text:
Talk:Bibliography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CSUSBKale.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bibliographies in Wikipedia
Are there rules on how a bibliography section should look in Wikipedia? I have recently edited Edward Tufte and Jan Tschichold, and I was not sure how I should treat the bibliography. Especially, since Tschichold was German and wrote in German, should I list the original German titles in the english Wikipedia and then an english translation, or the other way around, or something else entirely? Being German myself, I'm also not too familiar with the (american) english bibliography style, so a few examples would be nice. Colin Marquardt

 * Yep. Check out Biography standards. --mav

 * Cool, thanks. Colin Marquardt
 * "Biography" is much more generalized than "bibliography". I'm assuming you want details for the latter (wow, I just noticed how old these comments are). Try these: Manual_of_Style_%28lists_of_works%29 and WikiProject_Biography (particularly the template on this page). I've actually made a comment on the Manual of Style Talk page since Wikipedia's bibliographical standards are very... non-standard! --J. J. 20:10, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Bibliography?
Here in Australia, I've always been taught a Bibliography is a list of resources used to create a piece of work (i.e. essay, report etc.). Somewhat similar to Reference List, but containing all texts used, including those not necessarily quoted, or referred to in the main text. , some dictionaries, including Wiktionary, include the "study of books" as a secondary definition. The Bibliographical Society of America has probably had debates about this, too (the link from this main article page is devoted to the definition of bibliography). --J. J. 19:52, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there then be a page about that Bibliography ('Reference List') then? There are pages on Footnotes, Endnotes, and Style guides, but there not exactly the same thing. - Matthew238 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a lifelong librarian, as well as a private book collector, I think this article confuses "bibliography" in its most common usage -- the standardized citing of sources in writing, academic and otherwise -- with "bibliology," which is the study of books as artifacts. There actually is an article under bibliology, but it's a tiny stub, and it's catagorized as a "science" article for some reason that escapes me. --Michael K. Smith 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'reference list' is the most widespread and familiar meaning of "bibliography". However, working as a rare books librarian in the UK, for me it has the strong secondary meaning of 'descriptive and historical studies of books'; see the link 'Bibliography Defined' at the end of the article. Updates to the article reflect this confusion. Perhaps a separate disambiguated page would help, but only if the two strands can successfully be unwoven. I am not keen on "bibliology", which appears to be used in French ("bibliologie") to mean 'scientific' bibliography but in English principally with reference to the Bible. Omassey 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

referencenter.com
I removed the link to Internet Information Reference Center as it pointed to an empty spam site. (ps how do you add a name/date reference? I forget.)

Image?
Could someone explain to me the relevance of the picture of a section of bookshelves at a library in Graz? A row of books is not in any sense a "bibliography". . . . --Michael K. Smith 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. A row of books is not a bibliography, but in this case each one of the books depicted is a bibliography. Omassey 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very non-obvious. How do you know what those books are? It could be a collection of cookbooks or a collection of pornography for all the viewer can tell. (And why Graz, for that matter? Why not the Library of Congress or the UK National Library?) We need a close-up shot of a page of bibliographical citation from a book or journal. I could include such a pic from one of my own books -- if I could figure out how to get ANYTHING uploaded to the image management thingy! --Michael K. Smith 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I recently removed a line of text "BLARGH BLARGH GRUFF PUPPY RAWR RAWR RAWR " from the middle of a sentence. I noticed in the history someone had replaced the entire page with the word "poop" at some point also. What makes this poor innocent page on a matter of literacy such a prime target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerandul (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It's Google's first hit for 'bibliography'. I infer that students, tired from struggling to the end of a paper and needing to work out what to write in a bibliography, find this page and vandalise it when it doesn't tell them in the first paragraph how to make a citation list. Omassey 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I agree. There seems to be some confusion here concerning bibliography. This article addresses the academic study of bibliography, not a Works Cited list. I added an "other uses" directing people wishing to find out about citation. Hopefully that will help ease further confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savingedmund (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article
EB1911 has a long article about bibliography, in the sense of the study of books as physical objects. It is somewhat obsessive, and seems to focus first on spotting forgeries, and then goes into detail about classifying old books by their method of binding. It also defers to several related articles. I assume that the craft of the study of books has matured in the last 100 years, and I don't know enough about it to judge whether it would be appropriate to insert any of the material into this article. For now the link to wikisource will do, probably. David Brooks (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

German version
Up until the edit I just made, the link to the German version of this page pointed to the page on "Buchwissenschaft" or roughly "the analytical study of books", which is the second definition for bibliography on this page. The German page "Buchwissenschaft" only very briefly mentions that a bibliography can be a "reference list", which, however, is the primary focus of this article. I changed the link to point to the German page "Bibliografie" - this way, both articles are primarily about bibliographies in the sense of reference lists, and both pages mention analytical bibliographies. Yes, I probably should have posted here before making the edit, sorry. If anyone strongly disagrees, revert the edit, but I do hope the link is better this way. 213.61.58.54 (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012140139/http://ihl.enssib.fr/siteihl.php?page=56 to http://ihl.enssib.fr/siteihl.php?page=56

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal Bibliography
Shouldn't there be a Section to describe the difference between a Personal Bibliography (listing all the texts of (subjective personal bibl.) and about (objective personal bibl.) an author) and a Bibliography of Secondary Literature (listing all the texts about an author)? --Kommerz (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

English
what is bibliography 110.54.229.75 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bibliography


text:
Talk:Robert Watson (chemist)

Untitled
Why is 'advocacy' in quotes? - Molinari 20:41 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * scare quotes

