![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
![]() |
<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Could you please delete User:SMcCandlish/Sig? It's no longer being transcluded anywhere ("What links here" notwithstanding; a few purges have not caught up yet). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 02:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Happy 2010! I stabilized Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2009 and the top PR shows, but without the header. I have no idea what the problem is. I also asked Geometry guy about this.
I think I am all done with the rest of the monthly PR chores - I made the new Veblenbot category. I was not sure if I was supposed to remove the Nov. 2009 category from VeblenBot (when I made the new January category). If you could double check that I did everything OK with the new cat, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
How do you decide the priority for articles on mathematicians? I feel weird rating a great mathematician's article as "mid" priority. For general math topics I use a subjective criteria -- my own judgment about the topic and how important it is for Wikipedia to have an article on it. I haven't been able to come up with a good way to assign priorities to mathematician articles. Any suggestions? -- Robin ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
actually hw we can find domain nd range is there both r equal.....????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.58.170 ( talk) 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added a build number to the "date maintenance tags" run as requested. Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
Hi. I've noticed that the "find articles without math ratings tool" doesn't catch all articles. For example, consider Matchstick graph. It is in the List of mathematics articles (M). It does not have a maths rating template. And the tool doesn't show this article [1]. I don't know how your tool works, but I'm going to guess this is because that article does not have a talk page at all? (I'll be watching your talk page, so you can reply here.) -- Robin ( talk) 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
select distinct mp.page_title
from page as lp
join pagelinks
on pl_from = lp.page_id
join page as mp
on (mp.page_title = pl_title and mp.page_namespace = 0)
join categorylinks as inside
on (mp.page_id = inside.cl_from and inside.cl_to = ? )
left join page as tp
on mp.page_title = tp.page_title
and mp.page_namespace = 0
and tp.page_namespace = 1
left join templatelinks
on tl_from = tp.page_id
and tl_namespace = 10
and tl_title = 'Maths_rating'
where lp.page_namespace = 0
and mp.page_namespace = 0
and pl_namespace = 0
and isnull(tl_from)
and lp.page_title like 'List_of_mathematics_articles%'
You have left a duplicate diff in your list. Can you provide the stub diff please. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. This is what I got from reading von Neumann. But my question was somewhat related to the history of set theory. It is said or at least understood that von Neumann attitude had an influence on research in set theory by somewhat blocking research on non well-founded set theory. I think at the gap between Dimitry Mirimanoff and Peter Aczel. Is it right from your point of view? -- Pierre de Lyon ( talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Recurring items on ITN ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know about that , it was one of the first that I did as a manual test of the new build, and since the changes were correct I saved them. Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC).
Hi,
I notice that you recently added the "maths rating" tag to the talk page for Riesz-Fischer theorem, but that you categorised the article as a stub. Prior to your adding this rating, I removed a stub marker from the main article page as I thought that the article was far from a stub. As such, I'm a little confused by your new stub rating. I notice that the edit summary says "script assisted", so this might explain things?
If you disagree and think that this article should be categorised as a stub, I'm more than happy to defer to your judgement, as I'm still a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia editor. However, if this is the case, please let me know why it should be categorised as a stub. After all, WP:stub says that "a stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" and this article is far more than that (even far more than the "few paragraphs" that are referred to later, which I don't think apply to this article anyway).
