![]() | This page 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. |
thanks for your comments on the rfd. i put my reply there. Lunch 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The page floating point needs expert attention, and such experts are extremely rare. Based on your past contributions in this or related fields, I wonder if you could take a look. William Ackerman 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been working to cleanup ATLAS. I see that you have edited related pages in the past. If you would be so good as to check out the latest version and contribute to or comment on the article, it would be most appreciated. Cheers, -- Jake 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir, please explain your justification for removing links to free software on FEA. I understand the reasoning behind removing links to commercial software, but as a USER of Wikipedia, I find links to good, free software to be very valuable information. -- anon
could you remove the semi-protect on the galatasaray and turkey national football team artice there are some mistakes in it and i cannot fix it. -- anon
You said: "and "3+i2" is definitely rare"
For a very common counter-example, see: Euler's identity#Derivation
-- Bob K 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully it will be alright. There was a banned user targetting it previously with various IPs.-- Konst. able 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Jitse, it looks as if you or another Wiki reviewer has been editing posts without entering a reason. Did you alter the info on 10/14/06 that cited the scribal division method:
one (1) divided by 2 2/3, written as 1/(8/3) = 3/8 = 1/4 1/8
right?
Scribes mentally did compute with vulgar fractions, as scholars have missed for the last 75 - 150 years (since scholars had thought that all arithmetic operations had to employ unit fractions at every step --- a silly proposition on its face, yet one that has confused scribal subtraction and division since the RMP was first published in the 1870's).
Occam's Razor confirms this proposal, since the simplicity of mental division of vulgar fractions would not have required shorthand notes, as Ahmes and the other scribes selected in the style writing of their answers, such as dividing one (1) by 2 2/3 = 1/4 1/8 (per 1/(8/3) = 3/8 = 1/4 1/8), and generally, (a/b)/(c/d) = ad/bc.
Can yesterday's post be restored since no reason was given for its removal?
Best Regards,
Milo Gardner
A 2003 paper alternatively suggests that algorithms and proportions were related to this subject, such as dividing one (1) by 2 3/3. Given that scribes tended to write answers to this class of problem, in this case 1/4 1/8, without citing the intermediate steps confusion has dominated scholarly discussions, hence the algorithm and proportion and other more awkward dvision proposals. Had scribes shown all their logical steps scribal arithmetic debates would have been ended years ago. The current remainder arithmetic view is that vulgar fractions were used in the intermediate steps, or converting 2 2/3, a quotient and remainder, to a vulgar fraction or 8/3. Then the division steps would have been: 1/(8/3) = 3/8 = 1/4 1/8, as scribes may have completed mentally (hence no scribal notes were listed).
(I see your editorial points, ones that are made in the abstract and not connected to the remainder arithmetic subject. As a mathematician I expect a little pencil to paper activity at some point in your pure 'word person' editorical function. Let me know when Annette's paper, or some other actual debating point from the other side is wished to be read? Thanks again for the comments. Milo)
(Yes, the problem is that Babylonian scholars wish to interject algorithm from a cursive context fron prior to 2000 BCE into the debate of reading Egyptian unit fraction texts created after 2000 BCE based on remainder arithmetic methods. The Jens Hoyrup, Eleanor Robson group tend to see themselves as gatekeepers for all of the ancient Near East, before and after 2000 BCE. These two scholars have taken Annette Imhausen under their wings and suggested to her to rhetorical use algorithms and proportions as a way to read post 2000 BCE Egyptian arithmetic ).
Jitse,
Thank you for the extended comments. The 2003 paper was authored by Annette Imhausen, and edited by two well known Babylonian scholars, Jens Hoyrup and Eleanor Robson, titled " Egyptian Mathematical Texts and their Contexts". This information and its confusing conclusion that algorirthms and proportions were involved in solving simple division problems like 1 divided by 2 2/3 is silly on its face --- It was not cited because it is totally wrong, creating a strawman of the worse sort.
