This user left Wikipedia. Meni Rosenfeld has not edited Wikipedia since July 27, 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Write a new message. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply on this page, under your post.
Hello Meni Rosenfeld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Thank you for making an account.
I replied on my talk page about the square root. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a newcomer to the Wiki-world too. Thanks for the correction! MathStatWoman 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I kind of suspected you might have wanted to prepare a general intro page (which is why I warned you). I don't know how old you are, but I get the strong feeling that the "Boomer" and following generations, for the most part, prefer "trial & error"— not something that would appeal to a mathematician— but something strongly appealing to the "Adventure Game" set. (I, myself, am a recently retired Computer Scientist— and I date from the early '50s and analog and hybrid computers.)
I am now testing the intro page. I realize the spirit of Wikipedia is more in the nature of communal activities. But I feel some obligation not to provide non-working or otherwise defective references for the newbies.
But, hey, I placed a copy on a page called User:Meni Rosenfeld/Toolset It's all yours to do with as you please! But keep track of any changes you make to the generic (true content) stuff; you may want to change the Generic Page when I make it public. (At the end of the week; I promise.)
I suggest you bookmark that page and put a reference to all your other pages in the "My Shortcuts" section.
Hi and thanks for the comments. I responded on the shatter page. MathStatWoman 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I had a long holiday (8 days of candles and oily food), and did not have time for Wikipedia. I must be getting old and not getting enough sleep!!! YES, I meant unit circle! sigh...thanks...and thanks for being polite...some folks on Wikipedia are uncivil! I shall answer your other q's on the shatter page after I get some sleep -- too tired now. MathStatWoman 13:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jitse, I have noticed that you have a tool for a Random article in mathematics. That is of great interest to me (please see my discussion of the issue). Do you have any remarks on what is said in that discussion? Do you know a way to make such a tool more built-into Wikipedia? -- Meni Rosenfeld 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I have an opportunity to make you glad :)
-- Meni Rosenfeld 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, See discussion on shattering for my answer to one of your q's. More when I have time.
Cheers. MathStatWoman 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A page by the above name has been created to assist newbies. It is an eclectic index into Wikipedia. Here's hoping it will arouse some interest in improving upon it. —> normxxx talk—> email 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The weekend has ended, Shabbat and the day after to recover from Shabbat, and time again for work, school, and Wikiworld. So here we are.
Back to your q's:
1. About subsets, we probabilists do indeed use the notation that I used, but if it bothers set theorists, and I change it, then the notation will annoy the probabilists. Sigh... we cannot satisfy everyone... I really want to leave it as it is, but if Wikipedia demands otherwise, let me know, and we'll discuss it further.
2. We settled that, right?
3. More to come on empirical process article as I get time between work, research, school. Thanks to everyone who entitled that article well and re-directed it properly.
4. About discussing distribution functions (df's): [incidentally, probabilists, when doing serious research, do not use the teminology "cumulative" df's(cdf's), but just df (see all the peer-reviewed papers in Ann.Prob,. J.Appl Prob, and texts such as Loeve's on the grad level); cdf is used for undergrads, though.] Anyway, in the article on shattering, we re-cast df's in terms of collections of sets because this is a very important example: we want to study sets on the real line of the form { v : v ≤ x }, that is, sets of values that are less than or equal to x. Let C be the collection of all such sets on the real line, that is, of the form , { v : v ≤ x } for all real numbers x. This is not done in the article on df's because it does not belong there; it belongs in the article on shattering. It really is vital to discuss it in the article shattering. It is an example that appears in many peer-reviewed articles on shattering.
Cheers, MathStatWoman 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful advice. All that info is good to know. How did you learn so much, so fast? MathStatWoman 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser :- CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you for help about 'decipher a ciphertext by a simple Caesar sipher.'
dear Meni: I am not clear about your answer, I just want to know how to decrypt the message zycu. "given f(x)=23x+10 (mod 26) is a bijection(one to one and onto) that it can be used as a subtitution cipher, then decrypt the message ZYCU was enctypted by using the function."
thank you
Those will be very useful! Thanks for the information. I especially like that they can be specialized for each section of the Reference Desk. Thanks again. -- Natalya 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I agree completely and appreciate the constructive tone. Cheers, rodii.
