Talk:Q.E.D.

message: Ladies & Gentlemen:
I am not a mathematician or a philosopher.  When I came to this article to learn what "Q.E.D." meant, I found a very concise and clear statement at the beginning of the article, which reads "The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration".  
This is clear enough, but it presumes that the reader knows what a mathematical proof or a philosophical argument is and how these two items are constructed.  Regrettably, I really don't know what either one of these concepts are.  May I respectfully suggest that immediately after the above-mentioned paragraph, you provide a (very simple) example of a mathematical proof with Q.E.D. at the end, and also a (very simple) example of a philosophical argument with Q.E.D. at the end?  I believe that this would greatly contribute to the usefulness of this article.
Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.150.42 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion for the authors of this article

message: The difference in meaning is not very clear here.  It says how Euclid used it, but without actually saying what it means. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Q.E.F.

message: :From TFA: "This is a translation of the Greek oper edei deixai ..."
What is the Greek notation of those words? Is it ωπερ ηδηι δηιχαι?
:No. One could have tried a better guess by noting that it's really hoper edei deixai with x = ks, but since Euclid is available online I've just looked it up @ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0085&query=book%3D2%3Aproposition%3D5&layout=&loc=2.5 (Be sure to configure for pre-combined diacritics; that'll probably look best.) As an added advantage, we now know where the accents should be. Shinobu 00:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should some accented characters appear as hollow squares, just copy the text to a word processor and select a font containing the right characters. Shinobu 00:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek notation

message: I think I also remember QED being used in the Guns of Navarone, among others. Since that section is open to the addition of lots and lots of links and instances, without any objective criterium as to what to add and what not to add, is it really wise to have it? Shinobu 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the implied answer to the rhetorical question is no, I agree with you. Listing every instance of "popular usage" of this not uncommon phrase would not only be impossible, but also of no aid to readers. Even disregarding the practical difficulties you mention, we have to ask ourselves if anyone, ever, will want to read about it. I suspect not. EldKatt (Talk) 16:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I dislike the idea of this being removed entirely, although I appreciate there is a lack of objectivity. Maybe it should spawn a Popular usage of Q.E.D. page - that way people who what to read the examples can, but those only interested in the content of this page dont have to. Remeber, just because you don't want to read about it doesn't mean no-one does. Poobarb 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your complaint. In my view, the explanation was practical and clear enough, and I would appreciate a more concrete explanation of what is "smarmy and petulant" about it. Furthermore, Shinobu's suggestion of removal (as well as my agreement with it) had been on this talk page for nearly seven months without meeting any disagreement before the user actually removed the section. It could hardly have been done in a more respectful fashion. EldKatt (Talk) 12:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular usage 

message: I would recommend to move/rewrite/get permission/include the article QED by robin hartshorne. at the moment i add this as an external link.Marhahs 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that he won't mind its inclusion here but his email address (robin at math dot berkeley dot edu) is at the bottom of the page linked if you want to ask.  He never officially published the note, nor does he intend to (I'm pretty sure).  BTW, what does your first sentence mean?  You want to move the article or rewrite his article or include the contents in this article or ...  I'm not sure what your desire is.  --Maplebed 06:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other source 

message: How do you say it? I always thought you just said, "Q(cue) E(ee) D(dee)," but my professor told me it was pronounced like "cued," or even like "kood (like in kudos)." Which way is correct? Ye Olde Luke 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it's an acronym, or abbreviation, or initialism, or whatever term is pedantically correct, and pedantically, you should say it letter-by-letter.  On the other hand, plenty of these things, especially acronyms, are expressly designed to be pronounced, so it can't be wrong to try to pronounce it as a word.  Still, this one is clearly not one of these, especially since it is an abbreviation for a phrase in a different language which is itself a translation of a prhase in a third language, and I don't think that either you, I, or your professor can claim to know the customs for pronouncing acronyms in Greek or Latin.  If he claims that it is supposed to be proncouced as a word, he is wrong, both because he cannot know, and because the opposite is held by many, many people. Ryan Reich 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per the Wikipedia article, an acronym is an abbreviation where the letters are said as a word, such as NATO, and an initialism is one where each letter is said individually. Anyway, I would say that pronouncing QED as a word would be frowned upon, and many mathematicians in earshot would maybe cringe to hear it. — metaprimer (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "KOO-ode?" Really? The vowel U following a Q isn't even scanned in poetry; why should it be a separate, accented syllable in prose? I think "Kwode" is a more appropriate pronunciation.  Eebster the Great (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is surprising, but it is KOO-ode because that's how you always pronounce a "u" in Latin: "OO." There are no exceptions just because it's next to a "q." The whole "kw" thing came much later. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Your teacher is obviously wrong. The Romans wrote it "QVOD" and "V" was always pronounced V after Q.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.139.184 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: proper pronunciation

message: Apropos of some of the earlier discussions (from a long time ago) up on this page, I've decided to snip all of the material on QED that doesn't have to do with proofs, or doesn't have to do with its classical meaning.  Not that popular takes on the phrase aren't potentially interesting, but as I noted in the edit comment, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  The potential for humor on this subject is endless (three letters could mean almost anything, especially in a language with so many words) but most of it is not notable.  Rather than let the article collect junk, I'm inclined to say that anything of this nature should come with a source, or leave in a hurry. Ryan Reich 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humorous variants 

message: I'm wondering whether anyone else thinks it might be a decent idea to add a small section at the bottom of this article about the acronym's usage in notable movies, etc. (Captain Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End comes to mind during the Locker scene). Exigence 06:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular usage (movies, etc). 

