Talk:Introduction to entropy

message: (Discussion deleted and continued on User_talk:PAR)
It seems to me that none of this material by Chjoaygame is relevant for this article, which is an "Introduction to .." article. Some of it may be relevant to Entropy, but I am not even clear about that. This article should be understood by someone who has just been introduced to the topic of entropy. Chjoaygame, please stop wasting our time reading through your long edits to see if anything is relevant to this article. --Bduke (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just as guilty for running down this rabbit hole with Chjoaygame. I agree, it has no place on this talk page, and I have removed it to my talk page. Chjoaygame and I have had many arguments in the past, and yes, he tends to say in two complicated paragraphs what he could say in one sentence. In his defense, he will actually engage in an argument, rather than ignoring what you say and repeating the same POV over and over again. He will adjust his understanding as need be and does not engage in ad-hominem attacks. This is rare, and I try to do the same. The discussion actually does derive from a disagreement about the wording of the introduction, and if we reach a consensus of two on my talk page, offer any conclusions here. PAR (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: cards on the table

message: Option 1: No math at all
Option 2: No math in the introduction, some basic math in the body of the article
Option 3: Basic math throughout, including introduction
Option 4: The article should incorporate an advanced mathematical treatment of entropy; introduction might or might not have some math, but we should end up in the deep end.
:*Option 1 on this for me; I think this would hang together better as a purely conceptual explanation of the idea of entropy in various contexts.  I'd be okay with option 2 as well.  I think any math in the intro is a bad idea. DrPippy (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Option 2, but keep it at a very simple level in the body.PAR (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *Option 2, agree with PAR --ChetvornoTALK 20:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1: How much math should this article incorporate?

message: Option 1: Thermodynamic
Option 2: Stat mech
Option 3: Informational
Option 4: Popular (disorder, etc.)
Other?: I'm sure I've left some out...
:*Options 1, 2, 4 for sure, no opinion on 3.  Again, I think the approach of trying to explain the popular view of entropy in terms of the scientific view is exactly the right one; we just need to figure out which version of the scientific view is the right one. DrPippy (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Options 1,2,3,4, low emphasis on the nuts and bolts of information entropy.PAR (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *Options 1,2,3,4 Since this article's title is Introduction to entropy, we have to define all the types of entropy in the introduction, but I agree Shannon entropy should just be briefly defined WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. --ChetvornoTALK 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

text: *Comment. 'Other' might include or point to general abstract mathematical entropies, that might pretend or intend to 'really capture' the 'underlying concept' of 'entropy'.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2: Which views of entropy should be incorporated into this article?