Yet, Babylonian scholars continue to propose that recursion, a form of algorithm, used for base 60 and Egyptian base 10 prior to 2,000 BCE, both employed a form of round-off, would show Babylonian numeration was superior to Egyptian numeration. This topic is one of the major debating themes that is hold back the simple vulgar fraction aspect of reewriting 2 2/3 as 8/3 so that its inverse form --- a favored Babylonian technique for its unit fraction series that only used multiples of 2,3 and 5 in their denominators, was superior to the Horus-Eye Old Kingdom binary form that only used multiples of 2n in its denominators.
Thus Imhausen, Hoyrup, et al, and their Babylonian views that support Otto Neugebauer, Exact Sciences in Antiquity's odd conclusion that Egyptian fractions marked a sign of intellectual decline, rather that its actual historical value, intellectual advancement, need to be directly confronted.
Note that all of my citations have been posed within a continuing debate context, a sad fate for Egyptian mathematics - placed in the back seat, with Babylonian scholars being the regional driver of the history books. But debate is moving in this area, so another 10 years or so - the actual confrontation with Babylonian and Egyptian scholars will be enjoined, based on issues cited and fairly reviewed on Wiki, with the anticipated winner being selected by Occam's Razor, and not classical rhetorical techniques.
Thanks again for the discussion. I'll consider your editorial advise, even though you seem not to have read or understand any of the details of the subject, or worked simple examples like 1 divided by 8/3, by following Occam's Razor, or any rigorous history of science methodology.
Best Regards,
Milo Gardner
Jitse, the reliable source for scribal divison of 1/(8/3) or any
fraction by a fraction is provided by modern arithmetic. That is,
(a/b)/(c/d) = ad/bc as we write today. Note that most modern
arithmetic books do not list the (a/b)/(c/d) = ad/bc rule, thereby
causing confusion by Egyptologists that were not solid students
of arithmetic before entering Egyptology. But the facts speak for
themselves, as Occam's Razor, and your pencil and paper qucikly
affirm, provided you take the time to scratch out a few problems
and answers. Best Regards, Milo.
Continuing, responding to your request to justify Egyptian arithmetic, the average modern arthmetic student divides fractions by inverting the fraction and multipling, exactly as 1/(7/3) = 3/7 was written by Egyptian scribes in 2000 BCE. The modern problem of translating the ancient Egyptian artihmetic is that Egyptian arithmetic was written in unit fractions, or 3/7 = 1/7 + 2/7 = 1/4 + 1/7 + 1/28, a form of writing vulgar fraction as the RMP 2/nth table clearly shows for 2/p conversions, and by implication n/p. Too bad that Otto Neugebauer, Exact Sciences in Antiquity got it wrong, and suggested th Egyptian arithmetic was not unified (or his words, that Egyptian fractions marked intellectual decline - which surely it did not!) The 2000 BCE unit fraction notation has been falsely attacked by Neugebauer et al, as marking intellectual decline, as surely is wrong based on its divison of fractions being no different than we use in 2006 AD. Try writing any rational number, or improper fraction, to a short and concise unit fraction series, now or 4,000 years ago, and you'll find quotients and remainders, with the remainders being unitized as Egyptian scribes understood and detailed 4,000 years ago. That is, Egyptian fraction notation and methods marked intellectual advancement, with one proof being modern division of fractions being used by scribes. There are other proofs of unification that I'd be happy to share with Wiki, at the proper time.
I'll be pointing out Spalinger's 1988 paper that shows Barley, Emmer, Dates and Hekat relationships that were not based on proportion but on simple vulgar fraction divisions, as required in 2006 AD. The ancient practical beer and bread ingredient table info follows:
Barley Emmer Dates Hekat Barley 1 3/8 2/3 3/2 Emmer 8/3 1 16/9 4 Dates 3/2 9/16 1 9/4 Hekat 2/3 1/4 4/9 1
Emmer was a type of grain. Begin anywhere in table and proportions are the silly and long way to get the answer. Reading Imhausen's or anyone's review of this paper, and related papers, cites the data as 100 divided by 25 equals 4. Where is the proportional thinking in that? How silly! Best Regards, Milo
Jitse, thanks for editing the table. We can delay a broader discussion of this topic until Dec. 2006 or Jan 2007, if you desire. Best Regards, Milo
Jitse, my documentation problem begins in 2006 and our modern definitions of division. I have looked on the best USA web sites supoorted by NCTM, like Dr. Math, and they do not define division of fractions per the simple rule (a/b)/(c/d) = ad/bc. That type of cross multiplication rule seems to be reserved for ratios. How odd is that?