Restoration of well-cited material removed without comment
I restored well-sourced material regarding a Climategate debate that was removed without comment, moved into correct section and replaced one questionable source with a better source. Regards,  GregJackP    Boomer!  18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You restored junk. Are you really taking responsibility for that edit? And this has little or nothing to do with the CRU stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it for fairly obvious reasons before realising there had been a post here. If anyone seriously contests the removal then I'll justify it further. Verbal chat  19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, two of the references are to scientifically reliable sources. Are you really claiming that NASA doesn't know that Mars' limited atmosphere is 95% CO2?  Or that a professor of chemistry at Oxford, writing is a college textbook is not scientifically reliable?  Or is it the opinion of Watson that is objectionable?  The material is his bio, and the "Climategate" tag is the title in the source, not what I think about it.  The material covered his opinion, as publicly reported and was not negative.  In addition, WP:UNDUE is specious argument, as it showed his opinion and then provided balancing information from NASA and an Oxford scientist. The material was balanced, as required by the standard.  And the only "obvious" reason that I can see for reverting the material was a desire to keep the term "Climategate" out of the public view.  BTW, it would appear to me that WMC has a WP:COI in any article mentioning that term, as some of the e-mails involved in Climategate were to or from him.  Regards,   GregJackP    Boomer!  19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Watson's view is entirely in line with the two other sources you provide. The fact that some don't understand this speaks volumes. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Atmoz and Verbal: there are any number of problems with the text; it is a shame you're trying to defned it. Anyway: Watson has claimed on many occasions that the proof of the greenhouse effect can be observed by looking at Mars, Venus and Earth doesn't look correct, and certainly isn't supported by the refs provided, which is only one mention on a video. But the real problem is This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars. which is clear SYN (and wrong, too). The refs don't support that statement. There is more, but since you've veered of into paranoia about cenorship and COI I can't be bothered William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of factual accuracy, it's clearly WP:SYN to attempt to debunk statements from one source with "facts" from another source. And since it doesn't appear that anyone here wants to explain why it's factually dubious, I believe the issue is that Mars' atmosphere is so sparse, that even if it's mostly CO2, it's still a very small amount in absolute terms. ATren (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * ATren is close on the atmospheric physics. It's more that there is no atmosphere to retain heat. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:SYN prevents us from including this paragraph. We would need a reliable source that states "Watson's theory about xyz contradicts known facts." Any ideas we have here about how the two statements fit together are moot (WP:VNT). Evil saltine (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Next editor
Next editor to insert the defmatory text is going right to AIV - not ANI, AIV. It's vandalism - if you don't understand why, don't reinsert it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism (and you should stop saying that), but it's a BLP vio and I will revert if it goes back in. This is clearly WP:SYN. ATren (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with ATren that this is not Vandalism as outlined in WP:VAN "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.", and I agree with both Hipocrite and others that this should not go in per WP:SYN/WP:BLP in the proposed form. Nsaa (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war protection
I have full protected this for one week due to the edit war of today. Edit warring when the topic, esp a BLP, and parties involved are part of an ongoing arbcase is not a good idea.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be sensible to unprotect now. There is overwhelhming agreement that the anon/JGP/MN/WVB edit should not be included; I don't think there is now any danger of them reinserting it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree.  There is consensus that the SYNTH portion should be excluded, but Watson's comments about atmospheric conditions on Mars and Venus are cited and are representative of Watson's opinions and viewpoints, and they're in no way defamatory or violations of BLP (although the phrasing could be improved) --  incidentally such comments tend to support WMC's view more than oppose it, as I understand it. Page should remain protected for a week as is currently in place.  Minor4th  • talk 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Watson's statements about global warming on Mars, Earth and Venus are standard textbook stuff, perhaps oversimplified in the context of a live debate. Why are they significant? Your apparent failure to understand that Mars has no significant greenhouse gas effect due to the thinness of the atmosphere suggests that you should study the subject in more depth before thinking about adding such information. . . dave souza, talk 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I didn't add the information and have not commented on this matter before the post to which you are responding. Where in the world would you find any clue about my understanding or lack of understanding about the lack of greenhouse effect on Mars or the thinness of its atmosphere?    That is out of left field.   I have never once commented on such matters to give you an opinion about the depth of my knowledge one way or the other.  Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. In any event, I'm not fond of being misrepresented in such a way.  Aside from that, your comment is irrelevant to the issue of page protection.  I wonder why you showed up to make such an unwarranted attack on my suggestion that the page remain protected.  Minor4th  02:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust this is a misunderstanding. Your statement "that the SYNTH portion should be excluded, but Watson's comments about atmospheric conditions on Mars and Venus are cited and are representative of Watson's opinions and viewpoints, and they're in no way defamatory" appears to support adding a trivially ordinary comment made by Watson in the middle of a much longer debate, with no evidence of significance, or third party analysis of how his words are to be assessed. The words have been picked up in the skeptic/denier blogosphere where they've been misinterpreted in the same way as the description that's been removed, but that's not a reliable source. As you'll note from the linked evidence below, Watson's remark was misquoted and was out of context. A little research would show you that the atmosphere of Mars is too thin to have a significant greenhouse effect, and that Watson's remark is unexceptional. While your wording implied support for re-adding the claimed quote from Watson, I'm glad to accept that this appearance was incorrect. You are of course welcome to propose a reliable third party source as a basis for a paragraph on Watson's views, but if no-one is trying to add a poorly supported statement about Watson's "typical" opinions then protection is not needed. . . dave souza, talk 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Per DS, but also: why should the page remain protected? No-one is discussing anything here (or at least: no-one was till I re-opened this conversation); there is no issue being sorted out. If anyone has a proposal for text that *should* be inserted, they should present it. Also: Watson's comments are sourced to a *video*, and as pointed out above that isn't a great source. If this was truely indicative of Watson's opinion, it would be possible to find a rather better source William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor correction, it's an audio file, which I've helpfully transcribed here. Looks like undue weight in a BLP, and as Lar has pointed out that's very bad. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Rlevse's userpage says he is traveling for the next week, so I have unprotected the page. NW ( Talk ) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So, M4th: did you have a proposal for text to improve the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Not at the moment. I was more concerned with the edit war than I was with the content.  The article will be scrutinized and improved by others more capable than myself if there are improvements to be made, but thanks for asking.   Minor4th  08:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus re excluding the material?
WMC- where is this "There is overwhelhming agreement that the anon/JGP/MN/WVB edit should not be included;"? It's certainly not on this talk, now nor before when you made this request. I'm okay with NW unproting it as it's worth a try, but I'd really like to know where this "overwhelming agreement" is.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * It's worth polling on, certainly, so let's do that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @R: the consensus is here and at arbcomm. I don't think we have anynoe serious arguing for inclusion of the text (notice that of those who re-inserted it, MN and WVB haven't even attempted to defend their decision here), and a large number of people arguing against. I would have hoped you would have read the evidence on this. I've listed 8 people who don't want the text. The only person who still seems to want it is GJP. Incidentally, GJP's evidence is well worth reading - apparently there were only 5 reverts; neither he, not MN, nor WVB reverted at all (it also asserts erroneously that all those reverting it back in attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @H: seems rather pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be nice to show how many people support various parts of the text they may or may not have put in the article, as a point of information. Perhaps lots of people think this is notable content - then we'd need to include it, albeit with it made clear that he's in 100% agreement with standard models and understanding for at-least the last 40 years or so (Viking landers) (correction, 100 years - Percival Lowell - well, perhaps only 80 years via Theodore Dunham, or less via Gerard Kuiper). Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @WMC, oh I've read it and I'm not seeing the strong consensus you see though the brouhaha has indeed settled down somewhat.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd. OK, can you see the 8 people arguing against including it? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse that there is not a strong consensus of editors, at this point. However, I'd like Rlevese to adress the merits of the edit - do you feel that the specific sentences I point out in the sections below are obvious violations of policy? ("NASA reports in a 'Mars Fact Sheet', stating that the atmosphere of Mars is approximately 95% carbon dioxide." is both SYN and misleading, and "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars." is SYN, false, and a violation of BLP) If you do feel they are violations of policy, are you saying that CON trumps BLP, OR and/or V? Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Errm, OK, maybe you can answer for R: do you see the 8 I've pointed to? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * 8 vs an implied 4 is not consensus. The implied 3 might be disruptive, might be wrong, might need blocking and or banning (the 8 might also), and it's tough for me to say this given that I don't believe it to be true, but we have to assume that the 4 were editing what they think was good content back into the article - the fact that they were violating SYN and BLP (as one of them sometimes admits, and sometimes denies), means that they were ignorant, not malicious, and thus need to be informed. When (as it appears to be heading towards) the 4 and their real-life acquantances prove that they aren't willing to become informed, you reach where we are right now - with 8 people trying to explain science to others, and the others appearing not to listen, and hopefully arbcom will do something about that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Slow down. I was trying to find out from R which side he doubted. OK, so we accept the 8. Against that we have 4 implied - or so you assert. I dispute that. I think WP:AGF requires us to believe that people are capable of realising their errors, and I take their silence to be tacit consent. Cerftainly, if they were actively interested in returning the disputed material I would have expected them to argue for its inclusion. How many do you assert have actively argued for inclusion of the text? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * None. No one has argued for the inclusion of the text that the 4 included into the article. One of them appears to be arguing for the return of a form that excludes all of the negative commentary and synthesis (phrasing it as "here's an argument Robert Watson uses to illustrate climate change"), but it's entirely unclear because the 4 who appear to support including it aren't very communicative. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * OK, then I think we're close to agreement: of those who have expressed an opinion, we have an 8-0 or possibly 8-1 split in terms of excluding the text, which is as close to "overwhelming consensus" as we're likely to get. In terms of editing this page, I argue that (given the proximity of this to arbcom) no-one is going to risk reverting the text without first discussing it; hence removing the prot on the basis of that was safe (as it proved). I'd also argue that of those who reverted we should WP:AGF and assume that they have either changed their minds or just decided to bow out of the discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note that including Watson's words without a third party source discussing their significance is still WP:SYN. I'd assume that it's unlikely that those suggesting adding the words, or indeed merging the article, will do so without proper talk page discussion, so protection should not be necessary. Time to edit other topics, after tea. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well here's a couple -- and don't take this as an indication that I think this is anything particularly notable about Watson -- but just to follow through on what I said earlier about the sources.

