Talk:Progressively measurable process

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Statistics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Disputed tag 2011

I have had contact on my Talk page from someone who thinks that the present summary in the lead is wrong. Apparently their teachers can't think of anything that they might consider is both correct and easily understood. Apparantly also this person can't learn to use articles' Talk pages. Can anyone replace the present versiuon with something that is both correct and easily understood. Otherwise it seems that the topic must fail the test of being worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Melcombe (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop this bizarre hostility? My "teacher" is a | professor of financial mathematics. | I have a paper in my hand that directly contradicts the lead. As far as I can tell, it is merely a specialist concept required to give stochastic integrals certain convenient properties. I cannot find an intuitive definition anywhere. The fact that it cannot be understood by amateurs is not ground for exclusion from Wikipedia. I see no reason to discuss why an unreferenced and directly contradicted lead is incorrect and should be deleted in the talk section because a) this is an obscure article that has only been edited a dozen times, and b) anyone with an iota of knowledge on the subject would know that it was false -- Which reminds me: Your addition, attempting to incorporate what I originally wrote is also false. I only used the example of a deterministic process because it was the simplest. You should not attempt to tamper with technical content of an article with concepts in it that you obviously do not understand.RobertHannah89 (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a basic concept in Wikipedia that the content of articles is discussed on the articles' Talk pages. You agree that the article is on an obscure topic, but cannot see that this contradicts wikipedia's requirement for notability: see Wikipedia:Notability. Certainly you have not added anything that establishes notability. See WP:LEAD for the need for an lead section to say what the topic is about and to establish notability, and see WP:MOSMATH for requirements for maths-type articles. There is no excuse for leaving an article in a worse state than you found it, except of couse lazyness. If you think something is wrong in an article and can't improve it, then just add appropriate tags and discuss it on the talk page. And if you have a refeence that is useful to the topic then add it to the article. The supposed link you left above is either broken or broken to anyone who is not you. Oh, and contributions on talk pages are usually indented to aid navigation. Melcombe (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obscure topic outside the field of stochastic processes/ financial mathematics. It is however notable as an essential assumption to the most basic theorems on the subject(s). There is no point in discussing that it is false. If I said that a PMP was a penguin, would you really wait for someone else to confirm that it is not in fact a penguin? The link has been corrected. The article was not in a worse state: it doesn't matter how clear an article is if it is totally wrong -- not just slightly off, but totally wrong. Given the choice between a clear statement of a totally wrong definition, and a terse factual definition, I chose the latter. It is not up to me to fix every little detail wrt the article. You have not given any coherent reason for me to leave the false definition as it was. RobertHannah89 (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with your Robert, except when you say it is obscure, outside the field of stochastic processes, and when you agree with Melcombe that it isn't notable. It is extremely important in the theory of stochastic processes, because a stochastic process needs to be progressively measurable for its stopped process to be measurable. 95.248.81.251 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]