Thanks in advance for your help. I'd appreciate if you'd put the reply on my own talk page. :-) Tcnuk ( talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
CBM,
Smackbot's edit summaries end in "build 391:,". It seems a little peculiar. Is that intended behaviour? - Richard Cavell ( talk) 06:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Carl,
I followed your suggestion to hack the ISBN script. I've rewritten it, but my experience with JavaScript is minimal and I need help debugging. Do you know anyone who might be able to help debug? Thanks,
DarkStarHarry (
talk)
14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you did some edits on this template and was wondering if you know how and would create a collapsible perameter for it. Thank you. - TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 05:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Register ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Register ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of times you reverted the noreferences tag due to the article being a stub. My understanding is all articles, even stubs, should have references to avoid OR and inaccurate information being added. I've checked WP:Stubs but didn't see anything about not needing references. Is there a place where this issue has been discussed or is given in a guideline or policy?-- RDBury ( talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content review ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the ANI thread on mass unref'd BLP deletions, but are you ware that ArbCom allowed that by motion? Pcap ping 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there some category intersection tool (on toolserver or the like), or did you use mathbot's output? I was thinking of doing the same for Romanian BLPs and Computer Science BLPs, with the caveat there's no mathbot equivalent output for those... Pcap ping 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but it doesn't look like you've got the full lists. I've got more than those by using catscan for the CS people, and the much faster intersection tool for the Romanians (catscan failed to produce any output there, probably because there were about 400 matches.) Perhaps you should run those on the mathematicians as well in case you've missed some by your method. Pcap ping 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
select distinct(art.page_title)
from page as art
join page as talk
on art.page_title = talk.page_title
and art.page_namespace = 0
and talk.page_namespace = 1
join categorylinks as unref
on art.page_id = unref.cl_from
join templatelinks as tla
on tla.tl_from = art.page_id
and tla.tl_namespace = 10
join templatelinks as tlt
on tlt.tl_from = talk.page_id
and tlt.tl_namespace = 10
where
( tlt.tl_title = 'WPRO'
or ( tla.tl_title in
('Romania-stub',
'Romania-bio-stub',
'Romania-politician-stub',
'Romania-actor-stub',
'Romania-singer-stub',
'Romania-footy-bio-stub',
'Romania-sport-bio-stub',
'Romania-athletics-bio-stub')
)
)
and unref.cl_to = 'All_unreferenced_BLPs';
Wikipedia:Abuse response/Guidelines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see my question about the new online assessment database (the thing connected to the new WP 1.0 bot) at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.-- Danaman5 ( talk) 04:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, no need to be so aggressive and threaten with blocking IPs. You cannot expect John Doe to know all the exact definitions and guidelines of Wikipedia. It just seemed to me that the article on Sourav Chatterjee was still way under-sourced - that's why I put the tag back into the article. Patschy ( talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Anyway, thanks for editing the article and making it more factual. Patschy ( talk) 07:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
And do not erase discussions off talk pages. Likebox ( talk) 10:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_topic_ban_or_extended_block_of_User:Likebox. Pcap ping 11:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Carl, Logical truth is the single most fundamental concept in logic. It should be no surprise to anyone to see a sentence in the fist paragraph describing a topic's relation to logical truth. Furthermore, it is my intention to insert such sentences in many articles as appropriate. I shouldn't have any problems AT ALL doing this. Please tell Emil explicitly to stop. I would appreciate it. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness for you Carl. As you know I am the pontiff of my own religion. I have, in the past, named people I know to be wonderful people as "saints". Well you are not quite a saint, but you are all right.
You took out the category "propositional logic" from rule of inference, and I think most people would find that strange. Those categories are supposed to inclusive. If a person is an American analytic moral philosopher, the article is in Category:American philosophers, Category:Moral philosophers, and Category:Analytic philosophers. I realize that all kind of systems can have rules of inference, however I think people who are searching in that category are going to find it odd to not find it there. If we do get exclusive with the categories, perhaps we can establish some conventions regarding these things in an MOS for logic (See User:Gregbard/MOS. I think a lot of issues can be resolved by organizing things and adopting some of these guidelines). These articles should at least be relegated to the category of the most basic system which uses the concept (e.g. rules of inference of a propositional logic). Anyway I felt bad about reverting something of yours without mentioning anything about the issue.
I am still pretty sure Ayer intended to state a general principle, not explicate vocabulary. I don't think even systems which reject (or are otherwise not consistent with) the deduction theorem intend to construct things which are not both true and logical. I also do not think they intend to infer in an invalid way. I do not see how the general statement 'every l.t. can serve as a r.o.t...& vice versa.' can be rejected without abandoning logic. Like I said even non-classical systems aren't trying to be nonsense they are trying a new way to construct logical truths.
I have been studying logical truth recently. It is perhaps the single most important concept in logic. I expect, in the future to be inserting content explicating, in the lede, the relationship of all of the following articles to logical truth: Logic, Logical form, Logical consequence, Validity, Satisfiability, Syntax (logic), Tautology (logic), Formal proof, Salva veritate, Classical logic, Non-classical logic, and Logical connective (and each individual logical connective). There are at least a couple of other ones. There should be no shock or surprise at all about this, but I expect that someone will find a reason to create problems, rather than collaborate. As always, I invite your correspondence. Be well, Greg Bard ( talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you were contributing the a debate on primary secondary and tertiary sources at WT:NOR. Are you aware of the draft separate guideline on PSTS? The idea is that it would allow WP:NOR to concentrate on the NOR aspect of PSTS. The definitions etc. etc. would be in the guideline. Take a look at User:Yaris678/PSTS. Yaris678 ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. Have a great evening.