Minor4th  00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think on that basis we can agree that Watson has used the comparison in explaining greenhouse gas effects to the public, and has been cited in at least one book for his expertise on the topic. Also agree that this isn't particularly significant for his biography. While he's clearly notable, we don't have evidence that this detailed issue is important here. . dave souza, talk 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Strawpolls
The section edit-warred over has multiple issues. I adress them seperately, to prevent tainting one poll with what must be overwhelming consensus on the other. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mars, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects of this strawpoll - please don't harass the uninvolved astronomers. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On inclusion, generally
Robert Watson expressed in at least one interview that the various temperatures of Mars and Venus demonstrate alternating effects of greenhouse gasses. Is this notable for inclusion on this page?

Notable

 * 1) In addition to the Guardian debate, he also used the analogy in 2002 (see ABC-Australia ref below) and on C-SPAN (2007). His words, perhaps to explain it in a way understandable to lay people, but still used over at least a 7-year period in at least three different venues, all reported by reliable sources.    GregJackP    Boomer!  15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just an "analogy", it's a common comparison that played a significant part in the development of the science of global warming. Numerous scientific organisations have pointed to this, what's so unique or significant about Watson describing it? His words are on a video, an audio and a transcript, but you don't seem to have found a source commenting on the fact that he's used this common comparison. Since videos are tedious, could you please transcribe what he said on that video, or at the very least give the time at which he makes the statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not notable

 * 1) It's like saying that he also has said in one interview that the speed of light in a vaccum is a constant - this is our basic understanding of how things work. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed, per Hipocrite. Verbal  chat  13:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Not notable, and more significantly in terms of WP:WEIGHT it's not significant. If it were, a reliable third party source would have commented on the significance. Syn. . dave souza, talk 14:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Doesn't appear to be notable on the face of it. I'd like to see secondary sources commenting on him saying that. An editor making selections like that from the available pool of Watson's reported statements is engaging in OR. -- JN  466  17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) This strikes me as an obvious example of quote mining to show Watson in a (clearly false) bad light. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On CO2 %age, specifically
Part of the proposed text was "NASA reports in a 'Mars Fact Sheet', stating that the atmosphere of Mars is approximately 95% carbon dioxide." Is this appropriate to include?

Appropriate

 * 1) Why does hipocrite keep saying mars has no atmosphere? Of course it does, it`s not an asteroid you know. If there were no atmosphere there would be no storms, but there are. Read up on it mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, you didn't adress the topic. Mars' atmosphere is so thin as to be basically non-existant. Do you feel it's appropriate for the Biography of this scientist to say that the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2? Why? Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the topic, you keep saying mars has no atmosphere, this is not a party at greenpeace HQ, this is a planet. The atmosphere may be thin, but it`s there and yes, it is almost entirely CO2 so why is not not right for a scientist to say this?. If you don`t understand that perhaps it is you who should not be editing in this area mark nutley (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, the topic is Robert Watson (scientist), not Atmosphere of Mars. Why do you think it's appropriate to say 95% of Mars' sparse atmosphere is CO2 in a biography? Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (PS: in case you are confused, Watson was not the one that said the 95% figure) Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Appropriate

 * 1) Even if we include any text, noting that Mars' atmosphere is all CO2 is misleading. If we are to comment on the atmospheres, the relevent note is that Mars' has no atmosphere, not that it's scarse molecules are all CO2. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Hipocrite. Verbal chat  13:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Blatantly inappropriate, obvious syn which is clear as the fact sheet makes no mention of Watson. talk 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Textbook case of WP:SYN.  JN  466  17:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Blatant WP:SYN. You couldn't create a more obvious example if you tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Blatant WP:SYN. --LiamE (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On Policies, specifically
Robert Watson's view has been described as "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars." Is this a violation of any policies?

Violation

 * 1) It's transparently a violation of three- in addition to no reliable source on Mars' saying that our basic understanding of Mars' is that there is a substantial greenhouse effect (making it SYN), it accuses a scientist of gross incompotence (BLP), and is wrong - Mars is not expected to have a large greenhouse effect (thus, this false statement must violate V, as false statements are unverifiable.) Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, this is WP:SYN and should not be added. ATren (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per 1 and 2 above. Verbal chat  13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) As 1 and 2 above. dave souza, talk 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a BLP violation, as none of the cited sources comment on Watson's views and their compatibility with what is known about Mars. -- JN 466  17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree entirely with Jayen - it's an egregious BLP violation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Violation