Thanks. How come you are only active in the english wikipedia? Omer Enbar 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Though more commonly I play skat. Omer Enbar 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in answerimg my question about "including my article in a broader search." (Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute) When you get a chance, could you let me know how to add redirects to my article? Also, is there any way to make my article come up as an option when someone searches for something more vague, such as "bioethics"? Thanks so much! Kathychen 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#Redirect [[Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute]]
Was that helpful? I could have sworn I had a differential equations textbook which explained how to calculate asymptotic expansions for solutions, but I can't find it. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed at the help desk that you seem to think that a newly created article needs "a few weeks" before it can be searched for. This is not the case, a newly created page will be able to be searched for immediately or if thing are running slowly then in a few minutes. Please contact me on my talk page if you need any further help or discussion about this. hydnjo talk 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This method doesn't seem to be averting all the Ref Desk questions. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be caused by 1 of 2 things:
Therefore, I was trying to minimize the instructions and keep them positive. I'll give it another shot. -- Go for it! 19:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the template advice (on the helpdesk page). I've begun reading the talk pages and will soon do some testing. They are a bit esoteric, but fortunately invoking them seems reasonably easy. Thanks! MattHucke (t) 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Wiki-star 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to say thank you for your assistance on the formula, I have verified it- privately, of course- and discovered the errors you have mentioned, correcting wherever I could. I AM sorry that the wrong information has stayed on Wikipedia for so long, and grateful that you came to assist me. The question is that my education in mathematics is somewhat strangely developed- my interest for it has developed to fanaticism, and in many respects I have educated myself or tried to prove things out, just to satisfy my interest and curiosity. We have not yet done trignometry at school, and my knowledge of it was mainly self- taught, and thus sometimes defective. I am afraid I do not know the identity you have mentioned, but shall doubtless find out more about it myself. My ability is also very strangely developed- I am afraid I have not done dimensional analysis at all, but I have taught myself relativistic mathematics, and differential calculus. Luthinya 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you do, sir. It's yet another note from me and once again it is to thank you on the marvellous help you have provided for me, relating to the formula. Seeing these advice also reminded me of another thing I adored about mathematics- it allows you to express very complex ideas so succintly, yet never once looses the initial beauty of the idea.
As far as mathematics itself is concerned, I tend to view it in a similar model to Pygmalion's ivory virgin, an art at once so cold and precise, like the beauty of sculpture, yet endowed with a grace so celestial and unearthly, as of a most wondrous maiden, waiting only to be roused by the breath of a spring wind. To see her figure is to be ecstatically tantalized, yet one is also filled with a curious regret, upon touching her sides, to know that she is unfortunately not of the flesh. In any case, the beauty of nature is explicit through geometry, especially fractal geometry. Yet one must not confuse between the symbol of nature and nature itself, the latter being more wondrous than we will ever make of it.
I hope these opinions have somehow been amusing for you to read and not wasted your userspace. Delete them if you like. Luthinya 12:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
em actually i have been told on sevral occasions by engineers (my my maths teacher's brother and engineers who visited the school) by the way did you thing i just made that up? never mind
I have a question. If I find an article and nkow that it needs to be improved, What tag shoud I stick on that article? Is there such a tag? What will this tag to to the article? Will it make it more visible to other editors(will it put it into a special list of articles that need to be improved)?-- BorisFromStockdale 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with the original template? The old one worked. In this new one, the "click here"-link doesn't work properly. - Mgm| (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I appear to have been blocked but don't understand why. Yesterday I asked a perfectly innocent question and received a very terse answer from Erik to which I edited a thankyou note with a supplementary question, and then having saved it I noticed I had misspelt Erik as Eric so I tried to correct it but was told I had been blocked. Surely that cannot be fair? Please advise and unblock me if you agree. Thanks. Jamesatnumber8@aol.com 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response advising I had not been blocked - but - I just tried to re-edit the mistake I discussed earlier and got the message that either my name or my I.P. had been blocked and when I checked the blocked list, my I.P. was there for the 16th April.White Squirrel 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Meni, for your appearance on User talk:Sean Black regarding his capricious block of my account. He's popped up briefly, but without diffs to support his claim that I'd violated WP:3RR, which I am quite certain do not exist - I assume he's realized that by now. We'll see what happens. Timothy Usher 06:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. -- Alf 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Meni. I was reading our article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, which says that "The Hebrew Wikipedia is renowned for its high standards of mathematical articles". I have to say, this comment makes me a bit jealous, as I consider our math coverage at en.wikipedia to be quite good (compared to other online sources). I noticed on your userpage that you are a Hebrew speaker, and of course I've known you for a while around here as a mathematically minded editor. I was just wondering, are you also familiar with the Hebrew wikipedia? Are you familiar with its math coverage? Would you be able to make some anecdotal comments about how good their math coverage is (especially as it compares to ours)? I just wonder how seriously I should take their claim of expert math coverage. - lethe talk + 10:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a happy Birthday message to you, Meni Rosenfeld, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
S t e v e o 2 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello friend. I wish you a very happy birthday, one day late - yesterday I was away and so I missed the party. I learnt of the same from
Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year. --
Bhadani 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Meni for your reply.