Ikip
05:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
for dealing with this mess. Pcap ping 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi CBM, I've had a couple of people recently express an interest in POSSIBLY helping with the indexing - you should probably read the comments here (there's also someone from the strategy group I spoke with). Can you comment there, or here, or somewhere, on where someone can get the code, and what the issues are from your perspective? I can work with them regarding the semantic information (which I think you said was the main issue), if you can get them at least started. This is one of the main things to fix for 0.8, so I would like to harness someone's enthusiasm before they go off elsewhere! Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got a decent listing of Category:Software after I snipped the tree in all the right places (basically all that I bitched about at WP:CATP), but apparently I can't save it here because it 17Mb in size. Tried a few times and all I get back is a blank HTML page (not even blank wiki page). Any idea how to work around that? Save in increments maybe? Pcap ping 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was definitely logged-in into JIRA. I only was able to create issues for the "Account Request" project. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 09:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Should PeerReviewBot monitor talkspace for {{ oldpeerreview}} templates so it can incorporate them into T:AH. It seems like there is a lot of bot-friendly work that I am doing manually.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I just noticed that Wikipedia:Peer review/Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga/archive1 is still listed on WP:PR although it has not been edited since Dec 18 (by me, doing the partial translcusion trick for PR size). Not sure why the bot did not archive it. I did not archive it by hand as I thought it might be useful for you to see it as it is. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I know that a similar situation certainly applies to CfDs (as you pointed out, this helps users judge whether or not the categories should remain) and I would certainly agree with you about a TfD for a non-deprecated template. I suppose I will read up on the X-for-deletion literature to see if this is mentioned. Either way, your suggestion merits consideration. Please respond on my talk if you want to reach me. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
in mathlogic topics. See Special:Contributions/IsleLaMotte. Pcap ping 21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Refactored this message a bit. thanks, hoping to hear from you. Ikip 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
First a kitty for you
andyzweb (
talk) has given you a
kitten! Kittens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
now to business. I love the link on your userpage
[2] when I click it there is a 3/5 chance of my mind exploding. I was wondering if you would provide the source for it? Anyway thanks for all the great contributions!
andyzweb (
talk)
03:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm user of the pt.wiki. I see the WP1.0 and will aply this on the pt.wiki. Why can I make this?! Thanks. Fabiano Tatsch ( talk) 13:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to bother you, and I left messages at my talk page and tb at Rich's and I would prefer really if they were at BON. I know this is a storm in a teacup, but I am at my wit's end over it. Since this article we have finished well not finished you know but done the whole of the translations for Hungarian revolution, and did some biographies and some maps and slowly working our way to putting it all together. This kind of silliness does distract I think from editors who just want to make content better. So I spotted it, but it must have done it in many other places with less active editors, but equally good ones, who may not watch an article every day. I posted right at the start the link to the "unfinished" version as we were editing it, and of course it is better now cos we finished editing it (which is not to say the article is finished, just that we finished and did another few after we thought it is all right). I find it bizarre that Rich seems not to want to understand that some things need human judgment. I also lend a hand at WP:PNT, rarely are there areticles there that are in languages I speak, but I think I am respected there cos I take those I can and leave those I can't. Do you think a bot could do that, shall we just put Google translation in for everything?
I am not asking for much I think, just that some things are best left to human judgment. I have said so all along. But with that, SmackBot should be allowed to do the genfixes etc that are uncontroversial, at least to me they are. SB does seem to overstep the mark quite a lot in suddenly doing something new that has not had approval, e.g. reordering references. When I am told that there is now a backlog of 200,000 minor edits because it's been stopped, well sorry about that, but the world still goes round the sun.
Really I wanted to leave WP because of this, and just give up. I think still I probably will just leave it. But I know Rich is a good man and honest and true and hard working, and I hope he thinks I am too, so I carry on for a bit.
