Vectors are not tensors[edit]
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Chatul (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs)
- Quondum (talk · contribs)
- YohanN7 (talk · contribs)
- Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
Talk:Tensor#Scalars and vectors are distinct from tensors
Issues to be mediated[edit]
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- Should the {{disputed-section}} template be reinstated until the dispute is resolved?
- Should the text be corrected to state that while scalars and vectors are no tensors, the distinction can normally be ignored?
- Ad hominem arguments and unilateral removal of the {{disputed-section}} template instead of a good faith discussion.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- The text should be watched very carefully here. "Vectors are not tensors" is a stronger statement than "Scalars and vectors are distinct from tensors".
- There is a set of "tensors that are neither vectors nor scalars" that is a subset of tensors and these are commonly considered to be "distinct" from scalars and vectors in everyday speech (for a level of mathematical sophistication where tensors are an "everyday topic" - blame the physicists). WP should be careful to avoid the trap of agreeing to "tensors (in this subset sense) are distinct from scalars and vectors" (a statement that has more to do with linguistic laxity than mathematical rigour) and then finding that decision used to support a further-reaching claim that "vectors are not tensors". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I expect this application to fail precondition #4 (extensive attempt to resolve the matter), as at the time of filing. Also, the real problem seems to relate to interaction of personalities, not to good-faith disagreement about content. —Quondum 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The text added by User:Chatul was "While not actually tensors, vectors and scalars themselves can usually be treated as if they were." This is clearly an incorrect statement to anyone with even a passing familiarity with tensors, and anyone with Chatul's credentials (as he is so fond of pointing out) really ought to know better. This whole "mediation" seems to be an attempt at forum shopping to prolong a dispute that should have been shot and buried long ago. If Chatul is unable to convince anyone else of his absurd WP:OR notions, and is unable to come up with any actual references to support such a clearly WP:REDFLAG statement, or even valid reasons that substantively and directly pertain to standard practice in the subjects of linear algebra, differential geometry, and mathematical physics then there really can be no purpose to "mediation". There is nothing to mediate here. Mediation is not a forum for asking the other parent, or for getting one's own way in a dispute when there is a total failure to convince anyone else involved. That would be an abuse of process. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]
- Agree. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. —Quondum 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]
- Chairperson's note: From his statement that "there is nothing to mediate here," Sławomir Biały will be deemed to have rejected mediation unless s/he posts an acceptance in the "Acceptances" section above. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
- Reject: Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)