# Should Wikipedia Allow Mathematical Proofs?

#### Beetle B. (516615) writes | more than 6 years ago

4
Beetle B. writes *"An argument has arisen over whether Wikipedia should allow pages that provide proofs for mathematical theorems (such as this one).
On the one hand, Wikipedia is a useful source of information and people can benefit from these proofs. On the other hand, how does one choose which proofs to include and which not to? Should Wikipedia just become a textbook that teaches mathematics? Should it just state the bare results of theorems and not provide proofs (except as external links)? Or should they take an intermediate approach and formulate a criterion for which proofs to include and which to exclude?"*

Link to Original Source

## Wikipedia Censorship (1)

## Skinkie (815924) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713060)

In my humble opinion if you don't want to read proofs, you will close your eyes. The proof should not be the first thing on a 'floor' page, like any other paper, an 'abstract' will do.

## Re:Wikipedia Censorship (1)

## starwed (735423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713154)

nominationfor deletion, and I don't think it will succeed on the grounds given.## Re:Wikipedia Censorship (1)

## Dare nMc (468959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713190)

Well, it also reduces the number of name collisions, so fewer arguments about whose james smith gets the #1 spot.

Also when someone becomes famous, and their is already a page, it would discourage writing a article for that.

## Re:Wikipedia Censorship (1)

## mathimus1863 (1120437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713372)

Therefore, when discussing the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, feel free to include proofs. When explaining the definition of a derivative, it's probably not necessary to prove anything.