Si Trew ( talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the latest thread on ANI as an uninvolved admin, please? Pcap ping 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'd be interested to hear you comments on the stuff at the bottom of Talk:Microsoft Macro Assembler#Notification. Of course someone can deny HTTP referrer from Wikipedia, but should that act have no impact on their standing here? In particular, when they also attempt to delete articles here? WP:AGF some more? Pcap ping 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This is something to remember. Lulu voting delete on a piece of software. He doesn't know that the link is "broken" only when referred from Wikipedia. Pcap ping 10:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Vopěnka's principle. How do you figure that Vopěnka's principle is discrete mathematics rather than foundations? JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I updated peer review for Feb. 2010, but when I went to the VeblenBot account on the toolserver, the "February 2010 peer reviews" category was already there, so I did not do anything there. Is this correct? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
See [6] -- Rs chen 7754 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You can be serious about that revert. {{ Reflist}} is a style template, it does not change anything within the citation style. Anyway, an article's citation style is not set in stone. It actually has several advantages to include {{ Citation}} in that article (or any other), not only because it produces a consistent citation style throughout Wikipedia, but also because it produces machine-readable meta data. -- bender235 ( talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The WP 1.0 bot just duplicated the quality log at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Politics of the United Kingdom articles by quality log. [7] [8] Regards. Road Wizard ( talk) 01:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Model_theory you said
When people say "all models of NBG" or "all models of ZFC", they are speaking in a metatheory. If you take that metatheory to be ZFC itself, then "all models" means "all models that happen to be sets". Thus a model of NBG is simply a structure that is a set and satisfies the axioms of NBG.
I did not understand this when you first said it, but I gave it some thought yesterday. Suppose the meta theory is ZFC, and we want the class of all models of the object theory ZFC, which you say are sets in the meta theory that satisfy the axioms of ZFC. The thing I don't understand is that the meta theory ZFC is simply a bunch of wfs with axioms; there's no interpretation for this meta theory so "where are the sets" in this meta theory? Do we just assume that the (meta theory) ZFC is consistent and thus has a meta model M and then define the class of all models of (object theory) ZFC to be all members of M (which are sets ofc, not proper classes) that satisfy the axioms? Money is tight ( talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously hope that rollbacking someone you are in a dispute with on their own talkpage was simply an error... Fram ( talk) 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, CBM--- I know we don't see eye to eye all the time, and I don't know if I should bother you on your talk page, but I heard you were interested in the speed of light/Brews ohare case. If so, it might interest you to know that I have brought up a request for amendement regarding this case. If you are no longer interested in this case, I am sorry for bugging you. Likebox ( talk) 05:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are requested on a discussion about whether or not a particular page is a disambiguation page or a stub here. Neelix ( talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Participate/Solidarity? ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the custom table for the ships project. The B-class column was left out however. I left comments here. -- Brad ( talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I think you may not have seen the ANI thread that Gregbard has started. Maybe you want to contribute some background information. (See ANI notice on my talk page.) Unfortunately I am in a hurry and can't look closer at the situation. Hans Adler 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Do I really have to take Kepler's laws of planetary motion (Derivations) to AfD. It will be a complete waste of my and everybody else's time, partciularly since the page was only ever created by Brewe ohare as a duplicate of Kepler's laws of planetary motion to try and prove a point. The said user has long since been topic banned for amoung many issues including content forking. The "substantial edit history" that you talk of was 7 edits by Brews ohare from their attempt at forking this article all that time ago. I thought for the sake of tidyness it should go. Of course I'll respect your decision whatever but I thought you should know why I tagged it for speedy in the first place. Cheers Jdrewitt ( talk) 13:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure the arithmetical language doesn't contain nonligical symbols? Aren't Peano axioms formulated in an arithmetical language?
Another question:
Let's say we would like to formulate a bijection (or rather: a permutation) - from the class of invertible functions - to itself. So we can take: X - to be a free function-variable [or to be a function symbol] representing any invertible function, and Y - to be a free function-variable [or to be a function symbol] representing X's inverse function. Thus, we can build a bijection defined by the following trivial formula:
"∀a ((Y(X(a))=a) ∧ (X(Y(a))=a))".
(i.e. "for every a: if X is defined for a, then Y returns a for what's returned by X for a; and if Y is defined for a, then X returns a for what's returned by Y for a)".
Note that this formula involves a quantification over individual-variables only, not over function-variables: All of function variables [if any] are free here - as one should expect, since this formula is intended to define a correspondence (bijection), rather than a proposition.
