63
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by sodium_nitride@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

I'm sure some math grad could understand this but like nah this shit above my pay grade.

Ok I'm not being paid at all, but still ...

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochner%27s_theorem

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Owl@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago

Yeah, math wikipedia is pretty egregious. It's not even that it's for a technical audience, it's more like it's for an audience who already knows the thing. Or it's just someone trying to show off how much jargon they can use to define a thing.

But it can be fixed! Look at the opening paragraph of Field_(mathematics) from 2015

In abstract algebra, a field is a nonzero commutative ring that contains a multiplicative inverse for every nonzero element, or equivalently a ring whose nonzero elements form an abelian group under multiplication. As such it is an algebraic structure with notions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division satisfying the appropriate abelian group equations and distributive law. The most commonly used fields are the field of real numbers, the field of complex numbers, and the field of rational numbers, but there are also finite fields, fields of functions, algebraic number fields, p-adic fields, and so forth.

What the fuck is that, right?

And the version now:

In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined and behave as the corresponding operations on rational numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure that is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics.

[-] addie@feddit.uk 12 points 1 day ago

For a long time, the editors of maths Wikipedia took objection to any 'simplifying' edits to make things more accessible, if they even slightly changed the meaning. Seems like a misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is for, to me - overview first, expand afterwards. But I suppose mathematicians wouldn't be mathematicians if they weren't borderline obsessive. That first definition is probably more 'correct' although you're quite correct that it's almost unreadable.

Huh. Didn't think that a field needed to have division defined on it, at least not in the 'multiplication is the opposite of division' way you'd expect. Learn something new every day.

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

It needs inverses i suspect

[-] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

At least fields are an easy enough topic so once you see a example it clicks. But for the more niche topics where you really need a simple explanation cause the concept is complicated, the wiki writers will give you a definition that needs a whole degree in math to understand.

Even though the theorem is supposed to be usable by engineers and physicists too (cause you know, we also gotta use this shit to do our work).

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
63 points (97.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14404 readers
676 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS