Actually, Wikipedia wants secondary sources and not just someone's opinion. >
Yes, they are unbearable. They don't read a single book, they ask you for quotations and references to the word all over the place. It is their weapon of mass destruction after evidence-based. You say that the proofs in Metamath are a little too detailed for beginners, they ask you for a quote. Why a quote? It's a personal judgment. How a quote, in other words someone else's personal judgment, would be more appropriate than mine. And he gives you as a counter-example the proofs of Euclid which would also be detailed. Is Euclid formal mathematics? Did Euclid do his proofs by exhibiting the details of variable replacements? They conceive any article as a commercial promotion. You can say that the thing is good, really very good, really very very good if you had the audacity to express the slightest reservation on a very limited point, they have their heads turned upside down. -- FL -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/5b1220bb-6bf5-4137-82d6-c76f7bac63b6%40googlegroups.com.
