[1]: https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become
So, no, the process may not be fast. But in topics like "the best competitive sports club in the world", some may prefer to keep intervention more controlled, depending on the general intention.
But fast is relative, no? E.g., I still use snail mail extensively to keep in touch with my friends.
Perhaps this is due to the site relying heavily upon newspaper articles, as opposed to actual research.
[1] - https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/mathematics/neural_networks...
> Are some infinities larger than others?
But didn't Cantor prove the answer to that is "yes" back in the 19th century?
Also:
> If a mathematician wants to explore infinity, there are many options - for example by calculating π, or the square root of 2, or dividing any number by 0.
Er, one of these things is not like the others…
This clearly wasn't written by a mathematician.
Some infinite sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence with some of their proper subsets!
They say "Since the endpoints of (a₁, b₁) are x₁ and x₂", but in the example below a₁ = x₅, b₁ = x₁₂.
Am I missing something?
* At least some of the articles in psychology and language have been written by someone with an agenda, or a limited education in the field. E.g., the article about turn taking (https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/language/general/conversati...) talks about "endogenous oscillators" as if it is accepted that that's the solution to the problem.
* Philosophy mentions the Liar Paradox next to Free Will. These two are not quite the same.
* The article on intelligence doesn't even try. "Further reading" refers to a 27 year old report that had to calm the seas after the publication of The Bell Curve.
On the other hand, what's the point of listing everything in language, psychology and philosophy? We know next to nothing about these with any level of certainty. They could just be single entries. Now it seems as if the only thing unknown about language is the origin of the word abacadabra.
? Serenus Sammonicus?
Edit: ok, I read the page, I see what was meant.
But a problem emerges, it could get evident seeing as their source is Wikipedia (?! "I know that because somebody told me"?!): it is epistemologically not trivial to state ignorance. Even when the learned does, the protocol is that "John, PhD, on that occasion expressed ignorance".
It may be a reason why once upon a time we had erudition, much more highlighted than nowadays: some attempt towards completeness in the exploration of sources.
Are some medicines not worth the downside for society to have available?
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
America and Japan refer to the drug as acetaminophen, while most of the rest of the world calls it paracetamol.
https://stackoverflow.com/unanswered
https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered
...
Looks like Quora doesn't quite get it though:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-unanswered-questions-o...
I enjoy dabbling in fringe topics, and feel that the greatest danger to understanding is certitude. People get so certain that they know something that all further consideration of the topic ceases and they sit in satisfaction even when answers are contradictory or don't connect to greater understanding. Debating someone who uses circular logic feels like banging one's head against the wall.
On a related note, we need a better framework for metaphysical discussion. I've noticed a huge increase in woo woo phenomena since the pandemic. It's probably just a change in my own attention. But since science and religion can't explain consciousness, I feel that there is more to reality and the mental models we use to understand it than is generally discussed. Wikenigma could use pages on synchronicity, manifestation, placebo, etc:
https://www.wrf.org/complementary-therapies/power-of-mind-pl...
“In a recent study of a new kind of chemotherapy, 30 percent of the individuals in the control group, the group given placebos, lost their hair.”
For the placebo effect to be real, it would mean that the mind creates physical effects in the body. I take it further in my own life by believing that the mind creates the body and possibly the universe around it. Or at least, the mind/body/universe are somehow involved in co-creation. That's heretical to science, but, people experience it every day. So what the heck is that?
Nikola Tesla
It feels a bit healthier to assume this is all of them, and even the ones that are "true" in some binary yes/no sense, may still have nuance to be discovered.
One of the things I like about the original Wikipedia is that it's rarely so binary about things, often covering contemporary controversies and areas of current research.
Concrete, crystallization, bicycle design, green tea. What do we know, exactly?
But thank you for pointing out that it's docuwiki that is attempting to inappropriately ride the mediawiki coattails and muddling use.
The fact this site is starting out without the basic feature of categories is a grave mistake. Maybe docuwiki edits them differently, but having clicky forms for every data field is also contrary to how wp became successful.
Because it's not using mediawiki, it will not be any parallel in development to wp, which is also a grave starting mistake.
Interesting concept though.
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded
resource limit. Please try again later.Certainly not confidence inspiring but from the pages I visited it seems to be an excellent aggregator. Short summary, long enough for me to gadge if I want to head to Wikipedia.
Thank god for that, was worried it was going to be another wiki that is essentially just an unmaintained Wikipedia fork slowly diverging away
A few hundred in a few minutes is enough to take down a website? I've noticed that this keeps happening .
Just to be intrigued - see https://wikenigma.org.uk/curators_rationale
But also to raise awareness on the complementary part of the achievements in research. Nonetheless, in this regard it should be a much more structured effort than a "bedside booklet".
Not sure what I am supposed to get from that. Irrational numbers are just reals that aren't rationals. Why is this enigmatic?
It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?
Virtually all numbers are irrational. Are numbers enigmatic?
The infinite digits of pi that we don't know. But we do know that they exist, so pi, or any other irrational number, will aptly be called a "known unknown."
> Virtually all numbers are irrational.
For every n irrational numbers you name, I can name n+1 rationals. There is no firm basis to the argument that there are somehow more irrational numbers than rational numbers.
I name "x+pi for every rational number x". Good luck!
> For many irrational numbers, relatively simple mathematical proofs exist which show that it's impossible to ever arrive at a finite solution.
LOL, what does that even mean?