![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
And for cleaning up the hyphens, dashes, and minus signs in the quadratic residue article (I'd swear that somewhere I read that – was proper for formulas; I didn't even realize that − existed)
I can see the difference between – and − by juxtaposing them; –− the minus is raised a pixel or so higher. Subtle.
Thanks again.
Virginia-American ( talk) 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The probability of the Solovay-Strassen primality test can be more specifically limited than 1/2. I will find the reference in the textbook that a math teacher of mine owns. Meanwhile, I have my own version (the math teacher made me re-calculate everything). It involves the use of Bayes' rule.
"To derive the probability of failure of the Solovay-Strassen Primality test, Bayes' rule is used. In this problem, event A will be the probability that n survives m number of trials and event B will be the probability that n is composite. So, the probability that a number n is composite given that it survives m number of trials is what we are looking for. P(A|B) (the probability that a composite number n survives m number of trials) is less than or equal to 2^{-m} because at most half of the numbers can be liars. P(A) is expanded and found below. P(B) is the probability of choosing a composite number. The probability of choosing a prime number is about however, to increase our chances, we will discard the obviously non-prime, a.k.a. \textbf{even} numbers, doubling our chance to Thus the probability of choosing a composite number is since if n is prime the number of trials it can survive is infinite.
So
Does my probability still seem dubious?
-- Heero Kirashami ( talk) 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm making an usurpation request for the account EmilJ on da. — Emil J ( talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry, i was just hoping someone more relevant with the IPA would make the IPA more accurate. CuteHappyBrute ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Serbia recalled ambassadors for consultations from states recognizing Kosovo. This diplomatic procedure is by definition a temporary measure, all the ambassadors will be back sooner or later. 100 days is actually quite a lot."
I have seen your change. But then, what about the sentence "Arend Heyting (1898-1980) was himself interested in clarifying the foundational status of intuitionistic logic, when he introduced this type of structure." (my boldface)? -- Tillmo ( talk) 17:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I had not noticed that the sub-bullets were moved down into a footnote now. You are correct that since the move, the sub-bulleting no longer applies. Rossami (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear EmilJ,
Forgive me for reverting your recent edits to functional completeness.
I hope the discussion on the talk page helps you understand why I would do such a crazy thing. -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 05:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that the logos themselves are defined by code, why is it better to use images to represent them rather than have them constructed? Inline images are a bad idea for a number of reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Emil. Concerning unliking dates: "To avoid disruption, however, this deprecation should not be taken as license for wholesale removal of existing links from articles currently employing them extensively. Such removal from a given article should follow a consensus to do so among the editors of that page." ( [1]). For us in the Kosovo recognition article, mentioning what you are doing on the talk page in order to get us to use consistent dates might be a good idea. Best wishes, -- Mareklug talk 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Shoot, that makes thing a lot easier. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Before you do any more work on the article, just a quick reminder that this article is read (and edited) a lot by philosophers. I think they tend to have serious problems with trivial special cases of definitions, and that's why I havent done this earlier and even think it's a bad idea. It's not even the most typical way things are presented in mathematical books on the subject. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I won't do it again. I am dyslexic, so I'm not the best speller. But thanks anyway. Regards Ijanderson ( talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do with
User:Rjwilmsi at
User talk:Rjwilmsi#Kosovo. Assume that others are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
§hep •
¡Talk to me!
02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please
repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --
Avala (
talk)
12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User Nightstallion if it is possible to fix the link or copy/paste the contents but a dead link is by no means a reason to erase information or add fact template.-- Avala ( talk) 12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I am waiting to see what are you going to come up with now that I have added a completely working link - [3] -- Avala ( talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you may be interested in this report of the violation by User:Londo06 here. Cheers Tony (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. When you add a user warning template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply to this message please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, EmilJ (hmmmmm.... are we perhaps distant relatives?), for your swift and helpful response on this. I must admit, though, that it was grudging at first glance when I realized I'd have to tough it out and look up my rusty IPA. As it turns out, the Hebrew transliteration I was provided is correct, and to my delight, the IPA symbol for that third-syllable consonant is just like the Yiddish letter pair representing that sound! -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Is a bit long, but can you comment at Template_talk:Euro_adoption_future#I_propose_to_change_the_name_and_the_structure? It will be very much appreciated.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Emil, i am sooory! Yes, this is the same article!! I am a ...
