Talk:Bijective proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. See below for more information. |
[edit] Technical template
Except no one has bothered to say why this is too technical.
should every page that uses the word "bijective" include its definition? would more pictures help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcent1234 (talk • contribs).
- Let's see... according to the page history, it was User:Woohookitty, back on 2006-01-06, who added {{technical}} to the article, writing in the edit summary: "really needs to be dumbed down. alot." [1] I will go ask that user to drop by here to discuss the problem in more detail. -- Stebulus 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please itemize explicitly what needs further explanation or additional links to prerequisite knowledge to understand this article. This article provides plenty of links to prerequisite knowledge and explains the concept succinctly as presented in undergraduate mathematics courses on graph theory and combinatorics. Just because some reader says "ooooOOOOoooo, this whole topic makes my head hurt! I am bored." does not justify a { { technical } } demerit. If a well-justified list of requested improvements that do not damage the technical content fails to appear below, I propose removing the { { technical } } demerit in coming weeks/months. —optikos 02:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article does not seem to be overly technical. I think it would be nice to add the details of one of the harder proofs, such as Catalan numbers, or the Young Tableaux for the integer partitions. Ptrillian 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