 * 1) As noted above, he also made the same statement on C-SPAN - to the effect that Mars was freezing due to no greenhouse gases. Perhaps an ill-choice of words, but he made basically the same statement twice.   GregJackP    Boomer!  15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you support putting "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars" into the article - IE, you think that our basic understanding of Mars is different than the one that Watson explains? Could you detail what our basic understanding of Mars is, and what Watson's understanding of Mars is? Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm saying is that Watson chose his words poorly on at least two occasions, and that it is not a violation of BLP. On both instances he basically said that Mars had no greenhouse gases and was freezing.  His words - not mine or anyone elses.  The statement that it conflicted with our basic understanding was a remnant of the original IP's post that I didn't catch.  BTW, Mars does has an atmosphere, it is just extremely thin and not dense enough to have any real effect.  The statement that it does not have an atmosphere is technically inaccurate.  Regards,   GregJackP    Boomer!  16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - you signed a statement saying that including "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars," was not a violation of any policies, but now you are saying that it is a violation of policies - perhaps not BLP, but something else? Further, the part you are saying is "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars" is his statement that his statment "a frigid Mars planet, no greenhouse gases," should actually have read "a frigid Mars planet, almost no greenhouse gases?" Do you think that you might want to grant him (and me) rhetorical leave? You know, there's random molecules of hydrogen out in deep space, so it's not technically a "vaccum" either... Hipocrite (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * GregJackP answered you fully -- Watson said what he said, the IP included an unfortunate SYNTH statement that Greg inadvertently left in. Greg does not support including the SYNTH. It's not a violation of policy and it was not blatant vandalism when Connolley reverted against his editing restriction if that's what you're getting at.   Move along. Minor4th  17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mars doesn't have any significant greenhouse effect because of the lack of greenhouse gases – Watson did say "almost no greenhouse gases" at the start of his statement, see my transcript, so the audience should have been clear about that. What we've yet to see is a secondary source showing the significance of that particular statement, so it's still SYNTH even without the other sources. Also, it wasn't something that "that Greg inadvertently left in", Greg formatted one source and found a different textbook source to support the same SYNTH. An understandable lapse in following policy, presumably due to not fully understanding WP:SYN, but a deliberate act so hardly "inadvertent". . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But on the C-SPAN transcript, he says: "Mars is freezing because it has none..." - an over simplification I'll grant, but he still said it. As to my leaving in that particular phrase, as you stated but a deliberate act so hardly "inadvertent" - would that not also include WMC's revert without leaving a comment on the talkpage? Why don't we just step away from this for awhile, as suggested on the ArbCom case - I've spent most of the day working on a completely unrelated article, and can find other areas to work in and on. It is really not so important that it needs to be settled immediately does it? We can come back to this later if that is alright with y'all. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, I'll agree that he oversimplified on that one occasion but still don't see a secondary source showing that this is significant to his bio. Even with such a source, we'd have to consider whether mentioning it gave the issue undue weight – you might like to consider this similar situation. Am happy to leave it at that, cheers, dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment- your poll seems rather POINT-y, but since youve asked, I think this biography is rather weak and says very little about the man. There's an "Opinions" section that contains two quotes, each of which appears to have been selected to push or offset opposing POV's in the CC debate and neither of which seems particularly representative of Watson's contributions in the area. While it is true that Watson's statements about observation of Mars and Venus are rather simplistic and not controversial, perhaps that is their elegance. He has explained the greenhouse effect in very tangible terms that even non-scientists can appreciate and it is true that those comments have been picked up by the media, so why not write something intelligent incorporating those statements as representative of his views and the particular way he describes it in lay terms? Everything does not need to be a fight. Minor4th  13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing "pointy" about this poll to get people's opinions, please remember AGF. It would be instructive if you gave your views above, and might help us find out where the difference of opinion comes from and how to deal with it via policy or consensus. Verbal chat  13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be pointy - if I was, I would have just asked Q3, the one where I expect everyone to agree with me. Where was it picked up by the media? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my failure to assume good faith. I am editing from my phone so it is hard to place comments under your headings. I think the NASA fact sheet should be removed as well as the comment about common understanding about Mars -- clearly SYNTH as well as misleading. Expand on Watson's participation in the big debate, as that was recent and notable and that's one venue where he made the Mars/Venus comparison. Hipocrite - I have two other sources for similar comments attributed to Watson, but I cannot get to them at the moment because I am not at my computer but will do so later this morning. Minor4th  14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish, put numbered comments in this section and someone can move them into the table. . dave souza, talk 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Regarding the Mars/Venus comparison, it's just one of many statements he makes and we'd need a secondary source to show its significance to his bio. For example, when he says in this primary source "We can compare the Earth's climate to Venus, to Mars and we can look at going from glacial to interglacial periods.", that's absolutely correct, and not in any way significant to his bio, unless we're going to transcribe all his speeches. As for the Big Debate, has it been reported outside the blogosphere and the Grauniad itself? Their news report cites Watson as saying "I think the IPCC is probably the best system you could invent... but sceptical views must be in the document.", being damning about media coverage of the emails affair. "The printed press said UEA was guilty without examination. One had the feeling people were guilty without an in-depth analysis." and saying Jones had been "hounded by the press". Nothing there about Mars, nor in the blog which of course is a RS these days, and does give the interesting point that if McIntyre "was running a government, he would be taking action on climate change". If it was such a great debate, should accounts go in the bios of all those involved? Seems a bit over the top to me. . dave souza, talk 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, he's been making the circuit lately and he's an interesting fellow but I question whether there should even be a bio about him or whether it should be anything more than a stub.   What's he notable for?   One event -- getting ousted from chairmanship of IPCC.   Other than that, he is pretty much right in line with every other consensus scientist.   The same could be said for many of the BLP's in this area.   I think the BLP's are being used as POV forks to include information that is harder to get in a main article -- that goes for both "sides" and pretty much all BLP's in this area.   So, I don't know that I can really comment on his opinions or press coverage because it's not really notable except to the extent that Watson does not tend to follow the advice of handlers who would prefer that he not legitimize minority views by debating with them.  <--- but I'm not sure that has been covered in the mainstream press.  My opinion -- merge this BLP and many others into a main article and keep the info to a minimum of truly notable material.  Minor4th  16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be trying to denigrate or dismiss Watson, please don't. See WP:NOTE. . .dave souza, talk 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Not in the least.  You and I seem to misunderstand each other whenever we interact for some reason.  Minor4th  19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, your suggestion of a merge appears to be neither within policy nor serious. I'm happy to leave it at that but you're welcome to explain it further if you wish. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, having come across this kerfuffle via the CC probation enforcement page, that I'm frankly amazed at what has been going on here. The fact that the added material was clearly a BLP violation is obvious to any editor with a basic understanding of the science and the BLP policy. The fact that a significant number of editors apparently either didn't get this or didn't care does not show them in a good light, to say the least. My own reaction, as an uninvolved editor reading this for the first time, was "what the hell are they thinking?" And during an arbitration case as well? Are you all suicidal? I fully expect this episode to result in strong sanctions against several of the editors involved, and quite right too. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Planet Earth: The Future
Why is this relevant? He is apparently one of dozens of scientists (at least mentioned) in the work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * What about this reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1422382/fullcredits#cast ? 108.73.115.217 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a reference for the connection, not for relevance. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Climate gate BS?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leakegate 88.159.71.224 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source, and appears irrelevant anyway. . dave souza, talk 05:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert Watson (scientist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160927032529/http://www.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/notablealumni/honoraryfellows/ to http://www.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/notablealumni/honoraryfellows/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318130922/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_scirev to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_scirev
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705223036/http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/adviser.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/adviser.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Robert Watson (chemist)


text:
Elisabeth Harvor

Erica Elisabeth Arendt Harvor (Deichmann) is a Canadian novelist and poet who lives in Ottawa, Ontario.

Life
She was born in Saint John, New Brunswick, where she grew up on the Kingston Peninsula. She enrolled at Concordia University in 1983, receiving an MA in Creative Writing in 1986. She has won awards for her fiction and poetry. Her short story collection Let Me Be the One was a finalist for the 1996 Governor General's Literary Award. Fortress of Chairs, her first book of poems, won the Gerald Lampert Memorial Award for best first book of poetry written by a Canadian in 1992. Her second poetry book, The Long Cold Green Evenings of Spring, was a finalist for the Lowther Award in 1997, and her first novel, Excessive Joy Injures the Heart, was chosen as one of the ten best books of the year by The Toronto Star in 2000. Also in 2000, Harvor won the Alden Nowlan Award, in 2003 the Marian Engel Award, and in 2004 the Malahat Novella Prize for "Across Some Dark Avenue of Plot He Carried Her Body." She won second prize in Prairie Fire's Fiction category for "An Animal Trainer Urging A Big Cat Out of its Cage in 2015.

Short stories

 * Women and Children (1973, revised as Our Lady of All Distances, 1991)
 * If Only We Could Drive Like This Forever (1988)
 * Let Me Be the One (1996, nominated for a Governor General's Award)

Poetry

 * Fortress of Chairs (1992, winner of the Gerald Lampert Award)
 * The Long Cold Green Evenings of Spring (1997)
 * An Open Door in the Landscape (2010)

Novels

 * Excessive Joy Injures the Heart (McClelland & Stewart (Canada) Harcourt (US), 2000) ISBN 0-15-100894-9
 * All Times Have Been Modern (Penguin, 2004) ISBN 0-670-04440-7

Anthologies

 * A Room at the Heart of Things (1998)

title: Elisabeth Harvor


text:
Talk:Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg

Untitled
Both in wiki and on google, I have found "Ståhlberg" and "Stählberg". Which is correct? -- SGBailey

Stählberg is another clan. -- Ruhrjung 05:49 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * He supported constitutional legislative policies, including legislative resistance, against the attempted Russification of Finland, eventually even women's suffrage, and had a moderate line on Prohibition.

This sentence is hard to understand. Did he support or oppose women's suffrage? J I P | Talk 09:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
What does mean "desc." after the name of his first wife in infobox? Should it be "dec." for "deceased"?--83.149.209.253 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212180625/http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?%7Bhnro%7D=911547&%7Bkieli%7D=su&%7Bhaku%7D=kaikki to http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?%7Bhnro%7D=911547&%7Bkieli%7D=su&%7Bhaku%7D=kaikki

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg


text:
User:Colin Marquardt

I'm a guy currently living in Stuttgart, Germany but was born in Thuringia (also in Germany :-). I also used to live in Rohnert Park, California for a while.

Sometimes I also contribute to http://www.emacswiki.org/.

Texts

 * 1) Edward Tufte
 * 2) Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park
 * 3) GPE_Palmtop_Environment

Todo

 * CORDIC
 * Clock Jitter (Jitter exists)
 * Clock Wander

title: User:Colin Marquardt


text:
Archimedean property

In abstract algebra and analysis, the Archimedean property, named after the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse, is a property held by some algebraic structures, such as ordered or normed groups, and fields. The property, as typically construed, states that given two positive numbers $$x$$ and $$y$$, there is an integer $$n$$ such that $$nx > y$$. It also means that the set of natural numbers is not bounded above. Roughly speaking, it is the property of having no infinitely large or infinitely small elements. It was Otto Stolz who gave the axiom of Archimedes its name because it appears as Axiom V of Archimedes’ On the Sphere and Cylinder.

The notion arose from the theory of magnitudes of Ancient Greece; it still plays an important role in modern mathematics such as David Hilbert's axioms for geometry, and the theories of ordered groups, ordered fields, and local fields.

An algebraic structure in which any two non-zero elements are comparable, in the sense that neither of them is infinitesimal with respect to the other, is said to be Archimedean. A structure which has a pair of non-zero elements, one of which is infinitesimal with respect to the other, is said to be non-Archimedean. For example, a linearly ordered group that is Archimedean is an Archimedean group.

