Talk:Equaliser (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is a solution set of the equation 3x^2-20x=7

{−1/3, 7}. Why? -- Fropuff 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

... And without offense to authors, the articleCoequalizer is appealing. It begins in the context of Category Th. whereas Equaliser (mathematics) starts in Set Th.

Does anyone object to a new article Equalizer (mathematics) strictly dual to Coequalizer? When these two articles are "up to snuff" Equaliser can be deleted. Thanks, PeterEasthope 14:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I object. I think for people without background in category theory or who are just learning category theory, explanations starting with the set theoretic notions are much easier to comprehend. Hence, I am in favour of starting with set-theoretic kernels, quotients and such and only later on reveal the categorical background including duality. This also means that the two articles should not be merged into one. Cf. also the paedagogical style of Adamek, Herrlich, Strecker: "Abstract and concrete categories", which is much more readable than the style of MacLane: "Categories for the working mathematician", who that first introduces the most general notions and then specializes them. By the way, AHS have separate sections for equalizers and coequalizers, see p. 114ff. --Tillmo 09:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tillmo, I didn't mean to merge the equalizer and coequalizer articles. Keep both. These are my concerns, restated.

1. In the Coequalizer article, the link "equalizer" should lead to an article entitled "Equalizer (mathematics)"---not to a disambiguation.

2. Spelling should be consistent. Either equalizer and coequalizer or equaliser and coequaliser. The OED writes equalizer.

3. The two articles should be duals. No need to tell the reader that. Duality of the articles or absence of it is obvious.

4. We needn't argue about the context of set theory versus cats. There are at least two solutions which both of us might accept. We can upgrade the Coequalizer article on the pattern of the Equalizer. Ie., define in Sets first and then progress to Cats. Alternatively, we can have articles in both contexts. "Equalizer (set theory)", "Coequalizer (set theory)", "Equalizer (category theory)", "Coequalizer (category theory)".

Regards, PeterEasthope 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Older discussion

Spelling should be consistent: Equalizer and Coequalizer. The OED spells it "equalizer". If I fix this, will anyone object? Thanks, PeterEasthope 03:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No one replied, so I've fixed this. Equalizer is by far the most common spelling. The article needs to swapped with the redirect page Equalizer (mathematics). Any objections to this? Sam Staton 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
By way of further argument: I think the spelling "equalizer" is the most widespread in mathematical literature. User:Gene Nygaard says this is a potential controversial move (see Wikipedia:Requested_moves) because of [varieties of English]. If anyone really does object to a rename, please say! Sam Staton (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think this would be a big issue! Now Dekimasu has reverted my changes through the document, I think on the grounds of consistency within the article. If the article is renamed, that will have to be undone. To clarify, I propose the changes (and am aware of that one should typically retain the existing variety) for the following reasons:

  • Consistency with the articles Coequalizer, Limit (category theory), Pullback (category theory)
  • Consistency with by far the most common mathematical usage, and in particular the standard text by Mac Lane on the topic.
  • On the grounds of Opportunities for commonality: this spelling is the only spelling allowed by either the OED or American English. See also American and British English spelling differences, where it is written "Worldwide, -ize endings prevail in scientific writing and are commonly used by many international organisations [sic!]".

(In case it's relevant: I am British.) Sam Staton (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have confused you - I wasn't referring to consistency within the article, but to "retaining the existing variety", slightly farther down the page (cf. the description at {{Uw-lang}}). For what it's worth, I use American English. Dekimasuよ! 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of the original contested request, moved here from WP:RM.

Sam Staton changed the spellings in the article. We probably have a real national varieties of English issue here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. WP:ENGVAR's "retaining the existing variety" is indeed relevant here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Equaliser (mathematics) → Equalizer (mathematics) — Creating RMT discussion area on behalf of Sam Staton, who has stated his reasons for supporting a move above. —Dekimasuよ! 13:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. As far as I can tell the proposed move violates the WP:ENGVAR section on Retaining the existing variety. – Axman (☏) 06:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weakly support. See my reasons above. I now see some people are quite sensitive about all this (though apparently no specialists in the subject); I'm not especially bothered. I maintain that the mismatch between the "equaliser" page and the "coequalizer" page is very ugly and inconsistent. (For those unfamiliar: the concept of coequalizer is dual to equalizer, so the concepts are very intimately connected.) Perhaps I should view this mismatch as a good thing, that helps to make wikipedia more "international". Note also that google returns far more for equalizer "category theory" -wikipedia -equaliser (14100 hits) than for equaliser "category theory" -wikipedia -equalizer (564 hits), so perhaps there is a community issue. Sam Staton (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I note that inconsistency between articles is not necessarily grounds for a move; see eg Orange (Colour) and Color. Perhaps the guidelines could be clarified on these points. Sam Staton (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

No vote as yet... it's a hard call IMO. The Google counts are not necessarily representative, as US-published papers and abstracts in mathematics are far more likely to be on the web than those of other English-speaking countries. New Zealand has for example been a hotbed of this area of research from time to time, and many of its alumni still write equaliser on the blackboard. (But of course if they publish in US journals, this is "corrected". Possibly even the US-based abstracts of overseas-published papers are corrected as well, I'd have to check.) Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, you are right. I am rethinking my vote. The frequency of one spelling could be down to the journal editors. I'm really not sure whether that should be reflected here. By the way, is the "izer" spelling actually considered wrong in New Zealand or Australia? Either is OK in the UK. Sam Staton (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.