I will keep my nose out of Marco Polo discussion from now on. I hope they just delete the vandal posts and stop putting my ip number up. If they do i will keep deleting them. This Eugameo and his many alias names keeps calling me a vadal just because i posted some facts and evidence that Marco Polo is not Italian. A document written by an Italian in those days clearly says Marco Polo is Dalmatian and originated from Dalmatia. Countless other sources written by Italians and other non Croatians support this view. If he was born on Korcula and most agree the chances of him being Croatian are very high. Korcula was mostly populated by Croatians in those times. Many documents of those times also show that Polo and De Polo last name was Italianised under Venice rule of Dalmatia, so all these Polos and De POlos from Venice and Korcula were in fact Croats. Last but not least Iam Montenegrin so I think i would be unbias in my view of the matter.
I have nothing agianst the Italian people just Euganeo who so contradicting. He said Croat names were Italianised but Marco Polo did not...how silly when proof suggests he did.
Peace
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming and straghtening out these two articles. I knew nothing at all about these terms before I started copy-editing them (which they badly needed).
Now that I see the two articles in their context, have looked at the few articles that link to them, I know something about them and I believe they should be merged. There could be one short article on Average and Over, with explanations of the two varieties. I can write the copy, but I don't know how to merge the articles, or propose the merger, or whatever is done. They are pretty obscure articles, so if there's a quick way to merge them, IMHO that is what should be done.
Either do what you know how to do, or leave word on my Talk page, or both. Thank you. Lou Sander 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
HELP!!! The article Average and over (hands lost) seems to have come back alive. It may have something to do with conflicting or simultaneous edits by you and by me. As far as I'm concerned, all articles on the baseball term "average and over," including versions with the modifiers "(runs)" or "(hands lost)," regardless of capitalization, can and should now be properly redirected to Average and over, which, though brief, covers it all. Am I wrong, did I kill it improperly or fail to kill it, is there a better way to do this, etc.???? Lou Sander 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the question. It is for a math competition.
Given that
(For some reason it wouldn't let me write as the upper bound of the integral, so I improvised)
Evaluate
-- Codeblue87 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that (for example, ) Evaluate .
Hello. I was looking for someone who is He-n to help with a very quick translation related to a disambiguation project that I am on. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at Talk:Rimmon and either comment there or edit the artcicle accordingly? Thanks in advance. -- Brian G 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. The process is quite daunting. I am trying to put a biography on my company into the database because we have recently been the focus of a lot of media attention due to our projects in the Hurricane Katrina area. We are not trying to advertise, but trying to get factual information out because some of the articles printed recently have contained a lot of rumors.
My posting has been tagged as advertising even though I tried to make it very neutral. Is there a place or person whom I might consult for specific recommendations on my posting to prevent it from being thrown off the site? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angikay2 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your helpful answer to my question on the help page! Ccrrccrr 13:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thank you but if you could elaborate more i will be grateful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaily iitian ( talk • contribs) .
