Contents

Talk:Knuth reward check: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:39, 31 October 2015

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2009. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.

Awards Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Check numbers were removed on the grounds that they have no real meaning—because there are several series of checks. Checks numbers were reinstated on the grounds that they are "necessary to see which checks are missing". These grounds, however, are invalid, because there are several series of checks. You can tell almost nothing from a check number, and you can certainly not tell which checks are missing. Including the check numbers misleads for that reason: some people who do not understand the numbers will erroneously think—as has been demonstrated—that they can tell what is missing from the numbers. Ergo, the check numbers should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.197.172 (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Taken them out, along with the headers demarcating the series. When DEK got new bank accounts or new chequebooks is none of our business. It's not in any way relevant to the article. At best it's irrelevant, at worst it's a potential invasion of privacy. 86.128.221.17 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to list all known checks written by Don Knuth (I am not saying that it is a good or bad thing — it does not strike me as a particularly encyclopedic topic, but on the other hand I can understand that this topic fascinates some people) then it makes sense to include the check numbers, if only because they are a good way to differentiate checks and catch duplicates. The argument of "seeing missing checks" described above, however, looks pointless to me (Knuth certainly writes other checks than those sent to people who found errors in his books, and the list is bound to have gaps).

It seems pretty clear that Knuth does NOT use this checkbook for other purposes. He states that 2000+ reward checks were written as of Oct 2001. That is consistent with what the table shows, which is 1284+ checks in the first series, plus 767+ in the second series, totalling 2051+. I am assuming that the first check in each series starts at 100, since we see no checks with numbers <100, but plenty with numbers between 100 and 200. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by67.114.59.21 (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As I wrote above, this list of checks compiled from scans and other reliable information may already be considered not to be encyclopedic; on the other hand, the list of unverified information in the form "Xxx claims to have checks" has clearly nothing to do here (people bragging is unlikely to be a reliable source, to say the least). Schutz 08:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: Just because a comprehensive list of reward checks is fascinating to some people is no reason to put it in an encyclopedia. Also, Image:Knuth-check2.png should prove that just because someone has a scan of check number X doesn't mean Knuth wrote check number X (digital images are easy to forge). Therefore, even the claims substantiated by scanned images could be considered "unverifiable" by anyone except Knuth himself, if you wanted to be strict about it. Finally, it's just a big can of worms. I have a Knuth check; should I add myself to this page? Or do I need to scan and post the check first? Or do I also need to distort Knuth's account information in the scanned image, for privacy? And so on and so on. Ick. Let some private citizen's Web site make a list, if they like. (But it might be encyclopedic to mention who got the first reward check, and who got them for TeX bugs before the amount was frozen.) --Quuxplusone 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that's no encyclopedic. It is original research, and it is also unreasonable for people to snobbishly expose their private possessions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for people's exhibitionism. --Rtc 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list belongs in the encyclopedia, because it not only documents the types of errors encountered in a leading software project of the era, but also shows the variety of human beings involved. In a field where the work product is an immaterial stream of bits, here we have a few tangible artifacts of the humanity that produced that product. There is nothing else like this in academia, and the details are not just fascinating, but relevant to the article's subject. I suppose a list of Rembrandt works and where they've ended up is also "bragging"? These are concrete facts, and nobody is bragging by the publication of unadorned facts, nor is anyone's privacy involved. The issues of verification must be addressed, but that is no reason to clobber this information entirely out of the article. Richard J Kinch 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt's paintings, in contrast to checks, are relevant works that are catalogued openly in official, published lists. If you want to document the bugs of TeX etc. in an encyclopedic manner, you can use the official, published errata files as a source and write an article about them based on that. Information about actual checks are a private matter that doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't research lists that have not yet been published anywhere else. As long as DEK decides not to publish a list of checks himself, it doesn't belong here, and even if he would, it would be appropriate only for Wikisource, a sister project of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's No Original Research and What Wikipedia is not policies for more information. These policies are the reason for the deletion. --rtc 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if these reward checks aren't being cashed, aren't they an example of seigniorage?TerraFrost 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Money generally doesn't have intrinsic value, so getting less intrinsically valuable stuff for your money than you originally gave for the money seems to be seigniorage, but Knuth checks are more akin to collectibles or trophies than financial instruments. --Gwern (contribs) 18:23 19 October 2007 (GMT)

I don't think cheques qualify as seigniorage because they need to be cashed within several months of the written date (six months where I live). Knuth probably reuses the money after his prize winners are no longer able to claim it. --192.249.47.11 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The San Seriffe cheque contains a URL ending "stanford.edu.ca". This isn't a real domain. What's up with that? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I just received check number 1278, and it does not have the '.ca' in the URL. I don't know why it is in the pictured check, but it's not in recent checks. FWIW, the check I just earned was for a bug in MMIXware. The memo field read "MM 83." I added this to the list of memo field character codes on the page. --Mr z (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he is offering a reward if you can cause the program to produce an error. Is this true? Ranze (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, go over to Knuth's site and tell him that he left out the word "know" in line 2, page iv of his draft of fascicle 5a, version 1/12/13. Good luck! --84.177.46.222 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this article should be shortened and put in the Donald Knuth page.

See

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Knuth reward check" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

72.230.215.230 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To cement the point, Erdős problems directs to Paul_Erdős#Erd.C5.91s.27_problems.    Erdős number carries enough information to warrant an article.

72.230.215.230 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to create an article for Erdős problems. It would be easier if you registered with a user name. I left you a welcome message on your IP talk page with some information about editing Wikipedia.
SBaker43 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge — Article has WP:RS. It survived a proposed deletion in May 2009. This article seems to have plenty of material and none of it seems to need to be deleted. There are numerous other ancillary articles for Donald Knuth; many of which could be reduced and merged into his article also—but the quality and balance of the biography then begins to suffer from the hodge-podge collection of miscellaneous articles without a central theme. Then the only solution is to prune each into a single paragraph or sentence of miscellaneous "stuff". In the end either all the ancillary articles should be deleted or kept as they are.
  SBaker43 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge — the article is as noted properly cited with multiple reliable sources; it is on a markedly different topic from the Knuth biography; it is plainly of encyclopaedic interest. To boot, it is informative and well-written. "Other topics don't have articles' isn't a valid argument; I concur with the suggestion that Erdős problems deserves an article, which would certainly be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seeing the level of consensus here, I've boldly removed the tags, so this discussion is closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]