The most rigorous modern difinitions fall short of the ideal, simply state that when dividing a fraction by a fraction the divisor is inverted in multiplied, using words only, without the use of abstract representations of the component rational numbers. Given this language proof problem, I will search out the appropriate modern defintions of rational numbers, and then apply that test to the ancient Egyptian rational number division operation. Thanks for almost pointing me in the right direction. We are going in the right direction, looking for the why and why's of our modern and ancient arithmetic, showing the additive and abstract aspect that philosophers and k-6 math educators of both eras have struggled to define in everyday terminologies. Egyptians used unit fractions as their arithmetic context, while modern western and USA educators use base 10 decimals. Oddly modern teachers omit the abstract number theory definitions, as noted with respect to division, thereby confusing upto 75% of our modern students who never master fraction arthmetic while in school, an issue that I am taking up with NCTM in its dumbed down 1989 standards. Best Regards, Milo Gsrdner
You wrote: "However, they are not in the maths or physics WikiProjects (or if they are, they haven't come out of the closet yet)." Did you miss the whole fracass at the end of September, when {{ fact}}, {{ Veri policy}} and {{ noncompliant}} were being plastered all over science articles (e.g. Big Bang), and science articles were demoted from GA status without review because they had "not enough" inline citations? Much of this came from just two editors, one of who went on a rampage (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Disruption from User:ClairSamoht), while the other caused considerable distress by giving a week's time notice on most maths and physics GAs to comply with "the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation" before "deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article". I think it was this "citationgate" that led to the initiative for the presently proposed guidelines. -- Lambiam Talk 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I need my towel. Where did I leave my towel? -- Lambiam Talk 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Replying to KSmrq:
Of course, misuse can be harmful. For instance, the source cited may not support the text at all. But here I'm thinking about citations as
I don't think it's worth the effort to fight such cites. The problem is that people are lending too much importance to such citations. The important policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability, and citations are only a means to reach this goal (well, sometimes they're also needed for reasons of academic honesty). -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 10:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure exactly how to reply through the wiki in a way that you will get the message - is it best to use your talk page or mine? But in anycase - thanks Jitse for checking my question and putting it into effect. As for images, I think I've figured them out now. Richard Giuly 06:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I somehow missed your comments on my watchlist. In any case, I have responded on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal. Thanks! – Joke 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that great edit over at Projection (linear algebra), the article is much clearer now. Pdbailey 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
>I agree with Oleg that they're not useful. The main problem is that the webpage seems to be >about a mathematical theory which is not published in a reliable source like peer-reviewed >journals.
The real problem here is that the link I provided is a clear denuntiation of the way irrational numbers have been handled by mathematicians.
>Furthermore, there is no analysis of the new root-finding methods.
You have arbitrarily deleted SEVERAL other reliable sources which I included along with my link as for example: http://mathpages.com/home/kmath055.htm http://www.mathpath.org/Algor/cuberoot/cube.root.mediant.htm Dr. Sterven Finch, Generalized Continued Fractions and the Generalized Mediant
All those reliable sources along with many others are included in the link I provided.
All of them containing analysis on my the methods shown in my webpages.
Furthermore, in general terms, it is a real shame to read articles on root-solving from people who use to consider themselves as experts on roots solving but seem unaware about the crude fact that all those supposedly "advanced" cartesian-methods can be easily developed by means of the most simple arithmetic as shown in the link I provided. Furthermore, I am a civil engineer, structural engineer, and I think that if some mathematician consider himself as an expert on root-solving then he has the moral obligation to make whatever analysis should be made on those trivial methods. That's a moral obligation specially when considering that for mathematicians of past times it was almost imposible to compute a simple cube root. I don't have any reasons to post a complete analysis on those methods in my webpage, that's why I published my book which is mentioned there. The link I provided is just a brief summary.