My question is: how should we technically classify - by a common term - the logical language in which this formula is formulated (first order language? second order language? arithmetical language? logical language with pure identity?), while we would like to assume that this formula is formulated in the "minimal simplest" language needed for building this formula.
Thank you in advance,
HOOTmag ( talk) 13:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
hey howlong u been on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babygirl100 101 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow.... Thanks for your work and the work of so many others on the inverse iteration page.
it may seem like an obscure area, but I have found this article a tremendous help in my work
Wayne S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.87.136 ( talk) 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Category names ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Documentation for the Wikipedia/texvc LaTeX dialect or some program options? m:TeX looks resonable for the former. Pcap ping 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at the parsing code for now, and the basic idea is that it implements its own crude AMS LaTeX parser in
ocamllex plus
ocamlyacc
[9]. It accepts a fixed, hardcoded set of control sequences. Anything failing this parser does not go forward. The parser is pretty restrictive, e.g. <math>\mbox{ 1 {2} 3 }</math> fails to parse because, gasp, the mbox code is a crude lookahead in the lexer, which doesn't support nesting. Lots more kludges like this; the relevant files are lexer.mll and parser.mly in the math dir. It's not a real LaTex parser, but it does use some Ocaml parser specifics, like the ability to run code and return complex tokens from the lexer itself (this can be used to overcome the
LALR1-ness of ocamlyacc, I've used this trick myself with multi-stage ocaml parses/lexers -- they can nested to arbitrary depths unlike their C equivalents, but this feature isn't well used in texvc). You cannot \def
any LaTeX tokens either. Also the contents of boxes excludes any control sequences, e.g. \mbox { \sin } fails to parse. Supposedly, this is all done for security purposes, but lacking any comments in the code it's a wild guess what's a bug, and what's a security feature. I don't think you'd want to replicate this undocumented mess in any reimplementation. I haven't looked at how output is generated yet.
Pcap
ping
21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
I think you tend to under-prioritize set theory articles. Certainly I could have the opposite bias. But do you really think projective hierarchy is low priority? -- Trovatore ( talk) 05:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Independent of this, once I get the majority of math logic articles assessed at all, I'd like to make a list of Top, High, and Mid priority articles all on one page, so that interested people can discuss the selection as a whole, rather than discussing priorities on an article-by-article basis. I think that might be more fair in terms of treating similar articles in a similar way. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you monitor WPM but just to make sure you're aware, there is another discussion on adding C-Class for math articles. This would seem to require an update of VeblinBot so I thought you'd want a chance to have your say before the discussion goes too far.-- RDBury ( talk) 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you chime in at the above mentioned discussion? Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi CBM, thanks again for getting the new 1.0 bot working. It seems to have gone remarkably smoothly, considering the thousands who use it - congratulations! Sorry I've been so busy with the conference I'm helping to organize, I've been quiet on WP.
I was wondering if you could comment on the discussions over at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, particularly the new script that Kevin has written to create an index. You can probably follow the mathematical concepts better than I can! Do you think he's on the right track? Is there anything major that he's overlooked? No need for you to get involved with the index again, but your insights on this could be very valuable. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 07:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello - as someone who has discussed the inclusion/exclusion of amusement park victim names in the past at Talk:Incidents_at_Six_Flags_parks#tower_of_power.2C_victim.27s_name, you may be interested in joining us at Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks#RFC:_including_or_excluding_victim_names, which continues the discussion after another incident has occurred. SpikeJones ( talk) 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, details here. Rich Farmbrough 10:54 2 February 2010 (UTC).
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tables ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:When to use tables ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NS6 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's just that I do get the impression that if I say black, you say white. I apologize if I have the wrong impression. As for your posts to Smokey, I felt they were were misleading. I don't think you can expect others to sit back and watch that. Smokey is either a very inexperienced editor or a sock. Either way, his presence on the page isn't helping anything, and posting a misleading explanation adds fuel to the fire.
I agree that the writing in the policy could be better, but I've explained the problem. Ideally, the people who wrote the policy should be able to keep it evolving as their experience, and that of the community, grows. But that isn't allowed on that page.
Perhaps we should try to work together from now on, and not in opposition; focus more on what we agree on, in other words, and less on our differences. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)