This can be made precise in various contexts with slightly different formulations. For example, in the context of ordered fields, one has the axiom of Archimedes which formulates this property, where the field of real numbers is Archimedean, but that of rational functions in real coefficients is not.

History and origin of the name of the Archimedean property
The concept was named by Otto Stolz (in the 1880s) after the ancient Greek geometer and physicist Archimedes of Syracuse.

The Archimedean property appears in Book V of Euclid's Elements as Definition 4:

"Magnitudes are said to have a ratio to one another which can, when multiplied, exceed one another."

Because Archimedes credited it to Eudoxus of Cnidus it is also known as the "Theorem of Eudoxus" or the Eudoxus axiom.

Archimedes used infinitesimals in heuristic arguments, although he denied that those were finished mathematical proofs.

Definition for linearly ordered groups
Let $x$ and $y$ be positive elements of a linearly ordered group G. Then $$x$$ is infinitesimal with respect to $$y$$ (or equivalently, $$y$$ is infinite with respect to $$x$$) if, for any natural number $$n$$, the multiple $$nx$$ is less than $$y$$, that is, the following inequality holds: $$ \underbrace{x+\cdots+x}_{n\text{ terms}} < y. \, $$

This definition can be extended to the entire group by taking absolute values.

The group $$G$$ is Archimedean if there is no pair $$(x,y)$$ such that $$x$$ is infinitesimal with respect to $$y$$.

Additionally, if $$K$$ is an algebraic structure with a unit (1) — for example, a ring — a similar definition applies to $$K$$. If $$x$$ is infinitesimal with respect to $$1$$, then $$x$$ is an infinitesimal element. Likewise, if $$y$$ is infinite with respect to $$1$$, then $$y$$ is an infinite element. The algebraic structure $$K$$ is Archimedean if it has no infinite elements and no infinitesimal elements.

Ordered fields
Ordered fields have some additional properties: In this setting, an ordered field $K$ is Archimedean precisely when the following statement, called the axiom of Archimedes, holds:
 * The rational numbers are embedded in any ordered field. That is, any ordered field has characteristic zero.
 * If $$x$$ is infinitesimal, then $$1/x$$ is infinite, and vice versa. Therefore, to verify that a field is Archimedean it is enough to check only that there are no infinitesimal elements, or to check that there are no infinite elements.
 * If $$x$$ is infinitesimal and $$r$$ is a rational number, then $$rx$$ is also infinitesimal. As a result, given a general element $$c$$, the three numbers $$c/2$$, $$c$$, and $$2c$$ are either all infinitesimal or all non-infinitesimal.
 * "Let $$x$$ be any element of $$K$$. Then there exists a natural number $$n$$ such that $$n > x$$."

Alternatively one can use the following characterization: $$\forall\, \varepsilon \in K\big(\varepsilon > 0 \implies \exists\ n \in N : 1/n < \varepsilon\big).$$

Definition for normed fields
The qualifier "Archimedean" is also formulated in the theory of rank one valued fields and normed spaces over rank one valued fields as follows. Let $$K$$ be a field endowed with an absolute value function, i.e., a function which associates the real number $$0$$ with the field element 0 and associates a positive real number $$|x|$$ with each non-zero $$x \in K$$ and satisfies $$|xy|=|x| |y|$$ and $$|x+y| \le |x|+|y|$$. Then, $$K$$ is said to be Archimedean if for any non-zero $$x \in K$$ there exists a natural number $$n$$ such that $$|\underbrace{x+\cdots+x}_{n\text{ terms}}| > 1. $$

Similarly, a normed space is Archimedean if a sum of $$n$$ terms, each equal to a non-zero vector $$x$$, has norm greater than one for sufficiently large $$n$$. A field with an absolute value or a normed space is either Archimedean or satisfies the stronger condition, referred to as the ultrametric triangle inequality, $$|x+y| \le \max(|x|,|y|) ,$$ respectively. A field or normed space satisfying the ultrametric triangle inequality is called non-Archimedean.

The concept of a non-Archimedean normed linear space was introduced by A. F. Monna.

Archimedean property of the real numbers
The field of the rational numbers can be assigned one of a number of absolute value functions, including the trivial function $$|x|=1$$, when $$x \neq 0$$, the more usual $|x| = \sqrt{x^2}$, and the $$p$$-adic absolute value functions. By Ostrowski's theorem, every non-trivial absolute value on the rational numbers is equivalent to either the usual absolute value or some $$p$$-adic absolute value. The rational field is not complete with respect to non-trivial absolute values; with respect to the trivial absolute value, the rational field is a discrete topological space, so complete. The completion with respect to the usual absolute value (from the order) is the field of real numbers. By this construction the field of real numbers is Archimedean both as an ordered field and as a normed field. On the other hand, the completions with respect to the other non-trivial absolute values give the fields of p-adic numbers, where $$p$$ is a prime integer number (see below); since the $$p$$-adic absolute values satisfy the ultrametric property, then the $$p$$-adic number fields are non-Archimedean as normed fields (they cannot be made into ordered fields).

In the axiomatic theory of real numbers, the non-existence of nonzero infinitesimal real numbers is implied by the least upper bound property as follows. Denote by $$Z$$ the set consisting of all positive infinitesimals. This set is bounded above by $$1$$. Now assume for a contradiction that $$Z$$ is nonempty. Then it has a least upper bound $$c$$, which is also positive, so $$c/2 < c < 2c$$. Since $c$ is an upper bound of $$Z$$ and $$2c$$ is strictly larger than $$c$$, $$2c$$ is not a positive infinitesimal. That is, there is some natural number $$n$$ for which $$1/n < 2c$$. On the other hand, $$c/2$$ is a positive infinitesimal, since by the definition of least upper bound there must be an infinitesimal $$x$$ between $$c/2$$ and $$c$$, and if $$1/k < c/2 \leq x$$ then $$x$$ is not infinitesimal. But $$1/(4n) < c/2$$, so $$c/2$$ is not infinitesimal, and this is a contradiction. This means that $$Z$$ is empty after all: there are no positive, infinitesimal real numbers.

The Archimedean property of real numbers holds also in constructive analysis, even though the least upper bound property may fail in that context.

Non-Archimedean ordered field
For an example of an ordered field that is not Archimedean, take the field of rational functions with real coefficients. (A rational function is any function that can be expressed as one polynomial divided by another polynomial; we will assume in what follows that this has been done in such a way that the leading coefficient of the denominator is positive.) To make this an ordered field, one must assign an ordering compatible with the addition and multiplication operations. Now $$f > g$$ if and only if $$f - g > 0$$, so we only have to say which rational functions are considered positive. Call the function positive if the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive. (One must check that this ordering is well defined and compatible with addition and multiplication.) By this definition, the rational function $$1/x$$ is positive but less than the rational function $$1$$. In fact, if $$n$$ is any natural number, then $$n(1/x) = n/x$$ is positive but still less than $$1$$, no matter how big $$n$$ is. Therefore, $$1/x$$ is an infinitesimal in this field.

This example generalizes to other coefficients. Taking rational functions with rational instead of real coefficients produces a countable non-Archimedean ordered field. Taking the coefficients to be the rational functions in a different variable, say $$y$$, produces an example with a different order type.

Non-Archimedean valued fields
The field of the rational numbers endowed with the p-adic metric and the p-adic number fields which are the completions, do not have the Archimedean property as fields with absolute values. All Archimedean valued fields are isometrically isomorphic to a subfield of the complex numbers with a power of the usual absolute value.

Equivalent definitions of Archimedean ordered field
Every linearly ordered field $$K$$ contains (an isomorphic copy of) the rationals as an ordered subfield, namely the subfield generated by the multiplicative unit $$1$$ of $$K$$, which in turn contains the integers as an ordered subgroup, which contains the natural numbers as an ordered monoid. The embedding of the rationals then gives a way of speaking about the rationals, integers, and natural numbers in $$K$$. The following are equivalent characterizations of Archimedean fields in terms of these substructures.

