This is deeply annoying, since the intended audience should be "Guy who hasn't solved an integral for 10 years but wants a decent understanding of Metric Tensors."
Advanced math on Wikipedia is so annoying. Like I just want to know wtf a Hypergolic Vector Space is so I know whether it'll be worth my time to go learn about them, but instead the intro paragraph is a list of ever more abstract kinds of math that it's a subclass of until we hit group theory, and the article body is just a giant list of obscure properties.
Also, and this is not advanced math at all, the other day I needed the length of a chord in a circle, couldn't be assed to re-derive it myself, and thought this was basic enough that I should be able to just get it from wikipedia. But I was wrong because look how weird and useless the chord properties that make the cut are.
Yeah I had a class offer extra credit once for writing a summary of quantum key distribution suitable for Wikipedia. Tbh a lot of theoretical math and cs articles aren't particularly good either.
Probably math students, the presentation style is more similar to someone with an undergrad than a professional. You can check some scholarpedia articles and you'll see there is very often more motivation presented in them, despite those articles being technical literature reviews. Though I've definitely seen a few mathematicians I recognize in the discussion pages (and I think one of my high school physics teachers).
Yeah, those often aren't really written in an accessible manner. Probably mostly mathematicians writing them.
Can confirm. They're mostly writing them as reference material for mathematicians who already understand the concepts.
This is deeply annoying, since the intended audience should be "Guy who hasn't solved an integral for 10 years but wants a decent understanding of Metric Tensors."
Advanced math on Wikipedia is so annoying. Like I just want to know wtf a Hypergolic Vector Space is so I know whether it'll be worth my time to go learn about them, but instead the intro paragraph is a list of ever more abstract kinds of math that it's a subclass of until we hit group theory, and the article body is just a giant list of obscure properties.
Also, and this is not advanced math at all, the other day I needed the length of a chord in a circle, couldn't be assed to re-derive it myself, and thought this was basic enough that I should be able to just get it from wikipedia. But I was wrong because look how weird and useless the chord properties that make the cut are.
Yeah I had a class offer extra credit once for writing a summary of quantum key distribution suitable for Wikipedia. Tbh a lot of theoretical math and cs articles aren't particularly good either.
Probably math students, the presentation style is more similar to someone with an undergrad than a professional. You can check some scholarpedia articles and you'll see there is very often more motivation presented in them, despite those articles being technical literature reviews. Though I've definitely seen a few mathematicians I recognize in the discussion pages (and I think one of my high school physics teachers).