Worst, almost all the links all over the wikipedia do not contain, at all, full demonstrations on the issued they deal about.
>The text is impossible to understand.
That's not true. You don't want to understand just because you don't want such denuntiation on the true history of root-solving. I bet you even have not read any single part of the link you want to let deleted. The proof of all that are the aforementioned reliable links where reknown authors have analyzed some of the methods even when they don't have to agree with my critics to Cartesian-System.
>You added the link to Newton's method, yet the web page is not at >all about >Newton's >method. That's why I am removing the link. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:03, >27 October >2006 (UTC)
The link I provided show that Newton's, Bernoulli's, Halley's and Householder's methods can be easily stated by means of the most simple arithmetic and that ancient mathematicians has at han the elementary arithmetical operation needed for developing such "advanced" methods. I understand these is the main reason some of you don't want my link to appear here, however, as said may there be other reasons. Besides, there are some explanations on why Newton's method is just a crude and primitive geometrical artifice which is not a Natural Method at all and should not be considered as being part of any Natural Philosophy.
Finally, I understand that you have not read through any single part of my methods, you are not interested in doing so. You just want to get it deleted.
I understand that, and I know it seems not sense to reply your message because the all of you have laid your wiki-cards on the table. The wikipedia is yours and not from others but only yours.
I only would ask you to allow me to save your comments and to pass them to some of my coleagues, and even use them as part of the next english edition of my book. I would deeply appreciate that, I think it is not so much to ask from the wikipedia editors specially when considering that you are experts on root-solving and endorse your own statements with so much courage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arithmonic ( talk • contribs)
My pleasure - I've stumbled across several linkspam festivals tonight. I detest spam and it's been a little while since I devoted a chunk of time to getting rid of it. If they want to increase their Google Rank here, they've got to get through us first. :-) Thanks! Krakatoa Katie 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thank you for the help
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
for helping me with my qusestion TrackMonkey 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
TrackMonkey 22:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The
Jansanskrity article is showing a redlink for the AFD debate that you relisted. I'm assuming you can fix it better than I can! Sorry to trouble you - I've fixed it now. --
Mereda
12:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't added the POV tag, I just reaffirmed anon's addition. There are much more problems with the article than just the criticism section. Nikola 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Jitse, I have understood that you are some kind of editor of the Srebrenica massacre article. As you know I have felt that the article is a bit too long, usually the result of people adding bits and pieces along the way or of compromises where everyone want to get their piece in. Anyway, after a long discussion on the Talk page, which you participated in, I went ahead and changed the introduction text. Immediately someone called Fairview went in and reverted my edit, referring to some historical discussion. Fairview had not participated in the discussion on the Talk page although he was active on Wikipedia at the time and had ample time to follow the discussion and suggestions. Frankly, I feel that he disrespected the Talk page and behaved as if he somehow 'owned' the article.
Could you please talk to him? Otherwise there will be no use in participating in trying to improve the Srebrenica massacre article. KarlXII 01:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jitse. Not surprisingly, said user is still trolling with edits such as this. Would you mind blocking him (perhaps for a longer period this time)? Thanks. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 11:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So we can all see what this is about, 198.54.202.254 ( talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) is the address in question. JRSpriggs 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about your point over at Projection (specifically, your reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Proofs]) and I realized that I don't want to be an Wikipedia editor in the maths articles -- I have no interest in mathematics entries in an encyclopedia as a reader or writer. Thanks for pointing to this now! Pdbailey 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Jitse. There was no reason to delete Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah, because noone explained real argument and all experts said real arguments. Sincerely -- fivetrees 12:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jitse. About the message you left me, it is OK to delete the header. -- Meno25 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Jitse - I have initiated on AfD on Aryabhata's relativity principle. -- EMS | Talk 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, this was an odd bug, well worth catching. Thanks for your help on other ISBNs. PLease let me know if you see any more strangeness, and if it's since now, please halt the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54 19 November 2006 (GMT).