 * 1) The natural numbers are cofinal in $$K$$. That is, every element of $$K$$ is less than some natural number. (This is not the case when there exist infinite elements.) Thus an Archimedean field is one whose natural numbers grow without bound.
 * 2) Zero is the infimum in $$K$$ of the set $$\{1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \dots\}$$. (If $$K$$ contained a positive infinitesimal it would be a lower bound for the set whence zero would not be the greatest lower bound.)
 * 3) The set of elements of $$K$$ between the positive and negative rationals is non-open. This is because the set consists of all the infinitesimals, which is just the set $$\{0\}$$ when there are no nonzero infinitesimals, and otherwise is open, there being neither a least nor greatest nonzero infinitesimal. Observe that in both cases, the set of infinitesimals is closed. In the latter case, (i) every infinitesimal is less than every positive rational, (ii) there is neither a greatest infinitesimal nor a least positive rational, and (iii) there is nothing else in between. Consequently, any non-Archimedean ordered field is both incomplete and disconnected.
 * 4) For any $$x$$ in $$K$$ the set of integers greater than $$x$$ has a least element. (If $$x$$ were a negative infinite quantity every integer would be greater than it.)
 * 5) Every nonempty open interval of $$K$$ contains a rational. (If $$x$$ is a positive infinitesimal, the open interval $$(x,2x)$$ contains infinitely many infinitesimals but not a single rational.)
 * 6) The rationals are dense in $$K$$ with respect to both sup and inf. (That is, every element of $$K$$ is the sup of some set of rationals, and the inf of some other set of rationals.)  Thus an Archimedean field is any dense ordered extension of the rationals, in the sense of any ordered field that densely embeds its rational elements.

title: Archimedean property


text:
Talk:William Harcourt

Had difficulty in moving this here from William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt, even though I blanked the page first, so had no alternative but to cut and paste. Reason for moving is to ensure that the article is titled by the most commonly used name -- there was also a meandering redirect which I resolved. Deb 20:48 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...his most commonly used name is "William Vernon Harcourt", and I believe "Vernon" is technically part of his last name... Unfortunately, there's already an article for his father under that title. Not sure how to resolve that. john 20:38, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:William Harcourt


text:
Wikipedia talk:Piped link

"It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects"
I take issue with the general notion of "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects". Oh? Since when are redirects considered the default versus clean, direct linking to specific Wikipedia articles? Redirects exist as a result of internal link attrition (articles being moved, etc.). I don't care whether having redirects is "some sort of useful tool to gauge [this condition or that]", they exist primarily to deal with internal link attrition, as well as when a linked article's name doesn't fit cleanly into the style of wording of an article that the link originates from. Bumm13 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also take issue with the corresponding NOTBROKEN (I'd use a pipe but apparently some people are against them, per this very page). Since when do other editors get to say one of my edits to an article is "invalid" simply because some random person thinks that edits only involving the making of piped links ("fixing redirects") is somehow detrimental to building an online encyclopedia? Bumm13 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Bumm13. Back when I was starting out in Wikipedia, many, many years ago, I was told that redirected links should always be fixed with direct links whenever possible. Now they're saying it should not be? I don't understand the logic behind this. Illegitimate Barrister 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * &, one reason is that some redirects may eventually become their own articles. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing. Sometimes that might be true, but sometimes it isn't. I only learned of this policy because I took "The Honorable" and made it link (piped it? is that the proper term?) to "The Honourable" because that's what the article is called, even though the particular page was for an American and therefore used the American spelling. There's absolutely no reason to have two different articles in that case, but someone reverted my edit. And the case doesn't correspond to any of the other reasons given, either. Is there still a reason to have the redirect? If so, someone should explain that and add it to the article. (Or, at least, tell me, please!) If not, then the article should be clear that piping is valid when none of those conditions apply. And, yes, I would support avoiding redirects in general (note that some of the reasons, such as the George Washington example, don't even lead to redirects), but I can see the idea that you can leave redirects if there's a legitimate possibility that a new page will be created.Brettalan (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add my support against the current policy. Why have a tool and then ban its use?  Also, like most policies, it is inconsistently enforced. --Acjelen (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 * The reasons, why redirects are, in most cases, superior to pipes have been discussed at length in the past. A summary of reasons and a list when to use them (and when not) can be found at WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Here are two follow-up threads putting Bumm13's misleading comment above into context:
 * User_talk:Matthiaspaul
 * Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2013

 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support rational Since when are redirects considered the default versus clean.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bumm13 didn't provide a rationale at all, he only offered an opinion (in form of a question). But to answer that question, there is stable community consensus for more than a decade. This consensus wasn't build on opinions, but on reasons improving the usability/functionality for readers, editors and bots (for example: improve search box behaviour, improve reverse lookup, allow to enrich links with attributes, thereby building the web) and ease maintainability (for example: adjust link targets in one place instead of many, make it easier to track and correct errors, derive statistics). The cases when to use redirects and when to use pipes are discussed at WP:NOTBROKEN. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Formatting...
I'm wondering if formating links to be different colors or use small or bold instructions should be here or on a "see also" page linked from here. There are legitimate reasons for modifying links as such for example if a background color on the page makes links invisible or in signatures or something... Technical 13 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironic example
The last sentence of Intuitiveness section reads, "If the interpretation is purely that of the editor, it is original research and should be moved someplace else entirely."

While some may find it amusing, the last link may confuse the reader (at least myself, initially). A style guide should be concise and unambiguous, e.g. "it is original research and should not be included."

cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Ugh, cryptic. I've changed to "and should be removed", which preserves the original meaning and encourages fixing of this problem.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear links policy
Wikipedia is ever more plagued by 'easter egg' links, as described in this article's section, 'Piped_link'. This isn't a lack of intuitiveness even - it's a lack of clarity. Avoiding these should be a matter of policy. However, looking at List of policies, it's not clear that there is even an appropriate section for a policy on the use of piping. If such a policy were introduced, a suitably clear title would be the 'clear links policy'. - Crosbie 15:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * In my experience, I've found the opposite. I've read several plot summaries for works of fiction that are over-detailed. An example is The Fast and the Furious (2001 film). Almost every vehicle is over-detailed. Whereas Jaws (film) simply uses a generic term for vehicles in that film. Even if the contributors to former film are more knowledgeable about the vehicles in that film, than contributors of the latter's film are, this is a very small group that doesn't represent the average Wikipedia reader. For the most part, the average Wikipedia reader doesn't have as great of an interest in the exact make/model/year/type/subtype/sub-subtype of vehicle appearing in either film. And in the case of TFATF, piping could help cut down the word count (as indicated in its current template message of "excessively detailed plot summary"). Ivansevil (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Pensacola, Florida or Pensacola, Florida
Is it better to link like Pensacola, Florida or like Pensacola, Florida? Siuenti (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first one. See WP:SPECIFICLINK -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG
So "[ Citation Needed ]"   ("[ Citation Needed ]")  is right off? Smiley)  (Smiley))  --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG: clarity sought on a particular situation
See the second line in the infobox at Beiseker. The village's municipal status is piped Village. Linking directly to Village could potentially be WP:OVERLINK as an everyday word understood by most readers in a general context. The benefit of Village as the current state here however is to link to the article that discusses what a village is in the Alberta context. So, is the above example an WP:EASTEREGG violation or not? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to assist? Hwy43 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This appears to happen quite a lot: Acme, Alberta, Bal Harbour, Florida, Clayton, Illinois, etc. I think it is clear enough what the intention of the piped link is: the word "village" links to a list of such communities via a "List of..." page. IMO that makes sense and is not a surprise. OTOH, village would be a surprise per the essay... — Iadmc  ♫ talk  15:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you. I've always felt it to be reasonable, and agree it makes sense and is not a surprise. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes
Is it a WP:EASTEREGG violation to pipelink a community status type (e.g. city) in an infobox settlement_type parameter to the list article applicable to the context in which it is located (e.g. List of cities in Foo)? Hwy43 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Additional question relevant to the above:
 * Same question applies to:
 * |subdivision_type1 = Province (see Provinces and territories of Canada);
 * |subdivision_type2 = Region (see Regions of Canada);
 * |blank_name = Highways (see List of British Columbia provincial highways);
 * etc.

