User:Chopchopwhitey/Archive

Some LaTex formulas

:: from my user page :: 10:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::

<math>x_{n+1} = 4x_n (1 - x_n)<math>

<math>\frac{dx}{dt} = 4x (1-x)<math>

<math>x_{n+1} = 3x_n<math>

<math>r = \frac{a}{(b \cos \theta - c \sin \theta)}<math>

<math>\frac{1 + x}{1-x} - 1 > 0<math>

<math>\frac{1 + x - 1 + x}{1-x} > 0<math>

'Poetic license' for images?

:: from the Village Pump :: 10:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::

Is there any kind of policy on the relevance of images used on articles? For example, on the page Volterra-Lotka equations, also known as the predator-prey equations, I would like to add a picture of a predator and a prey in action (assuming I can find one). The article is not strictly about predator and prey interactions, but it is the most common interpretation of the equations' dynamics. Is this kind of visual intepretation OK? Similarly for the page on excitable media, a picture of, say, a Mexican wave (an example of an excitable medium) would spruce it up a little. I think that such images could make mathematical articles less dry, and more welcoming than simply a bunch of equations for someone not already interested in the topic. Any thoughts? Chopchopwhitey 08:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No policy, this is still an area where you can simply use your own judgement. I personally don't think that adding a picture of a lion chasing a springbok would add much to that particular article... but if you tihnk otherwise... prove me wrong. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it may detract a little from an appearance of professionalism. Perhaps if they're done right and tastefully, they could work well. One must identify what our readership is - whether they're users who are expecting a reference source, or users coming to the wp in order to learn more, in order to move a bit forward on the matter, perhaps... Dysprosia 08:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it's a definite no. A picture of a pair of animals doesn't fit an article on maths, not even to lighten up the page. Apart from a curve or surface or graph or a mathematicians photo, I don't see how maths articles could be illustrated.

Adrian Pingstone 13:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not even a conch shell or the Parthenon in Golden ratio? - jredmond 14:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or a fern in fractal, a pinecone in spiral, a hanging chain in catenary, a stop-motion photograph of a thrown ball in parabola, a turbulent stream in chaos? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those are along the lines of what I was thinking. Personally, even as a big fan of maths myself, it is not always particularly inspiring to see a page solely full of equations. A link to something in the natural world can often pique one's interest a little more. But, I can understand, maybe this is not under the remit of an encyclopaedia. Chopchopwhitey 15:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me the most appropriate "illustration" would be an example of a graph of the populations of a real predator-prey system that approximately fits the model. I seem to recall that there's a textbook example that involves, um, the lynx and the snowshoe hare? Given such a graph, I don't think it would be unreasonable to tart it up a little bit with small, iconic pictures of a lynx and a snowshoe hare.

In encyclopedia articles, as in computer user interfaces, I do think that pictures should be visual explanations of concepts, not just puns (or the mechanical conversion of a word into a picture). A random picture of a particular predator and prey does not illustrate the concept that the article discusses. Dpbsmith 16:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P. S. See http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html for the data I had in mind—including a photo of a lynx chasing a snowshoe hare! Dpbsmith 16:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think there's definitely room for illustrative improvement on math articles, as long as the illustrations help to explain the topic or are directly related to the subject somehow. The Volterra-Lotka equations don't really describe how a fox gets its paws on a rabbit; it's about the populations in general, and should be illustrated with examples that help to explain that concept. The fractal, spiral, and Golden ratio examples above are much more appropriate---they are real-world occurrences of abstract math concepts. Perhaps the prey-predator equations would benefit from comparison with a chart or graph of real-world prey-predator populations? "Here's what the equations predict, and here's some empirical observation." That'd help give the reader a grasp on why the equations are significant. -- Wapcaplet 16:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting debate. I recently picked up a history book I had as achild with virutally every illustration being made in this way. Although I now understand and appreciate the metaphor or pun used in each case, I found them off putting as a child. Even The way that adults picture the world and asscoiate words is very diverse and I think that all reference sources should be more literal than latereal. Dainamo 11:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I would agree now that the best use of pictures on Wikipedia is when they directly illustrate a concept in the article. Chopchopwhitey 10:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)