You think I should do it? I found the time stamp to fill up more space than helpful to me. — Mac Davis] ( talk) ( Desk| Help me improve)
Thank you for answering my question at the Helpdesk. -- After Midnight 0001 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
My kingdom for an in-place, WYSIWYG, wikitext math and table editor. Heck, an OpenOffice plug-in to use a wiki as a back-end would be pretty darned handy! Know of anything in this approximate constellation of tools? -- Fuzzyeric 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Auroranorth 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Mark! Wwhere exactly and how exactly would I change the wikicode on the page? Would I add something like "Pricing details for NZ added" where I made the change, and then put this also in the edit summary? Regards, Drahmad 05:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
GRRR! Sorry I got the name wrong Meni!! Thanks again and feel free to delete this section as you see fit :) Drahmad 05:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that you saw my (multiple) edits to the Wii page, is it considered poor form/bad etiquette to perform "multiple" edits to reach the end goal? The main reason I had those "micro-edits" was that I was afraid I might destroy the whole page by making some formatting mistake, so did things one at a time to ensure that I didn't stuff it up. It helps now knowing that I can "revert" a page, and I will also copy and paste the code somewhere until I'm satisified I can put it back together again if needed. Drahmad 07:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, I compleatly forgot that Wikipedia is pretty much global, and on another note that was a fas reply! Have a nice day--- Seadog.M.S 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does the comment you removed not belong there? The range of the tangent and cotangent functions should be viewed as the real projective line with only one point at infinity. Michael Hardy 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind my asking, what's your f(), or at least what values do you have already? It might be possible to coerce your definition of f() into a form amenable to inverse z-transformation. -- Fuzzyeric 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, sorry about the correction I made, I didn't understand it, I realised right after that I had made a mistake. And I don't know how to revert articles, so I left it.
what I was trying to say in my comment, is, that a trapezium is a shape with at least 2 sides parallel... I no longer have my Australian Math text book, but it explains it completely, with the diagram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkeysone ( talk • contribs) ..
I was thinking that some elements of our discussion on the math reference desk would be useful if added to the probability section of Dice. Would you mind if I copied the math markup you wrote for that second formula (specifically,
for use in the article? — Saric ( Talk) 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting to an unclean version on square root. I think I thought "von eduard" was the name of the function. Excuse my ignorance. Itsmejudith 10:38, 11 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 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about Mr Troll, I will ignore him from now on. Your work on the 0.999... discussion is great and very helpful. I'm sorry if I've been annoying ranting about how we should give more emphasis to number systems that make use of infinitesimals. It's mainly just that I remember years ago, when they taught me this at school how it annoyed me, so perhaps I feel too sorry for people in a similar position. Besides, I feel like the intuition is very interesting and has some relevance and a kind of correctness in other areas. Anyway, thanks for your patience.
(copied to User talk:157.161.173.24) -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your efforts on 0.999... and the discussions thereof. I wanted to ask you, is there anything we can do to get this troll blocked from the Arguments page? He really is disrupting the discussion to a serious degree, and I'm losing interest in helping with it because of him. It is sad to think of people leaving the article knowing less than they could, because of all his crap. What can we do about it? Maelin 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There most certainly is a "mathematics of the real numbers", in the same way that there is a "mathematics of the hyperreal numbers" or a "mathematics of the transfinite cardinals". The fact that 0.999... = 1 is a direct consequence of the structure of the real numbers, and does not necessarily hold for the similarly-named objects in other axiomatic systems. The properties of sums of infinite series, and the absence of infinitesimals from the standard reals, are not intuitively obvious; hence all the controversy about this small, but crucial result. -- The Anome 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you participated in the discussion at talk:division by zero about the chart being sold by an (allegedly) educational publisher that says that 1/0 = 0, 2/0 = 0, etc., perhaps it will interest you to know that at this web site where the chart is sold, the publisher now solicits opinions of the product. You can go there and tell them what you think. Michael Hardy 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Great post there on Talk:0.999.../Arguments#Let's end this madness ("John: Okay, I'll try this one more time.")! -- Kprateek88( Talk | Contribs) 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Meni -
First, I want to thank you for the obvious time and effort you spent editing/maintaining this subject.
Second: I wanted to express my concern over your decision to remove other methods of calculating an initial estimate (ref 10:55, 8 September 2006). (I am sorry I have not replied sooner - I made some edit back in May 2006 and stored a copy of the page for my reference and had not returned to this WP page until now.) I have long developed software for embedded applications with both processor and real-time limitations. The type of estimation that was described was very useful as an initial seed for a Newton's method iteration on an reciprocal square root algorithm (which, as the page correctly states, can require a fairly accurate seed value to converge). The only (rough) estimation technique currently left on the page is, by comparison, grossly inaccurate, as it omits the correction factor. Also, the one you deleted is valuable for processors and applications where divisions are too costly to consider.
