User talk:Guythatprovesstuff

Kinetic energy
Hello Guythatprovesstuff, and welcome to Wikiproofs. Thank you for your contribution, Kinetic energy, but I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikiproofs. Wikiproofs is a wiki for formal, machine-verifiable proofs. Proofs are to be written in a special computer language called JHilbert (example), possibly interspersed with informal comments on the proof steps (see also WP:SCOPE). Note that physics is not excluded from the scope per se. However, you must write your contributions in the JHilbert language. Unfortunately, Wikiproofs is still rather new, and we have, at this time, no formalised instance of any integral calculus whatsoever, which would be a requirement for your proof.

Of course, you are invited to work on a formalisation of more basic concepts (integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers appear to be the next logical steps towards a formalisation of physics). In the meantime, why don't you take your proof to a site whose scope matches high school physics. Wikipedia appears to have a proof already, at Kinetic energy. There is also Planet Physics. For generic informal proofs, you should take a look at Proofwiki (I don't know, though, whether they accept physics).

Again, I'm sorry that your contribution has to be deleted. I'll postpone the deletion until tomorrow, so you can take your work to a different site (and even once it's deleted, you can still extract the wikitext from today's wiki dump).

Take care!--GrafZahl (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will mention one other possibility. Proving everything from Interface:Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, or even Interface:Complex number axioms, is something we want eventually, but it is a lot of work. The other possibility is to write a set of statements which are sufficient to prove your result. For the sake of your proof these would be axioms; eventually we would prove them from the axioms of set theory and then they could be considered theorems. I don't want to minimize the work involve here–the rule of thumb is that formalizing a page of mathematics written in the usual informal style is a week of full-time work (the exact number will vary, however, depending on how much of the prerequisite theory is already present). But if you are interested, it would be great to have things on the site other than just foundations of logic, geometry, etc. Do let us know, though, as we'd be glad to help but only if you'd like to work on this. If not, as GrafZahl says, we'd need to regretfully remove the informal proof from our site. Kingdon 12:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Kingdon, I've taken the liberty of fixing the dash in your link above.)
 * I agree with Kingdon that a formal presentation of Newtonian mechanics is feasible. Sorry, my post above was somewhat short-sighted, and I was not aware that we already had Interface:Complex number axioms. The modular nature of JHilbert allows to formulate the prerequisites for, say, Newtonian mechanics (calculus, affine spaces, etc.) in interfaces which, for the time being, remain unproven. The accompanying proof modules can be added at a later date. Of course, the formulation of axioms, statements and definitions leading to Newtonian mechanics requires careful thinking. But as Kingdon says, we'd be glad to help.
 * --GrafZahl (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)