message: I would've just asked this on the user's talk page, but it was an anonymous edit, so I thought I'd voice my question here. Is diff an improving edit? Should it be undone? etc. — metaprimer (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's harmless, and maybe even improves the sentence.  "Albeit" is a slightly unusual word and perhaps he felt it made the article more accessible to remove it.  I am usually vigilant over articles I've contributed to significantly (like this one), but I also usually let minor changes like this, which are matters of personal opinion, go.  Maybe it does improve the article, maybe it doesn't; there's no point in reverting it if it does nothing at all, and I don't think it is damaging. Ryan Reich 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit, "albeit" to "less" 

message: Has anyone else heard the backronym "Quadrilateral Ends Discussion"? Or am I the only one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singingwolfboy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense at all . . .  Eebster the Great (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadrilateral Ends Discussion 

message: why can't they just write QED at the end instead of some symbol????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.243.53 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  computers? 

message: Unicode descriptions of characters are usually WRITTEN IN UPPER CASE. I don't know what the style guide says but I would expect e.g. U+0013 CARRIAGE RETURN.
It is also important to make a distinction between a character (which has a semantic function) and a glyph (which is the way it is represented).
Opinions? Best SimonTrew (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode 

message: It is not necessary or desirable to pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. Jchthys' did just that, adding no value or comprehension, just words. I am tempted to revert immediately, but I am being nice. Since I have had no response on user talk pages I will do so shortly unless I get a reply. I see absolutely no use in this edit, in fact I think it comes close to vandalism. SimonTrew (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a response, and I apologised from my intemperate nature. Nevertheless I do think that there is no need just to add words unless they add sence. I have offreed to have a discussion here, but so far no take-up. SimonTrew (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordiness 

message: Would anyone have a short paragraph handy that could be cited showing an example of the common usage of QED?  All this talk about the abbreviation, not one example showing its use...  134.193.238.42 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstrate 

message: :Translating from the Latin into English yields, "what was to have been demonstrated"; however, translating the Greek phrase ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι produces a slightly different meaning. A better translation from the Greek would read, "what was required to be proved."
I don't know Greek, so I'm unclear on the exact difference... but "quod erat demonstrandum" could definitely be read as "what was required to be demonstrated" -- since the future passive participle often carries the implication of obligation in Latin, particularly when used with forms of "esse" such as "erat" -- and "demonstrated" is synonymous with "proved" in this context, so is there really any difference in meaning here at all? I'd say if anything the difference is a result of the process of translation and not any actual difference in meaning. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι 

message: This explanation of QED blows.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.119.113 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  QED 

message: In one place the article translates as "which was to be demonstrated", and in another "what was to be demonstrated". Which should it be? Is the second even correct English (other than as a question, which is obviously not the intention)? 86.181.200.87 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly inconsistent translations 

message: Not sure what the best term would be, but physics nerd does not seem to be an encyclopedic term. --Techdude 42 (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'physics nerd' 

message: The starting summary/description doesn't give nearly a clear/good enough description of the acronym - particularly given its wider cultural usage now, for humorous effect (mocking an obvious untruth, by appending it with Q.E.D., to lend it more absurdity).
The current introduction/summary/description ought to be scrapped in entirety, and rewritten. Arfed (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary not good enough 

message: Some of the alleged "examples" of Q.E.D. equivalents in other languages are really stretching it. "Q.E.D." doesn't stand for anything in Japanese or Korean; "かく示された" and "これが証明すべきことだった" are literally translations of "thus proven" and its alternate forms, and not what Q.E.D. actually stands for within those languages. There is a difference between saying that Q.E.D. is used when mathematics is taught in those countries and claiming that it stands for something within those languages, and the table provided is supposed to pair up equivalent abbreviations with what they stand for. Many of the bad examples (Persian, Norwegian, Japanese, etc.) have got to go. The table is not for listing the equivalents and direct translations of "and thus proven" within each language, it is used to denote what languages have their own equivalents to Q.E.D. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages section 

message: The usage and primary topic of  is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Thus"

message: מה שהיה להוכיח הראש (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Hebrew 

message: I see the translations from Latin and Greek have been discussed ad nauseam above, but I'm still confused. (I have a working knowledge of Latin; none of Greek.) The "Etymology and early use" section currently claims that a direct translation of the Latin is "that was to be demonstrated" (with which I would agree); but that translating from the Greek "can produce a slightly different meaning. In particular, since the verb  also means to show or to prove, a different translation from the Greek phrase would read 'The very thing it was required to have shown.'" Where's the discrepancy? To demonstrate, show or prove are all pretty much synonyms; while "the very thing" is more emphatic but still means effectively the same as "that". The two translations are subtly variant in emphasis, but there's no "different meaning". Some rewording or clarity required. Q.E.D. GrindtXX (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation (again)