A third note: Rather than merely being a means of finding a square root, the reciprocal square root is extremely important for direct use in very fast normalization/rescaling of L2 vectors (by a single multiply). For this very common use, it is vastly superior to directly finding and using the square root, especially in cases where there is no hardware support for division.
And lastly: As for the basis upon which I tweaked the adjustment factors (my edits of May 2006), I explicitly wrote how I derived the adjustment factors: "where the derivation of the adjustment is the average of the square root of first digit and the square root of the first digit incremented by one, all divided by √10." Put another way, the adjustments were spaced to minimize the maximum errors generated on each interval --- for a leading digit of 1 on the interval of [1,2) I used the midpoint of the function's interval of [1/SQR(10), SQR(2)/SQR(10)). I believe I had made a study of this technique at the time, and found the theoretical values I had provided in WP were correct & superior to the original values when supported by a large sample set of calculations. For my use I needed to fully comprehend the underlying concept, as I was hoping to characterize/implement it for a moderately larger binary sized table, not one with just 9 (decimal) entries. Plus I needed to adapt it to RECIPROCAL square root estimation. Once I analyzed what was being shown, I recognized it as a simple table based technique I had commonly implemented in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.173.64 ( talk) 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey Meni, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- Cronholm144 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Politics rule 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
GrooveDog 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I appologise for the impoliteness, I just hadn't checked my refference question for a while, and I guess I just let them pile up. Sorry! I'll be more carefull in the futer! Gbgg89 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think so, but I just love that name, "Caratheodory" .... ;-) iames 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We always look forward to your clever posts and this is an excellent example. ;-) - hydnjo talk 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your opinion that only half of the square roots in the world matter, the “most texts” you refer to are undoubtedly written for those who understand very little about the consequences of having multiple roots to an equation. One example, from an engineering standpoint, is that some machines operate differently in the forward direction than the reverse. For instance, the shock absorbers on a car are angled to the front of the vehicle. As non-symmetrical elements, they operate differently when expanding than contracting, and are positioned to provide a critically damped experience when the car moves in the forward direction. If one drives in reverse over a speed bump, the impact is significantly more forceful. Try it!
Your point that “most texts refer to...” is actually the one that isn’t meaningful. Your point refers to your personal philosophy that only principle square roots are meaningful. The mathematical actuality is that both roots matter, and this equation is a perfect example of why. It will very much be to your benefit in your continuing education if you realize that math works, not just your perception of what is an appropriate convention.
Best, Dr. Gnow. Dr gnow 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The “dubious utility” from your previous post is the reason that the original equation in question is internally consistent. It is the convention of considering only primary root of 1 that leads to what appears an inconsistent equation. You are correct that equalities are transitive, then you go on to make the same mistake I previously pointed out by using only one root on each side of the equation.
Claiming that I did not read the article or your post reflects your perception that as we disagree, your opinion is somehow more valid than mine. It is you who completely missed the point of my original post.
Also, if you choose to be offended so easily, perhaps you should not refer to the contribution of others as “not really meaningful.”
Dr gnow 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just, wow. You have huge, gigantic balls. I can't believe that you have actually tried to make an argument with such circular logic and such an authoritative voice, then you play the "I can't see you" card by claiming our discussion is going nowhere. How arrogant of you.
If you're really that unable to follow through with a discussion, please remove your comment from my post on the square root page. Also, I think it would benefit you to put quite a bit more thought into what you put on Wikipedia, it's fairly permanent way to document your work. I don't particularly like or respect you, but I'd still hate to see your quest for self importance injure your career later in life.
Best. Oh, and why don't you write "convention" one more time? Again, your "convention" clearly doesn't apply here, but you seem to enjoy writing the word.
Dr gnow 05:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Meni,
Thank you for defending the REAL WORLD from the witchcraft of the AMERICAN SCIENTIST. How dare he claim that there are two answers to a factual question? The Lord advises us on difficult questions, and I'm glad he's spoken to you and shown you THE WAY in this matter. Its best that you ignore that rapscallion, Jesus wouldn't respect you if you entertained his nonsense. I don't think you're arrogant, I think you walk in the path of the Lord, even if, as a Jew, you don't yet appreciate the grace of Jesus. Nobody should hold that against you in the context of math and science.