Attention: Jitse Niesen
Despite your fancy post-doc in mathematics, I still know how the basic discovery of calculus came about. There was in fact a convention that Newton attended that Leibniz lectured at. I am in the process of finding the source from which I encountered this information. I suggest that you try looking for it before you start saying there was no convention. I do concede I was wrong about Gauss. Newton did not published before Leibniz, but had worked out his methods before him. And hear in America, Newton invented Calculus. We don't know anything about Leibniz. There are historical documentations that prove Newton took Leibniz's theories. Furthermore, I plan to continue editting this page because I'm American. Since you speak English, you know the last four letters are i can, which I will continue editting until I can't. So give me liberty or give me death -Patrick Henry. Well, not death, but blockage. You have angered the math gods. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trd89 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 2006 November 20.
Jitse, at various points in the last few months, 1) I have found out after the fact that I had been sharing my heartfelt thoughts with nothing but a sockpuppet, 2) I have been outnumbered and mocked by Bormalagurski and about 4 of his sockpuppets, 3) I have wasted a significant amount of time with Osli73 who would feign reasonable discussion just to get traction for willful revisionism and denial, and more.
I guess I have lost some of my patience.
But, yes, if truly in good faith, I remain open and willing to discuss issues.
Fairview360 05:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm becoming very irritated about the accusations and the aggressiveness of the editors of this page. I've been nothing but polite and open about my edits here. Still I get this type of reaction. I urge Fairview to launch an investigation (yes, bot osli and I are Swedish, no we're not the same person) and I would suggest that you, Jitse, since you are apparently the one in charge here, work harder at setting a more polite tone. You could start by setting an example and reprimanding Bosniak for his
hateful personal attack on me (since "Milosevic lover" must be considered a slur, not to talk of the other things he writes). From now on I'll be limiting myself to pages where editors don't immediately call each other names.
KarlXII
09:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at this diff, where 978-0-898714-54-8 is "corrected" to 978-978-0-898714-54-8. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess I've been out of the loop for a while. I'm trying to get caught up. I wonder if there's any news with Blahtex? What's the status? - lethe talk + 22:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not allow other editors to hunt for a source, because most of the time I am busy and can't do all the job for others.
Or, instead of constant reverts, why not just put a tag "Citation Missing"?
It's better to use "Citation Missing" tag then to constantly revert articles.
What do you think?
Drop me a line.
Cheers. Bosniak 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Taking the Linear programming page as my model, it seemed sensible to provide information where non-trivial computational tasks have already been solved/implemented. The current Partial differential equation page gives the reader no assistance in solving their PDE problem, other than references to methods that the reader must then implement for themselves. I set the page up to be ready for a list (I suspect that there are probably a dozen reasonable tools to mention) but I am only qualified to add one entry to that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 November 2006
Jitse, I do in fact welcome discussion.
In the following sentence, I believe the antecedents of the pronoun "they" are both the UN and the Dutch peacekeepers. "The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the massacre."
Clearly, given the available forces of the UN, the Dutch infantry on the ground, and the VRS' history of backing down when faced with determined resistance, the UN did in fact have the capacity to prevent the massacre. To say "their presence" did not prevent the massacre gives the UN military presence the same connotation as say a pile of inanimate rocks that happened to be partially blocking the road into Srebrenica. The UN soldiers on the ground and the jets in the air were there to give meaning to "UN-protected safe area". They had a mission to fulfill and they had the necessary assets to fulfill it. The UN failed. When the UN had the assets of the most powerful military force on earth (NATO) at its disposal, when jets were in the air just waiting for permission to intervene, when the VRS had shown time and again that they would back down when faced with determined resistance, and the UN decided to do nothing, it would be a whitewash to give the impression that they were not really capable of preventing the massacre.
I think the room for debate comes when the antecedents of "they" are not clear. Perhaps that is where we ought to focus our editing discussion. I am comfortable with "they", but perhaps there is a way to formulate the sentence so that it is not interpreted as focusing on the individual soldiers themselves separated from the entire UN apparatus.
