Talk:Four color theorem

Created.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs more wikilinks by persons who know which mathematical articles we've got and what they're called. Could use more pictures of diagrams?--Thomas Wright Sulcer 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Looks impressing. (I have only a slight idea of this matter.) Boris Tsirelson 06:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You could also add an external link from WP to here (as I did for "plane" for instance); it does not add google juice, but can add readers. Boris Tsirelson 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boris!!! I no longer have a Wikipedia account but feel free to add the link from WP. The two equations are from WP and some of the proof-logic from WP is here, rewritten, but other than that I'd say it's 90% new.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you forget that WP can be edited by everyone? Anyway, I did. By the way, I see, you did not use your sandbox for preparing it. I wonder, did you write all of it first on your computer, locally? Boris Tsirelson 12:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My ninth grader mentioned it and I got curious. The Euler theorem checks out. Still, overall, I'm not satisfied that it does an adequate job of explaining things in the philosophical sense, but I think this CZ version here is the best one out there on the web (that I could find). It needs wikilinks but I'm less familiar with what other math articles CZ has. I'll be adding diagrams to get the idea across clearer.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm also eager to see how this develops; the coloring problem was one of those mathematical things that computer science programs touched on but never really explored.

I'm wondering whether in twenty years some mathematician will come up with a better proof. Clearly the current one seems clumsy to me, like it should be logical, simple, clear. 633 possibilities -- clumsy.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning your ninth grader reminds me of a book series I've always liked, but don't know is still being published: the New Mathematical Library. Emphasizing graphics rather than formal notation and derivations, it takes on topics such as group theory, topology, cryptography, etc., in a manner accessible to a bright high school student. Might be a very good background source.

Thanks for the refernce. I'll see if I can get that book for him and for me.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Apropos not using sandboxes: I vary. Sometimes, whether I use a sandbox or not, I like to start writing in a word processor with outlining, more powerful editing, etc. Open Office may turn out better than Word 2003, although I may also start combining with string processing languages for large tables and such. I use the sandbox when I need to test wikitables and such, but otherwise, and admittedly with a lot of direct writing experience, start in mainspace. It would be nice if some subpages could be tested in userspace, but it is possible to do Related Articles without full R-template support. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So that's your secret. It's been bugging me how prodigious a writer you are, and I'm impressed that when you work on things, they continually improve. Sometimes I feel there's a ceiling in which my writing can't get better, but you break through the ceilings all the time. I watch how your articles keep getting better and it challenges me to get up to your level.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Colors on France

(CC) Photo: Peter Dutton
Time for lunch!

Think they're too loud. If others agree I can switch them. --Thomas Wright Sulcer 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You may not use the colors of Freedom Fries or, for that matter, Poutine. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the colours should be white because in the mathematical problem the outside is also a country. --Peter Schmitt 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Tom, I agree that the article is good to read (and that it contains only minor mistakes), but it needs some major changes to make it into an encyclopedic article on this topic (instead of a report in a magazine). I hope you will not be disappointed when I shall soon begin to stepwise rewrite it. --Peter Schmitt 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter, my sense is there are many articles in the mathematics are that are unwritten, substandard, bare bones, lacking information, without any pictures, which could use the talented expertise of someone with your qualifications and knowledge. My suggestion is focusing on articles needing attention first, like a nurse in triage, who knows, wisely, to attend to those cases which can be repaired and which are important. This article is, by comparison with most others in the mathematics area, relatively healthy, well-written, and clear, with good pictures and which is fun to read and, in my view, the best one out there on the web on this subject–far superior to Wikipedia's in terms of readability and information. To improve it, in my view, requires fleshing out the discharging procedure which I'll try to do this if I have time but other articles are concerning me at present, but adding a section on the discharging procedure would make it even stronger. I disagree with you that this article isn't encyclopedic and merely a report in a magazine -- I don't appreciate your assessment, but I respect that you're entitled to your opinion, and I encourage you, as well as everybody, to be more complimentary and appreciative of the hard work that people do (without pay) to build this encyclopedia. I found that the criticism Article X isn't encyclopedic, when I wrote at Wikipedia, was kind of a catch-all vague term which essentially meant "I don't like this". I worked hard on this article to get it ship-shape, and in my view it is a credible addition to Citizendium, and if you focus your efforts on what you consider to be fixing it by stepwise rewriting, then I, and perhaps others, may sense that your focus here isn't on improving Citizendium, but rather some personal agenda against my contributions here.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why accept or reject possible improvements a priori? It would be wiser to first present and discuss them here on the talk page, and then decide. Boris Tsirelson 07:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What's needed

What's needed is fleshing out the last stages of the proof. Is there a good way to show this? I think that's the next step logically.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)