that.
Reason 1: Article on Bell's Inequality
Reason 2: Article on Borel Functional Calculus
Both of these cover hard material at a intense level of detail, but I vastly prefer this to, say, Mathworld's article on Bell's Inequalities, and their apparent lack of anything corresponding to (2) (though I didn't look very hard). In fact the wikipedia article (2) is pretty mind-blowing to me in terms of hinting at just how much ass you can kick with linear algebra and measure theory.
2005-03-31 11:51 pm (UTC)
In article 2, they mention quantum mechanics as an "application", but it's not clear to me at all what you'd actually use that calculus to compute or prove.
I agree that Wikipedia is good for some things, but the problem is that you have to get people who really know what they're talking about, and that can be hard for every subject ever ;) Though much of my frustration comes from the glaring inaccuracies in many of the particle physics sections.
Well, the reason I was led to (2) was because of the notation in (1). If you know of a simpler way to explain Bell's inequality, please, by all means, explain it to me :)
2005-04-01 12:34 am (UTC)
I'm intrigued - how did you get from (1) to (2)? I was referring more to the part in (2) that went: As an application, we consider the Schrödinger equation, or equivalently, the dynamics of a quantum mechanical system.
I could find slightly simpler ways, I think, but this way is a bit more complete. And involves less work on my part, assuming that you understand it just fine ;)
It was the notation ET
(λ)φ that I was unfamiliar with. I found some explanation at the Self-adjoint operator
article, and found the "motivation" section under Borel functional calculus to be somewhat helpful in understanding what was going on.
I've generally been finding that MathWorld's articles are far inferior to those on Wikipedia too.
I've been pretty happy with Wikipedia's math/technical articles.
The critics are always saying "Well in theory the article could be totally wrong!" but in practice I have found it pretty useful for learning a bit about stuff outside of my areas of expertise(topology, real analysis, denotational semantics, calculus of variations amongst other topics).
The quality of coverage varies a lot though. I think core math/physics areas are covered a lot better than machine learning for example.
well, I can see your point. but did you notice under "comparison to quantum mechanical prediction" in paragraph three it says "Jason Reed blows his load all over himself"?