Given that wikilinking to City, Town, State, Province, Region, and Highways would be considered WP:OVERLINK violations (as such are already commonly understood terms), is it a surprise to land at pages that elaborate on what these things are in the context of their higher levels of government (e.g. | settlement_type = [[List of villages in British Columbia |Village]] )? Hwy43 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion above, preceding this RFC's heading, for what was originally posed in 2017. Hwy43 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Strong no in fact, it would be overlinking to the max and overly generic to link to generic terms. I'm gobsmacked this is even an RfC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure you're parsing what the issue is. It's not: should "City" be linked to the generic term or a much more specific "List of cities in Foo"? It's: is "City" being linked to the specific "List of cities in Foo" a case of WP:EASTER? If yes, it doesn't mean people would (or should!) start linking "City" to the article on the generic term. As mentioned below, that would be OVERLINK. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an Easter egg, but it is an OVERLINK, just as linking Capital to the capital cities of the country is, linking Largest city to the list of largest metropolitan areas in the country is, etc. It should not be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No as above. ili (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes (not convinced the RfC wording is clear enough or neutral enough, based on the comments so far) A random reader would expect an infobox heading to be linked—if it is linked at all—to an explanation of what the heading meant. So if we used something like "population density" or "GDP", which are not necessarily common terms, we would link to the generic meanings. An infobox is not a navbox—its purpose is not to lead the reader to links related to the topic but to provide highlights of the article—and linking a generic term like "City" to the very specific "List of cities in Foo" is classic WP:EASTER. And given it's classic EASTER, then the generic terms could only legitimately be linked to their generic definitions... which as points out would be OVERLINK. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes: I couldn't anticipate where the link was going to go, so it's an Easter egg link. I'm not as convinced that it's overlink—maybe some rephrasing like  would be appropriate. But outright removal seems sensible. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No: As stated in the 2017 conversation that preceded this RfC, "Village" linking as [[List of villages in Alberta|Village ]] is not a surprise and makes sense, whereas linking as  [[Village People|Village ]] would be a surprise. Linking to an article that explains what a "village" is in the specific context of Alberta is actually helpful to the reader's understanding. WP:OVERLINK is a different discussion and not subject to the question at hand. In my view however, preventing  [[Village ]] (linking to the generic term) is the intent of the OVERLINK guideline, where the general context of the targeted article is already understood. Preventing  [[List of villages in Alberta|Village ]] is not the intent of the OVERLINK guideline. Speaking of, Piped link, of which WP:EASTER points to the third heading, "is a how-to guide" and "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". In the seven years since I implemented linking to " City/Town/Village/District municipality " in the infoboxes of British Columbia municipality articles, only one editor has contested said implementation as WP:EASTER... seven years later. That editor is now in a slow edit war on numerous articles with another editor, asserting that WP:EASTER is a guideline when, as mentioned above, it is not a guideline. Meanwhile I stand by in accordance with the second bullet at Requests for comment. I'm not intervening and not exacerbating the dispute. Rather, I am waiting to make "improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved." I would request  cease what I view as disruptive editing and edit warring until this RfC comes to a close. Hwy43 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:PIPEDLINK is a guideline. I happen to agree that linking to the more specific article is more helpful to the reader than linking to the generic term would be, but at the same time that doesn't preclude it being an Easter egg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see MOS:PIPEDLINK is embedded in MOS:LINK, which is a guideline whereas WP:EASTER is embedded in WP:PIPELINK, which is not a guideline, hence the confusion. Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hoping that call to stop edits along these lines also includes folks like, whose multiple bot-like edits to add many of these EASTER links are what started this debate in the first place (because I began reverting them). Unfortunately, I find many people are inappropriately swayed by "a ton of other articles do this" as justification in these debates for a practice that is clearly against guidelines. Left unchecked, MokaMo's edits would simply have added fuel to that very mistaken fire. Unsurprisingly, MokaMo has claimed exactly that as their "rationale": that this is somehow a standard for British Columbia settlement articles and thus should be done across all such settlement articles simply because it was done in some. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I believe appears to have been implementing WP:STATUSQUO in good faith, that user was also apprised of this RfC and has not participated. Instead, that user has been an equal partner in the slow, disruptive edit war. Instead of furthering things,  should stop and instead comment here, otherwise I would suggest that perhaps the user truly is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Hwy43 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess just forgot we were still discussing this? Or rather, that this was unresolved? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * YES These are EELs because they do not go to where expected. They don't provide forther information on what the term means (which as already stated in usually unnecessary) and are more of a navigation/see related type thing which doesn't belong in the infobox. MB 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"Bombay Explosion (1944)" vs. "1944 Bombay explosion" in transparency examples
Yesterday I edited the examples in the "Transparency" section to change "Bombay Explosion (1944)" to "1944 Bombay explosion":.

This edit was reverted by User:Redrose64 with the edit summary, "this defeats the point of the examples."

I'm afraid I don't understand the reasoning here. In what way is the text "Bombay Explosion (1944)" preferable to the text "1944 Bombay explosion"? The second option makes the example sentences read more naturally:

 * "After an earlier disaster, the 1944 Bombay explosion, ..." is better than "After an earlier disaster, the Bombay Explosion (1944), ..."
 * "After the 1944 Bombay explosion, ..." is better than "After the Bombay Explosion (1944), ..."

So it can't be for readability or naturalness of language. And it can't be to match the title of the linked article, because that title is 1944 Bombay explosion, not Bombay Explosion (1944), which is a redirect.

Why is "Bombay Explosion (1944)" preferable to "1944 Bombay explosion"? —Bkell (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The page is about piped links. The section describes a particular type of piped link. A section not much earlier covers the WP:NOTBROKEN situation. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 * What? The section under discussion is about transparency of piped links and suggests ways to reword a sentence in order to improve that transparency. The reason for my edit was to improve that rewording to use the more natural "1944 Bombay explosion" instead of the clumsy "Bombay Explosion (1944)". My edit was changing the visible text of the examples. WP:NOTBROKEN specifically says: "However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to  if for some reason it is preferred that 'Franklin D. Roosevelt' actually appear in the visible text." The edit I made was to change the visible text from "Bombay Explosion (1944)" to "1944 Bombay explosion", because the text "1944 Bombay explosion" is clearer and more natural language. In none of the three cases was I adding a piped link or changing the link target purely to "fix a redirect," which is what WP:NOTBROKEN is about. The fact that this improvement in the link text also bypassed the redirect is a nice side effect, but it was not the main point of my edit. —Bkell (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

[ [redirect|target] ] may be helpful?
After explaining why piping a link to avoid a redirect is poor practice, the guide makes the following rather obscure statement: "However, while is unhelpful,   may be helpful."

Well, this guidance is not very helpful; why on earth would   be helpful? (does anyone know, by the way?) Assuming there is a good reason to use, such reason should be stated, or the whole sentence should go; as it currently stands, it's a pretty useless piece of advice. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem not so obvious. There are some cases where a page doesn't have the proper name, as it is otherwise used. When more than one page has an obvious name, and they turn out the same, only one gets it.  The other will then have a different name, and maybe the redirect is a better name.  Only one I can think of. Gah4 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what you mean: what's a page's "proper name"? If "more than one page has an obvious name, and they turn out the same" then those pages require disambiguation, not messing about with redirects and piped links. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

VisualEditor trash
Can anybody tell the user not to make as  ? know no ready-to-link piece of wisdom discouraging exactly this kind of misleading markup scrabble. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this originates from WP:VisualEditor; the user likely doesn’t realize what’s going in the code at all. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New shortcut for "Transparency"?
Can we add a new shortcut to the "Transparency" section? I'm thinking  or , as I was not expecting to be redirected to that section with. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Underscore
When using piped links, should the left part (that isn't displayed) have underscores or blanks? Seems to me that underscores are fine, and I usually do cut/paste to be sure it is spelled right. Obviously you need blanks for not piped links. Gah4 (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Obscure terms
I think a piped link of the type " numerology " should be OK. Here "Isopsephy" is the specifically-relevant article, but few people reading the article containing the link would know what this obscure word means. Therefore, the link is explicated by using the word "numerology" (since isopsephy is a form of numerology), but not linking to the general "numerology" article (most of which would be irrelevant)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Long piped texts cause template rendering issues on several standard browsers; devices !?
After another editor complained to me about the rendering of navbox "Template:US Mil. Support Rides; WW II–1990", I had some trouble replicating any rendering issues, but I was able to get some funky rendering of the box on my late 2019 "smart" TV-set... Turned out, my TV-set wasn't able to line-break very long piped texts... – which then influenced the rendering of the entire navbox in an adverse way. I've asked the other editor whether my alteration, version 15:51 of 14 October 2021, versus the previous version, (oldid=1049889600) 13:10 of 14 October 2021, has also fixed the rendering issue that he complained about.