Tadija ( talk) 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Dobrý den. Z čeho soudíte, že to není havran ale krkavec. Ve slovníku je u hesla raven napsáno krkavec, havran, tedy oboje? Díky za odpověď. Chalupa z české wikipedie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.222.130.1 ( talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew N. Robertson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 14:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Andrew N. Robertson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew N. Robertson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
it is not ok to use such a language EmilJ. What I did was to help people to understand i easier since it is confusing to use sqrt(-1) as in 'proper use' section of the article. this is neither pseudoscience nor lunatic. i is a definition and one can define things different than other people, this is not pseudoscience but just a different idea. you may not open to different ideas but that doesn't allow you call other people as 'lunatic'. we are trying to share information as well as ideas here
by the way, I talked to Quaeler and settled the issue.. ( Ati7 ( talk) 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry I hadn't noticed the wiki places a real apostrophe. It was maybe careless, but certainly not intentional. Would it be an option to replace '''x'''<b>z</b> + '''y'''<b>z</b> with '''xz''' + '''yz''' in order to maintain the same outcome, namely xy + yz, and using wiki-syntax instead of HTML? Dr. Breznjev ( talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all your contributions to the Wikipedia Reference Desk! In recognition of your work I have added your name to the list of Reference Desk Regulars. If you would prefer not to be listed, please let me know or simply remove your signature. Thanks again, and happy editing! – 74 09:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I found your formulations of the properties to be much better. I am still wondering if there isn't something more to absorption, because it looks just the same as "dual". That one had been without a description for a while. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
I guess the point about notation means that many-sorted logic is useful to Wikipedia only for rather niche articles. I'd say that subscripts is most widely used, I think due to a preference in theorem proving, but it has the problem with not indicating the sort of free variables.
Default sort: I should have put a smiley after my remark, which was based on punning natural as in number with the natural sort of choice. Quantification over real numbers I guess is more common than quantification over the naturals.
Kripke-Platek set theory: yes, that was the thought that led me to think of subsystems of second-order arithmetic.
I don't suppose there is much more worth saying on these topics, so I'll just say hi to one of the small band of Wikipedians who has published on the calculus of structures. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot is randomly changing the order of references without any adequate reason, see e.g. [4]. — Emil J. 10:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing he [el:Tex] link. I gave up fixing it as the bot just adds it back to the subpage. Will this stop it?
SimonTrew ( talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please keep a civil tone and assume good faith. It is not another editors responsibility to correct your errors and your tone does nothing to help the project. Tomdobb ( talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, thanks for fixing that. BrideOfKripkenstein ( talk) 15:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
At least you could have waited a few days.
Kope (
talk)
15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There goes my cunning plan of getting the anon to at least understand and state the problem correctly ;-). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Asi jsem natvrdlý, ale proč jste vyměnil mapu? Resp. proč považujete Vámi dodanou mapu - informačně chudší a zdůrazňující pouze jednu z relevantních skupin států - za NPOV? Jann 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your edit comment here – there was a good reason I didn't do this: I don't know where to look this up, and didn't have enough time to figure it out on my own and be sure it's correct. Unless I am doing something wrong, it's a straightforward but tedious exercise. Do you have a source, or an idea where to find one by any chance? In any case thanks for doing this. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements you made in the section about Czech Republic, but I am afraid you deleted all what came after it (for example, now there is nothing about Germany, which until yesterday was there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.131.237 ( talk) 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes now I see it again. I think that my iexplore version had a problem this morning, sorry for the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.221.24.162 ( talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
And for cleaning up the hyphens, dashes, and minus signs in the quadratic residue article (I'd swear that somewhere I read that – was proper for formulas; I didn't even realize that − existed)
I can see the difference between – and − by juxtaposing them; –− the minus is raised a pixel or so higher. Subtle.