JesusLuver247 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC) JesusLuver247, You're way off the mark. I hope that even someone like Meni can put you back on track, and I really hope that your zeal and self conviction in a field you don't understand invites Meni to reconsider his self-biased conclusions. Just like Meni, you need a wider perspective before you comment on these issues.
Best, Dr gnow 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate it. The soon to be registered unanonymous user ;) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.125.254 ( talk) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, I've spent some time editing on my page and have included (though not yet complete) one of my more significant/useful works relating to polynomials. Feel free to check it out. A math-wiki 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I was only really interested in looking at the graphincal behavior of complex solutions for different polynomials, so restricting the output to real values is of no real consequence. A math-wiki 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I got a little over my knowledge level their on the paths question in the refence desk. I think I have the algorithm he's looking for now. A math-wiki 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with the block matrices. I am still not absolutely sure about the proof yet. Since the page has been archived I was wondering whether you could take a look at the proof that I have written here and help me finish it. Again thanks-- Shahab 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection for Division by zero and Theory of everything. — Loadmaster 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed in couple instinces that our answers for some of the questions asked on the reference desk have been at odds. I want to preempt any bad blood. I find it occasionally worrysome that you sometimes give answers that are quiet possibly well beyond the understanding of the OP. Such answers aren't wrong, but are generally not that helpful nor are they what the OP is really looking for. If want to point out that their question relates to somethings they as yet may not understand that's ok but try if at all possible to answer there question at the same level as it was asked. I took me several years before I learned how not confuse people I tried to help in math class. Keeping your explanations on par with someone's understanding is not always that easy! It usually translates to giving through explanations for anything that is even slightly beyond their appearant understanding it is necessary to give a clear answer to their question. A math-wiki 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind, I suppose a good example would be mention in the imaginary number question about i and -i, yes you are right that the distinction is arbitrary but mentioning field theory to someone who is probably a high school Junior or Senior is basically a waste of text, even if it might be useful to some of the others who are answering. If you feel it is still necessary to reference something like that well beyond the OP's understanding try adding an explanation of at least the ideas behind it. I should also mention that people like our OP here sometimes are not very proficient with mathematical terminology and might miss interpret from your tone that arbitrary meant that it was impossible to distinguish between i and -i, implying it does matter if you write i or -i and that they are freely interchangable, which I am pretty sure is not correct. I should also note when I feel that a correction to someones answer in order I usually try to kritique the person's answer, being extremely specific as to what is completely correct and what is misleading or not correct. A math-wiki 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being able to calmly say what I was getting too upset to say! I have been hugely heartened by the response of so many Wikipedians to the difficulties recently, it really means a lot to me. Thanks again, and best wishes, DuncanHill ( talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me in the Help:Reference Mathematics section. My math teacher isn't so good, and just gives our class worksheets to do on ourown without explaining how to do them. Then they turn to me to tutor them and teach them how to do it. It's so much easier when someone older explains it out and gives assistance, instead of everyone just expecting me to know what's going on. Thanks again, S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ( Talk to Me)
(I see you have many similar headings on your talk page)
but anyway, you mentioned something about uses for the division by zero.
What could they possibly be, we're not even talking about something in the real number line?
and thanks for the correction about the math book thing. Freenaulij ( talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to your answer. Yes, I meant that (with the absolute value), forgot to type it, but it still doesn't work, why? -- Taraborn ( talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Just felt like dropping some aditional lines to my apologies at the RD. You are right in that my posting there today was appalling. But I give you my word that no offense was intented. I'll try next time to be more precise and cautious before giving an answer. Regards, Pallida Mors 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info for my inquiry on wanting a domain name and email without needing hosting. I looked more at your list of 10 and you are right there are better options. I set up a Bluwiki to help with my decision making here: http://www.bluwiki.com/go/Domain_and_email. Guroadrunner ( talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed that you were perhaps on the receiving end of some possibly negative comments from some anonymous trolls on the mathematics reference desk. Just wanted to advise you not to put up with it (warn and report where necessary) and also consider just removing stupid comments and not replying to them. Perhaps I'm making too much of this, but it just annoyed me that you are trying to help people with attitudes like this. Regards, MSGJ ( talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meni, Hope I didn't disillusion you too much about computer vision and clustering. Anyway I had a though about possible datasets. What about using data collected from wikipedia? Its a vast source of data with lots of revision/contribution histories, internal linking and such like. Not quite sure how you would get a Euclidean metric out of it though.