Thoughts? Fairview360 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wether the Dutch peacekeepers, within the realms of reason, could have prevent the takeover of Srebrenica is a matter of debate. The analysis made by Fview is ONE interpretation of the situation. However, it is not an established fact which is why I prefer the more neutral "their presence did not prevent the massacre". If he wants to discuss the various analysis of the role of the Dutch peacekeepers, let him do so in the article, not stealthily insinuate it in the introduction.
KarlXII
12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the categorization of Mathematica as a Computer Algebra System. Wolfram has never described it as such, and while it does include computer algebra capabilities, to describe it as "mainly used for computer algebra" misleading. Some references:
etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMcLoone ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 29 November 2006
The reference above to Dr Dobbs interview Interview 1993 does not contradict my claim that Wolfram does not describe Mathematica as a CAS. In fact it supports it, he says there, in essence "its not like SMP which was a CAS". Here is the full quote from that article "I got to do a test run of some of the ideas in Mathematica in a system called SMP that I built in the late '70s or early '80s. It was more oriented toward computer algebra; it wasn't as ambitious a system as Mathematica. "
I also don't agree that the manual has that bias. There are 9 category headings in the documentation , Numerical computation gets equal billing to Algebraic computation, and appears ahead of it in the list: "Numerical Computation, Algebraic Computation, Mathematical Functions, Lists and Matrices, Graphics and Sound, Programming, Input and Output, Notebooks, System Interface"
I do agree that "mainly used for technical computation" is pretty meaningless, I took it from the Matlab reference. Perhaps "Also used for computer algebra" is a reasonable compromise? JonMcLoone 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
About those recent edits from 84.9.129.164 and User:83.146.14.9... Have you noticed that other edits from the same ISP in London, have also been pretty interesting? For example, [1], [2] and [3]from 83.146.14.198, [4], [5] from 83.146.12.44. This makes me wonder if these edits at "improving the description" really are a subtle form of vandalism. I suppose it could just be well-intentioned but ignorant edits, but the picture change and recent comment about those "ignorant of the profession" makes me wonder. -- C S (Talk) 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It is nice to smile once in a while, it is good for the health :)) Well, as far as I know, it is a relatively new template and I only ran into it because I saw it in the TfD page after it was nominated for deletion by someone who, I think, didn't see the humor/contextualize message of the template :) I have been perusing some of the debates in articles like Kosovo and Srebrenica Massacre for a while (even though I don't dare join in :)), and I thought it might help everyone contextualize things a little bit. Cheers! Baristarim 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look and see if it is ok, thanks - Kghose 06:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jitse, Talk:0.999.../Arguments's very own guardian troll, whose last incarnation was 198.54.202.254 ( talk • contribs), is now alive and kicking as 41.243.47.226 ( talk • contribs) and 41.243.26.131 ( talk • contribs). Blocks, anyone? -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 20:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, for the past month he has only used addresses in the range 41.243.00xxxxxx. He changes IPs every once in a while, but in every time period he uses some range consistently, and he is very easy to recognize. Surely something can be done (range block, etc.)? -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Too bad. Thanks anyway. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 04:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have answered you on my talk page Knarf-bz 11:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jitse Niesen,
I'd like to apologize if I was excessively snarky on the WP:GA/R review of Homotopy groups of spheres. I was dealing with a nontrivial extra-Wiki stress-level (taking 4 PhD-level classes plus one 200-level Chinese course; and it's final exams/term papers crunch time). I shouldn't have let extra-wiki stress spill on-wiki, but didn't realize it at the time. A minor positive side-benefit is that I have learned from the experience.
Best Regards, -- Ling.Nut 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly the one of the most important formulas of the complex argument doesn't appear in the atricle. If you think I added it in the wrong place, just copy it to more convinient place, but why do you just delete it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dima373 ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Dear Jitse Niesen,
Thank you for your interest in the article on the theory of everything. However, please do not revert it. You seem like you may be interested in mathematics. If so, have you ever considered the true definition of 1/0, as it is the negative reciprocal of 0? If not, perhaps you should read the article a bit closer before choosing to revert it. I think you will find it important.
sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.139 ( talk) 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
This is not true, the purpose of wikipedia is to provide free and useful information to the masses. Peer-reviewed journals are a kind of exclusive fraternity/sorority that do not allow revolutionary truths to be told. Furthermore, this is not original research. The theory of everything is something simple that everybody can understand and realize for themselves. For example, I am not the one who decided that 1/0 is the negative reciprocal of 0. It is simply a natural truth that anyone can discover for themselves. In fact, there are others who have discovered the same truth. Their names are Arecliar and Edward Solomon. So you see, the reciprocal of 0 is not original research; it is something plain that anybody can see for themselves. THanks again for your interest.
sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.139 ( talk) 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
This policy in a nutshell:
Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.