Thanks again.
Virginia-American ( talk) 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The probability of the Solovay-Strassen primality test can be more specifically limited than 1/2. I will find the reference in the textbook that a math teacher of mine owns. Meanwhile, I have my own version (the math teacher made me re-calculate everything). It involves the use of Bayes' rule.
"To derive the probability of failure of the Solovay-Strassen Primality test, Bayes' rule is used. In this problem, event A will be the probability that n survives m number of trials and event B will be the probability that n is composite. So, the probability that a number n is composite given that it survives m number of trials is what we are looking for. P(A|B) (the probability that a composite number n survives m number of trials) is less than or equal to 2^{-m} because at most half of the numbers can be liars. P(A) is expanded and found below. P(B) is the probability of choosing a composite number. The probability of choosing a prime number is about however, to increase our chances, we will discard the obviously non-prime, a.k.a. \textbf{even} numbers, doubling our chance to Thus the probability of choosing a composite number is since if n is prime the number of trials it can survive is infinite.
So
Does my probability still seem dubious?
-- Heero Kirashami ( talk) 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm making an usurpation request for the account EmilJ on da. — Emil J ( talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry, i was just hoping someone more relevant with the IPA would make the IPA more accurate. CuteHappyBrute ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Serbia recalled ambassadors for consultations from states recognizing Kosovo. This diplomatic procedure is by definition a temporary measure, all the ambassadors will be back sooner or later. 100 days is actually quite a lot."
I have seen your change. But then, what about the sentence "Arend Heyting (1898-1980) was himself interested in clarifying the foundational status of intuitionistic logic, when he introduced this type of structure." (my boldface)? -- Tillmo ( talk) 17:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I had not noticed that the sub-bullets were moved down into a footnote now. You are correct that since the move, the sub-bulleting no longer applies. Rossami (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear EmilJ,
Forgive me for reverting your recent edits to functional completeness.
I hope the discussion on the talk page helps you understand why I would do such a crazy thing. -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 05:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that the logos themselves are defined by code, why is it better to use images to represent them rather than have them constructed? Inline images are a bad idea for a number of reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Emil. Concerning unliking dates: "To avoid disruption, however, this deprecation should not be taken as license for wholesale removal of existing links from articles currently employing them extensively. Such removal from a given article should follow a consensus to do so among the editors of that page." ( [1]). For us in the Kosovo recognition article, mentioning what you are doing on the talk page in order to get us to use consistent dates might be a good idea. Best wishes, -- Mareklug talk 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Shoot, that makes thing a lot easier. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Before you do any more work on the article, just a quick reminder that this article is read (and edited) a lot by philosophers. I think they tend to have serious problems with trivial special cases of definitions, and that's why I havent done this earlier and even think it's a bad idea. It's not even the most typical way things are presented in mathematical books on the subject. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I won't do it again. I am dyslexic, so I'm not the best speller. But thanks anyway. Regards Ijanderson ( talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do with
User:Rjwilmsi at
User talk:Rjwilmsi#Kosovo. Assume that others are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
§hep •
¡Talk to me!
02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please
repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --
Avala (
talk)
12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User Nightstallion if it is possible to fix the link or copy/paste the contents but a dead link is by no means a reason to erase information or add fact template.-- Avala ( talk) 12:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I am waiting to see what are you going to come up with now that I have added a completely working link - [3] -- Avala ( talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you may be interested in this report of the violation by User:Londo06 here. Cheers Tony (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. When you add a user warning template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply to this message please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, EmilJ (hmmmmm.... are we perhaps distant relatives?), for your swift and helpful response on this. I must admit, though, that it was grudging at first glance when I realized I'd have to tough it out and look up my rusty IPA. As it turns out, the Hebrew transliteration I was provided is correct, and to my delight, the IPA symbol for that third-syllable consonant is just like the Yiddish letter pair representing that sound! -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Is a bit long, but can you comment at Template_talk:Euro_adoption_future#I_propose_to_change_the_name_and_the_structure? It will be very much appreciated.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Emil, i am sooory! Yes, this is the same article!! I am a ...
