← 1 message moved from Philosophy of Mathematics

@user170039: Don't move my message to trash when it is correct. If you do not understand standard terminology, ask instead of assuming it is wrong.

The fact that this is standard terminology can be seen in any textbook on field theory, as well as from a quick search of Math SE (yielding many examples such as here and here).

@user170039 If you wish, I will remove the whole chain. I didn't like that you left your wrong comment but removed my response to it.

@user170039 This one where you said my example of C(t) was incorrect because it was not even a field. My response was that it is standard notation for the field of fractions of C[t] (since t is transcendental).

@user170039 I was the one who did it today, not you. If you intended to, then it was just a mistake. Anyway we can move the whole chain to trash.

@user170039 As I said, you removed my response to your wrong comment stating that I was wrong that C(t) was a field, but left yours behind. That is the sole reason I was unhappy, because it appeared as if you trashed my legitimate response.

I have no issue with deleting the whole chain, or with deleting incorrect comments by me, but not with selective removal of correct comments.

So will it be satisfactory to you that I trash the whole chain?

← 24 messages moved from Philosophy of Mathematics

@user170039 As I said yesterday already, you can consider (1) to be an accidental error, but you have to admit that (2) is a serious conceptual error, since it appears in both totally different phrasings (that turn out equivalent and wrong). I think that it is indeed related to Philosophy of Mathematics in the sense that if you want to quote articles from various online sources you are going to have to justify them since there is no guarantee that they are not totally wrong (accidental or not).

@user170039 The prime field is clearly the closure of {0,1} under addition and additive inverse, because the characteristic is prime. So every polynomial over the prime field will be a polynomial over the integers.

For the reverse implication, every polynomial over the integers is identically equal (when applied to the ring) to a polynomial over the prime field, due to the characteristic.

That is for characteristic p > 0. If the characteristic is zero, the definition given by the linked article on "prime field" is not even sufficient. It turns out that Wikipedia has the right definition:

> For any field F, there is a minimal subfield, namely the prime field, the smallest subfield containing 1[F]. − Wikipedia

So for char(F) = 0, the prime field will be the embedded rationals. Now it is easy to show that any polynomial equation over rationals is equivalent to a polynomial equation over integers. Hence the equivalence is proven for characteristic zero as well.

Fine. I'll remove them.

← 21 messages moved from Philosophy of Mathematics

@user170039 Which article? SEP?

Sure by all means. And you don't have to ask permission from me to ask anyone else anything. And it would be great if that article is fixed.

Testing tag:math

Another fine example why answers in comments are a bad idea:

@JarkoDubbeldam Hmmmm.... Yes, bad idea. (funny though)

It's gone, good job ;)

Wow, I walked in at just the right moment!

@TheTinyMan Because?

What's 'the right moment'? Now I'm curious ;)

@Tinkeringbell Because that comment cracked me up :-)

@TheTinyMan Now that you mention it... we might want to trash that one ;)

@Tinkeringbell Awww. ;-) See? Got here just before the funny was trashed!

← 10 messages moved from The Awkward Silence

Wait, this is a room in and of itself? :o

@kenorb I have some good news:

@Catija Hmm...

@apaul Sorry... but it seems like a reasonable edit to me, to be honest.

Really?

Look at the edit I made to the bathing suit question... I specifically made it more neutral... this edit did the same thing.

You are not a neutral person in this case... you're wrapped up in feelings about it and that's understandable... but those feelings aren't helping the question, they're probably hurting it.

Seemed a bit drastic to soften the language to that extent...

Is there a way I can look at that rejected edit again?

Yes. Let me get the link.

interpersonal.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/5226

I dunno... Still not convinced that removing the emotional context is a good thing.

brb

Hmm... I still have a hard time calling hate anything other than hate.

Feels like softening the language is saying that it's ok to have that worldview, or somehow validating it, which is very irksome.

That wasn't the only change made, though.

Umm? Did I miss something?

@Catija I'm really not trying to be thick. There was an additional typo that he fixed, but the rest of it centered around neutralizing the language used, if I'm not mistaken.

There's no benefit from saying stuff like "finally joining the modern world"... it just makes you look bitter and judgmental and like you want to vent rather than getting answers.

@Catija I suppose that's true, but it demonstrates the state of mind I was in when I wrote the question... which was rather bitter and judgemental...

It doesn't help... it's months later now, let go of it. Be an example.

@Catija ugh... do I have to?

No. But it'd be nice.

I'm already grudgingly editing...

interpersonal.stackexchange.com/posts/5101/revisions

@Catija better?

Shit sandwich tastes great...

<3

Mhmm...