Editing Talk:Speed (section)

== Reversion ==

User [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed&diff=prev&oldid=718959163 has reverted] some of the text I have added to this article: "Mathematically speaking, it should be noted that, for example, an object may pass another even though they have the same velocity at the instant, if one has a greater acceleration. For a discussion of this, see Marsden & Weinstein ''Calculus Unlimited'', a free and legal on-line copy is available at http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~marsden/books/Calculus_Unlimited.html".

I was going to change it for: "Mathematically speaking, it should be noted that an object may pass another even though they have the same velocity at the instant, if one has a greater acceleration (for example). For a discussion of this, see Marsden & Weinstein ''Calculus Unlimited'', a free and legal on-line copy is available at http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~marsden/books/Calculus_Unlimited.html".

For some context, please note that it was on the section added by me, "Psychology". I think it's helpful, as the laymen may think differently from that. And it's important to note things that may be interpreted in wrong ways, and we should make words of caution, so that they don't be.

Following the tradition of [[Henri Poincaré]], I decided to talk more about intuition on this article. Mathematics has many aspects, it's an art, but not only that, it also involves computation, observation, etc... It's an art, a science, and intuition is very important IMHO.

I would like to know the opinions of other editors on this matter. I would like to have the text reinserted.

Sincerely,
[[User:MathKeduor7|MathKeduor7]] ([[User talk:MathKeduor7|talk]]) 17:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

:Yes, I removed it for the given reason. The wording was also not encyclopedic—see [[wp:NOTED]].
:As we are talking about this now, I tried to verify the source that you used for the remainder of the section ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed&type=revision&diff=718955014&oldid=718520938]). Google books ([https://books.google.com/books?id=A_8tAAAAYAAJ]) does not provide page access, so I can't verify. My question: does Piaget indeed state in this book that ''this same idea was considered by many others before Piaget''? - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 19:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

::Thank you very much for your kind answer, DVdm. In fact, it's very bad when there is no preview on Google Books, and it makes very hard to check the references. I wrote it by memory, I will check, but if I remember right he mentioned Einstein as one that thought of it before, so there is at least one "other". He also cited an article of his own about this, it's in French, but maybe there are more references there. It's just a popular book, not very serious, but by an authority in psychology. I commit myself to see if it mentions many others that considered it before. If I don't find a reference I will change it, even though I find it very plausible information. Thank you again. [[User:MathKeduor7|MathKeduor7]] ([[User talk:MathKeduor7|talk]]) 19:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::Okay... I was unable to access Piaget's original article, it was even translated into English, but it's behind a pay-wall it seems. It seems that Einstein was Piaget's inspiration to study it, but the first to make a real systematical study was Piaget himself. Everyone cites him (many, many, many times) on this matter! :) I will make a change there. Thank you for your diligence. I am still learning the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, My English is not very good (I am not a native speaker, you know), making things more difficult. [[User:MathKeduor7|MathKeduor7]] ([[User talk:MathKeduor7|talk]]) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::It [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed&type=revision&diff=718975866&oldid=718959163 looks good] now. :) I am upset that the other part was removed, but I understand your reasons. Have a good day. [[User:MathKeduor7|MathKeduor7]] ([[User talk:MathKeduor7|talk]]) 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Piaget devised experiments to investigate it (instead of merely hypothesizing and speculating about it like some others were doing at the previous century), and this was indeed a huge step towards the dissemination of empirical discoveries and justifications to the many claims and hypothesis made in the field of psychology. If we consider this, it is not so much surprising that he was more influenced by physicists than from people of other fields after all. —T.M.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TarotMagen|TarotMagen]] ([[User talk:TarotMagen|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TarotMagen|contribs]]) 12:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Wow, the section I have started, which was originally in a pretty bad state, was improved a lot since then! Thanks a lot to the editors. This is one of the nicest things about Wikipedia! By the way, it's very hard to write about psychology, because the notions are not so well-defined like in mathematics and in some other fields. It's always hard to attribute priority, with that phrase with "many others" I was trying to convey that Piaget was not claiming full originality in his idea, as he made that clear, and it could serve for interested reader to dig more about the subject. Another thing: maybe there is another problem there in the section, the excerpt "the intuition" could be problematic, because there is not only one intuition about speed... Indeed it varies with personal development and different people. But I won't try to improve it, as I could make a mess, and I'm retired and very tired to come back. [[User:MathKeduor7|MathKeduor7]] ([[User talk:MathKeduor7|talk]]) 15:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)