The other thing to try is to ask around your university, There are probably people there in all sort of disciplines with handy datasets. -- Salix alba ( talk) 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: You may want to look at this regarding some of the question raised on the userpage. Basically, you should be okay as long as you don't use sockpuppetry for evil and don't use both accounts to participate in the same (or related) articles\discussions. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
should work. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.185.240 ( talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Idontknow 610 TM 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes from Canada! ;-) -- Rob NS 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meni, I replied to your Nash equilibrium question on the archive page of the maths reference desk. Not sure if it's at all relevant, but I wanted to point it out anyway. Oliphaunt ( talk) 10:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Gandalf61 and Algebraist and Lambiam and KSmrq and Meni Rosenfeld and others have taught me more about mathematics than have all of my formal instructors - THANKS. hydnjo talk 02:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This user is a Reference desk regular. |
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r c 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Meni, I came to your page after searching for users with knowledge of Arabic. We are discussing Al Farooj Fresh at AfD and I think it's close to being notable with English language sources, however it's probably not quite there. I wonder if you could have a look for relevant Arabic sources and bring them to the party please?! Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Long time no see at the reference desk. Really nice to see you're back! Wellcome! NorwegianBlue talk 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The other answers given appear correct, but here's a more concrete way of looking at it:
Say we're measuring heights above sea level, and you get 0, 1, and 5 (after measuring the heights at high tide). Your average is (0 + 1 + 5)/3 = 2 feet above sea level. I measure the heights at low tide when the water is 4 feet lower, so I get 4, 5, and 9. My average is (4 + 5 + 9)/3 = 6 feet above sea level. You got 2 feet. I got 6 feet, when the water is 4 feet lower. So we BOTH got the same average height. But if it were correct to say the average of 0 numbers is 0, then should that 0 be your sea level, or mine? There's no non-arbitrary answer. So it doesn't make sense to say the "empty average" is 0. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for spending so much time on my Reference Desk question! A pity that it's such a ridiculously hard question; I never imagined that it would be virtually impossible to answer. Nyttend ( talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Rosenfeld:
I was the person asking the Bernoulli trials. Thanks for your response! Your solution is excellent, I found it very educational.
70.29.26.221 ( talk) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Meni, I have a small curiosity raised by a recent thread. At a certain point they mentioned a representation of real numbers in base π. I understand it as writing a number as a series of decreasing powers of pi: but where do we pick the coefficients? A minimal set should be {0,1,2,3} although it gives non-unique representations. Is it just this, or is there something more subtle? Is there a standard form for this representation, like the one you mentioned for the golden ratio base? (Ah I see, there is a maximal one...) Do not loose too much time to answer my question. I'm just shy about putting the question there because it seemed a kind of hot topic and I do not want to stir up troubles... Thanks, Pietro -- pma ( talk) 13:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Meni
Is your problem asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Evaluating a probability estimator solved?
Bo Jacoby ( talk) 06:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC).
I am not sure I understood the problem right. If it can be explained by means of a small example perhaps you get more suggestions. Bo Jacoby ( talk) 12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC).
