Talk:Covariance/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Schmitt (reply -- there is general problem with r-templates used in glossaries) |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:* But it is also used in Glossary subpages (e.g., by you) and in Catalogs. Both these uses require other types of definitions and may, in addition, be context dependent. The Definition is not well-suited for this because it can be (and usually will be) changed without any regard to these uses. | :* But it is also used in Glossary subpages (e.g., by you) and in Catalogs. Both these uses require other types of definitions and may, in addition, be context dependent. The Definition is not well-suited for this because it can be (and usually will be) changed without any regard to these uses. | ||
: --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | : --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Peter and Guido, the new definition and article seem to me to be much more useful for practical purposes, and I am now content. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 06:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:18, 26 January 2010
Definition
Peter - Please try again!
You have replaced a definition that was easily understood by most people, with one that can only be understood by mathematicians.
I know what covariance means, and I was once familiar with how it is calculated - and I find your definition absolutely incomprehensible. Just imagine how unhelpful it would be to (say) an economics student who needs to understand financial risk analysis - as a practical tool, not as an intellectual curiosity.
Nick Gardner 09:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, I understand your concern, and I am not surprised by your comment. I probably have gone too far in the attempt to avoid mathematical jargon. On the other hand, the definition no longer needs to explain everything since now the users can look at the page for more information. (Suggestions and comments for it are welcome, of course.) But I hope we can find a mutual satisfactory solution.
- There is, however, a general problem behind this that will need to be addressed some time. It is the use of the r-template for quite different purposes.
- It was invented for and is mainly meant for the Related Articles subpage showing brief definitions.
- But it is also used in Glossary subpages (e.g., by you) and in Catalogs. Both these uses require other types of definitions and may, in addition, be context dependent. The Definition is not well-suited for this because it can be (and usually will be) changed without any regard to these uses.
- --Peter Schmitt 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Peter and Guido, the new definition and article seem to me to be much more useful for practical purposes, and I am now content. Nick Gardner 06:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)