Thanks for your interest in this page and your help to improve the page. I think your changes clarified a few things and certainly made the page easier to understand. I further simplified a few more things, in kind of the same spirit as your previous changes.
As for your comments about describing the application side of it, well, I thought of adding a section on "Historical Development". But doing so may violate Wikipedia's policy in disclosing material that has not been published. Although the use of such concept has been published in engineering literatures, its historical development and description of where it has been used have not been published.
While I consider the options, any advice would be helpful. Meanwhile, I added another reference, which implies where and when the concept was discovered, and what area it was applied in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyap ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi Jitse,
Thanks muchly for your note on Talk:Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. I'm willing to wait a few days on submitting it to FAC — do you think you could get to it by then? I'd really appreciate it. It probably will be easy for you — or at least I hope I explained clearly enough! :) Thanks again, Willow 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We should definitely wait for your review before submitting to the FAC. There's nothing to rush us, except the pleasure of getting another FA for the Physics WikiProject. I'll be traveling for the holidays in a little over a week, so I won't be able to help out much during the FAC, anyway. Maybe we should just plan on submitting in January instead? Just a thought, Willow 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually i can not justify, right now, it has to be 90 ( i was wrong when i said 180 ), but i will try to show, from the composite error, that it should be that way.
If the error of the simple rule is then we can derive the error of the composite rule if we consider and as the limits of each coupled subinterval. So a first aproach to the error would be . If each subinterval has the same length then and the sum can be written . We can also write as which can be written . Using the previous results, the error can be expressed as . Aplying the intermediate-value theorem to the average leads to the corresponding expression of the composite error. -- Diegonc 06:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked it again, and the definition of is inconsistent within my explanation. Where it says it should say , and this leads to the expresion as it was before. Excuse me for the trouble. -- Diegonc 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You must have been gaining some attention.... [6] Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up RKF45. Are you sure this is still being used, though? I've never heard of it being used in a non-educational context since the 70's. yandman 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not obvious to everyone. It wasnt obvious to me when I first saw it until I actually proved it myself on paper. Dont be arrogant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.60.18.238 ( talk) 10:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
for making the Mathematica: A World of Numbers and Beyond page more elegant. -- Sternkampf 08:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. -- bainer ( talk) 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You UCLA guys have it easy. My only consolation is that your office is in an atrociously depressing, cramped building. -- C S (Talk) 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Added a comment. - Patstuart talk| edits 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Mathematics and God, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Mathematics and God. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be down :( - I've carried out archives to bring it up to date. M a rtinp23 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Jitse, on December 3, you selectively deleted the history of 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy because an IP had added personal information about one of the boys allegedly involved in the incident. Unfortunately, today another IP added the same information back into the article and another admin selectively deleted the history but accidentally restored the edits you had deleted.I've emailed oversight-l and asked for the edits from December 3 and today to be oversighted. I just wanted to let you know this happened because I think it could easily happen again if people use selective deletion instead of asking for it to be oversighted. It's very easy to ask for oversight and the email address is here WP:RFO. Cheers, Sarah 14:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, this looks the same as Binomial inverse theorem. Heigh ho. What's the correct procedure for getting rid of a page that was created in error?
best wishes, Robinh 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
{{db-author}}
Hello, Jitse Niesen, I wanted to let you know that I have edited your monobook file because it was incorrectly appearing in Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted). This should not cause any problems for you, but if it should for some reason please make sure that you do not reinsert yourself in the category when you fix it. Thanks, Prodego talk 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Tetration ha, yeah. Wow, sorry, don't know what I was thinking! jugander ( t) 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)