I then found out that Long piped texts turn out to be a general issue ! — Taking my browser windows out of maxed, and making them narrow, showed that All my regular browsers (Chrome, FFox, Edge / OS=Win10) are unable to line-break long piped-texts, resulting in some very peculiar template rendering... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 * This is nothing to do with the fact that the links are piped - it would happen just the same for ordinary unpiped links in the same navbox, so strictly speaking, the problem is outside the scope of this page. Anyway, the non-breaking of links is because Template:US Mil. Support Rides; WW II–1990 is built around which is a specialised form of a navbox. Module:Navbox has this code:   and MediaWiki:Common.css has this CSS rule:   This rule, therefore, is applied to all links inside a navbox, and so, by default, links inside navboxes don't wrap. I don't know why that is done, you'd need to ask at Template talk:Navbox. But this behaviour can be suppressed by adding the wraplinks parameter to the  that is inside Template:US Mil. Support Rides; WW II–1990. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 * OK, thank you for the quick response & sleuthing efforts! This is far beyond my scope as a bread-and-butter Wikipidian... Love, GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Accidentally broke a template in article, don't know how to fix
The hatnote currently shows as this:

However, my edit was supposed to show like this:

For the pipe trick in links (such as  ), see Help:Pipe trick.

Can someone fix this? I don't know how to fix the template turning into a mess when I try to add nowiki tags like I did. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You just needed the nowiki tags to be around the entire example, with a literal pipe symbol instead of the pipe. Perryprog (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Moderating some of the language
Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirect – I've raised some concerns about how stridently opinionated that section has become, and how out-of-step with actual practice; it involves some language here at WP:NOPIPE also. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Example in section #transparency is wrong? +suggested change
"At a minimum, link something that, obviously, wouldn't be the title of an article under our article title conventions:

 * a war launched in 1763 by a loose confederation of elements of Native American tribes"

Wouldn't the sentence be parsed as "(a war launched in 1763) by (a loose confederation of (elements of Native American tribes))"? The current link separates "elements" from the noun it describes ("Native American tribes").

So I think the correct linking would be "a loose confederation"  AltoStev  ( talk ) 16:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Language Wikipedia
Maybe something should be added about languages. Is WP:EASTEREGG to use Daniel J. Alpert (hidden redirect to German Wikipedia) instead of Daniel J. Alpert? Example coming from WP:PHYSICS. ReyHahn (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Piped link


text:
Archimedean group

In abstract algebra, a branch of mathematics, an Archimedean group is a linearly ordered group for which the Archimedean property holds: every two positive group elements are bounded by integer multiples of each other. The set R of real numbers together with the operation of addition and the usual ordering relation between pairs of numbers is an Archimedean group. By a result of Otto Hölder, every Archimedean group is isomorphic to a subgroup of this group. The name "Archimedean" comes from Otto Stolz, who named the Archimedean property after its appearance in the works of Archimedes.

Definition
An additive group consists of a set of elements, an associative addition operation that combines pairs of elements and returns a single element, an identity element (or zero element) whose sum with any other element is the other element, and an additive inverse operation such that the sum of any element and its inverse is zero. A group is a linearly ordered group when, in addition, its elements can be linearly ordered in a way that is compatible with the group operation: for all elements x, y, and z, if x ≤ y then x + z ≤ y + z and z + x ≤ z + y.

The notation na (where n is a natural number) stands for the group sum of n copies of a. An Archimedean group (G, +, ≤) is a linearly ordered group subject to the following additional condition, the Archimedean property: For every a and b in G which are greater than 0, it is possible to find a natural number n for which the inequality b ≤ na holds.

An equivalent definition is that an Archimedean group is a linearly ordered group without any bounded cyclic subgroups: there does not exist a cyclic subgroup S and an element x with x greater than all elements in S. It is straightforward to see that this is equivalent to the other definition: the Archimedean property for a pair of elements a and b is just the statement that the cyclic subgroup generated by a is not bounded by b.

Examples of Archimedean groups
The sets of the integers, the rational numbers, and the real numbers, together with the operation of addition and the usual ordering (≤), are Archimedean groups. Every subgroup of an Archimedean group is itself Archimedean, so it follows that every subgroup of these groups, such as the additive group of the even numbers or of the dyadic rationals, also forms an Archimedean group.

Conversely, as Otto Hölder showed, every Archimedean group is isomorphic (as an ordered group) to a subgroup of the real numbers. It follows from this that every Archimedean group is necessarily an abelian group: its addition operation must be commutative.

Examples of non-Archimedean groups
Groups that cannot be linearly ordered, such as the finite groups, are not Archimedean. For another example, see the p-adic numbers, a system of numbers generalizing the rational numbers in a different way to the real numbers.

Non-Archimedean ordered groups also exist; the ordered group (G, +, ≤) defined as follows is not Archimedean. Let the elements of G be the points of the Euclidean plane, given by their Cartesian coordinates: pairs (x, y) of real numbers. Let the group addition operation be pointwise (vector) addition, and order these points in lexicographic order: if a = (u, v) and b = (x, y), then a + b = (u + x, v + y), and a ≤ b exactly when either v < y or v = y and u ≤ x. Then this gives an ordered group, but one that is not Archimedean. To see this, consider the elements (1, 0) and (0, 1), both of which are greater than the zero element of the group (the origin). For every natural number n, it follows from these definitions that n (1, 0) = (n, 0) < (0, 1), so there is no n that satisfies the Archimedean property. This group can be thought of as the additive group of pairs of a real number and an infinitesimal, $$(x, y) = x \epsilon + y,$$ where $$\epsilon$$ is a unit infinitesimal: $$\epsilon > 0$$ but $$\epsilon < y$$ for any positive real number $$y > 0$$. Non-Archimedean ordered fields can be defined similarly, and their additive groups are non-Archimedean ordered groups. These are used in non-standard analysis, and include the hyperreal numbers and surreal numbers.

While non-Archimedean ordered groups cannot be embedded in the real numbers, they can be embedded in a power of the real numbers, with lexicographic order, by the Hahn embedding theorem; the example above is the 2-dimensional case.

Additional properties
Every Archimedean group has the property that, for every Dedekind cut of the group, and every group element ε > 0, there exists another group element x with x on the lower side of the cut and x + ε on the upper side of the cut. However, there exist non-Archimedean ordered groups with the same property. The fact that Archimedean groups are abelian can be generalized: every ordered group with this property is abelian.

Generalisations
Archimedean groups can be generalised to Archimedean monoids, linearly ordered monoids that obey the Archimedean property. Examples include the natural numbers, the non-negative rational numbers, and the non-negative real numbers, with the usual binary operation $$+$$ and order $$<$$. Through a similar proof as for Archimedean groups, Archimedean monoids can be shown to be commutative.

title: Archimedean group


text:
User talk:Iancurtis.org

OK we asked you nicely and now I am warning you to stop spamming. --mav

title: User talk:Iancurtis.org


text:
User:Iancurtis.org

Contributions

Also 194.230.163.107 contribs

title: User:Iancurtis.org