Talk:Matthew Cook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
This sounds self-written ?
Surely the article didn't write itself....or did it?
Maybe Dr. Cook should prove whether or not it is possible for this article to be self-writing.
This is my first wikipedia posting. I am distressed by the disclaimer box at the top of the page seems to discredit Matt Cook. The wikipedia is self correcting and this is my attempt to speed up the process.
Full disclosure: I know Matt socially.
Matt corrected some of the mistakes in the article, but he did not write it or ask for it to be written. The article is self written in the same way that all the other articles on wikipedia write themselves. It evolved.
I am not a mathematician and am not in a position to comment firsthand on the importance of Matt’s work. As a computer scientist I find the fact that something as simple as Rule 110 can be Turing complete both fascinating and important.
It is my lay opinion that the article on Matt Cook understates Matt’s research contributions: Matt’s proof is the core theoretical result in Wolfram’s magnum opus “A New Kind of Science” in which Matt is recognized as the author of the proof.
Matt published in many fields with distinguished coauthors. Check: http://www.paradise.caltech.edu/~cook/papers/index.html
The importance of Matt’s contributions is universally accepted in the mathematics groups on usenet.
The contributions section of the article should be expanded and commented on by a mathematician. Since the article is important it should be moved from the category of articles that need their importance to be explained.
- I agree that "the article on Matt Cook understates Matt’s research contributions", which is why I added it to "the category of articles that need their importance to be explained". The fact that he is a mathmematician, and his notable contributions to the file, should be stated first up in the opening paragraph. Then this, as well as his peronal biography, can be expanded. Someone just looking at the article should be able to see imediately who this person is and what he is notable for. - Matthew238 00:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