Tadija ( talk) 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Dobrý den. Z čeho soudíte, že to není havran ale krkavec. Ve slovníku je u hesla raven napsáno krkavec, havran, tedy oboje? Díky za odpověď. Chalupa z české wikipedie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.222.130.1 ( talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew N. Robertson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 14:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Andrew N. Robertson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew N. Robertson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
it is not ok to use such a language EmilJ. What I did was to help people to understand i easier since it is confusing to use sqrt(-1) as in 'proper use' section of the article. this is neither pseudoscience nor lunatic. i is a definition and one can define things different than other people, this is not pseudoscience but just a different idea. you may not open to different ideas but that doesn't allow you call other people as 'lunatic'. we are trying to share information as well as ideas here
by the way, I talked to Quaeler and settled the issue.. ( Ati7 ( talk) 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry I hadn't noticed the wiki places a real apostrophe. It was maybe careless, but certainly not intentional. Would it be an option to replace '''x'''<b>z</b> + '''y'''<b>z</b> with '''xz''' + '''yz''' in order to maintain the same outcome, namely xy + yz, and using wiki-syntax instead of HTML? Dr. Breznjev ( talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all your contributions to the Wikipedia Reference Desk! In recognition of your work I have added your name to the list of Reference Desk Regulars. If you would prefer not to be listed, please let me know or simply remove your signature. Thanks again, and happy editing! – 74 09:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I found your formulations of the properties to be much better. I am still wondering if there isn't something more to absorption, because it looks just the same as "dual". That one had been without a description for a while. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
I guess the point about notation means that many-sorted logic is useful to Wikipedia only for rather niche articles. I'd say that subscripts is most widely used, I think due to a preference in theorem proving, but it has the problem with not indicating the sort of free variables.
Default sort: I should have put a smiley after my remark, which was based on punning natural as in number with the natural sort of choice. Quantification over real numbers I guess is more common than quantification over the naturals.
Kripke-Platek set theory: yes, that was the thought that led me to think of subsystems of second-order arithmetic.
I don't suppose there is much more worth saying on these topics, so I'll just say hi to one of the small band of Wikipedians who has published on the calculus of structures. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot is randomly changing the order of references without any adequate reason, see e.g. [4]. — Emil J. 10:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing he [el:Tex] link. I gave up fixing it as the bot just adds it back to the subpage. Will this stop it?
SimonTrew ( talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please keep a civil tone and assume good faith. It is not another editors responsibility to correct your errors and your tone does nothing to help the project. Tomdobb ( talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, thanks for fixing that. BrideOfKripkenstein ( talk) 15:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
At least you could have waited a few days.
Kope (
talk)
15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There goes my cunning plan of getting the anon to at least understand and state the problem correctly ;-). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Asi jsem natvrdlý, ale proč jste vyměnil mapu? Resp. proč považujete Vámi dodanou mapu - informačně chudší a zdůrazňující pouze jednu z relevantních skupin států - za NPOV? Jann 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your edit comment here – there was a good reason I didn't do this: I don't know where to look this up, and didn't have enough time to figure it out on my own and be sure it's correct. Unless I am doing something wrong, it's a straightforward but tedious exercise. Do you have a source, or an idea where to find one by any chance? In any case thanks for doing this. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements you made in the section about Czech Republic, but I am afraid you deleted all what came after it (for example, now there is nothing about Germany, which until yesterday was there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.131.237 ( talk) 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes now I see it again. I think that my iexplore version had a problem this morning, sorry for the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.221.24.162 ( talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |