Difference between revisions of "User talk:MCrawford"
Quantum leap (talk | contribs) (terminology) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
== terminology == | == terminology == | ||
It appears that i began the ellipse page with the term "locus" in the first line, but defined that merely as "set" in the appositive following it. Later, i used words like "far end" and "closer end" to help define the semimajor and -minor axes. I forgot middle schoolers would be reading this as well. Would it be okay then to describe things like that and just use the fancy terms at the end? | It appears that i began the ellipse page with the term "locus" in the first line, but defined that merely as "set" in the appositive following it. Later, i used words like "far end" and "closer end" to help define the semimajor and -minor axes. I forgot middle schoolers would be reading this as well. Would it be okay then to describe things like that and just use the fancy terms at the end? | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | It's probably best to divide the article in half. Define it in a "nice" way for the students who will be reading about it for the first time. Later, define it again.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 20:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:54, 19 June 2006
terminology
It appears that i began the ellipse page with the term "locus" in the first line, but defined that merely as "set" in the appositive following it. Later, i used words like "far end" and "closer end" to help define the semimajor and -minor axes. I forgot middle schoolers would be reading this as well. Would it be okay then to describe things like that and just use the fancy terms at the end?
It's probably best to divide the article in half. Define it in a "nice" way for the students who will be reading about it for the first time. Later, define it again.--MCrawford 20:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