I am perfectly within my rights to delete any or all of the contents on my talk page. It is not rude in the slightest. I don't feel that your comments in any way add to the quality of Wikipedia or to my article editing; so they have been removed. This is a right that I intend to exercise for a third time. As for your comment "If you wish to remove this post you are within your right, but in this case do not expect me to ever communicate with you again." Well, to be honest, I would be very pleased if you were to stop communicating with me. (Although whether giving lectures is really communication is debatable.) In the last few weeks, you have made five unsolicited posts on my talk page about topics which do not involve you directly. If the parties involved have accepted my attempts to make peace ( see here) then I don't see why you should keep writing condescending messages almost 24 hours after the event. Why can't you just let it drop? I would ask you not to post anything more on my talk page with regard to this matter since all parties involved see the matter as closed. If you continue to add similar posts after I have deleted them then I shall view your action as harassment. Please stop! ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
To anyone who stumbles upon this page and is wondering what the fuss is all about, see my original attempt to reason with User:Declan Davis. After he has assured me that there was nothing to worry about, his continued behavior (evidenced everywhere in WP:RD/math) demonstrated that in fact there was. He then refused to accept any criticism and deleted my posts here, here and here. Now that I am convinced beyond any doubt that User:Declan Davis is a troll with no desire to amend his ways, I will be delighted to honor his request to cease my attempts to help him. I hope others will follow. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 04:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: The above links no longer work. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
כמובן שכל הדיון אינו מתיחס למצבים טריויאליים, כגון למצב שבו אחד מביטויי-השורש שבאחד מאגפי המשוואה - זהה במקדמים שלו לאחד מביטויי-השורש שבאגף השני, או כאשר היחס שבין שני המקדמים שבאחד מביטויי-השורש - זהה ליחס הזה באחד משאר ביטויי-השורש. וכעת, לגופו של ענין: כזכור, אתה טענת שכשיש יותר מארבעה ביטויי-שורש אז כבר אין דרך [אלגברית] לפתור את המשוואה. ובכן, אני בכוונה בחרתי משוואה עם ששה ביטויי-שורש ולא עם חמישה, שכן יש מקרים - לא טריויאליים - שבהם כן ניתן לחלץ באופן אלגברי את פתרונה של משוואה בעלת חמישה ביטויי-שורש (מה שאין כן כשבמשוואה ששה ביטויי-שורש). לדוגמה
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
כל ביטוי של שורש ריבועי מייצג מספר ממשי אי-שלילי, ומכאן שכל אחד מאגפי המשוואה הנ"ל חייב להיות מאופס, ולכן
לכן
HOOTmag ( talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:Whitespace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The concept "f is a bijection from A to B" has a very strict unambiguous definition. Whatever is a "bijection f from A to B" according to the classical definition, is also a "bijection f from A to B" according to the following definition:
What happens if I delete the words "in A" from the last condition? Then I get another definition, very similar (and almost equivalent) to the first one. Yet, the two alternative definitions are not equivalent to each other: For example, the correspondence (on the real numbers): "be the opposite number of" can be restricted to a bijection from the set of negative numbers to the set of positive numbers - according to both definitions, while the correspondence (on the real numbers) "be the square of" can be restricted to a bijection from the set of negative numbers to the set of positive numbers - according to the first definition only, yet not according to the second one - which doesn't enable the restriction.
Let's call the first definition (described above): "the extended definition of classical bijection", and let's call the last definition (received by deleting the words "in A"): "the definition of strong bijection". My question is about whether there is a simple brief term for what I call "strong bijection", or I have to explicitly display the second definition whenever I have to use "strong bijections".
HOOTmag ( talk) 10:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just put it at the Reference desk. Have a nice day. HOOTmag ( talk) 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You suggested the identities of and to prove ( × ) ⋅ (( × ) × ( × )) = ( ⋅ ( × ))2. My left side looks like: ( × ) ⋅ ( ⋅ ( × )). How should I proceed? Thanks in advance. -- Mayfare ( talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
for your help here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.243.41 ( talk) 09:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Meni, I hope you don't mind me approaching you on your talk page. I always though that the natural numbers were contained in the integers, which were themselves contained in the rational numbers, which were themselves contained in the real numbers, which were themselves contained in the complex numbers, which were themselves contained in the quaternions, i.e. ℕ ⊂ ℤ ⊂ ℚ ⊂ ℝ ⊂ ℂ ⊂ ℍ.
A question on the mathematics reference desk seems to have replies which claim, for example, that the integers are not a subset of the real numbers. This seems to be something to do with the formal definition of the integers and/or the real numbers. But how can this be? Is there a definition of the real numbers that says that −1 is not a real number? That 0 is not a real number? That 1 is not a real number?
Surely we have: If n is an integer then n is a real number? Therefore ℤ ⊂ ℝ. •• Fly by Night ( talk) 14:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help on the question I had on correlation coefficient. You helped me a lot :-) - 114.76.235.170 ( talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking at an active infestation, take it to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If Materialscientist is offline, he won't be able to do anything to help you, and if you're talking about the same individual who's plaguing Materialscientist's talk page, you don't need to inform him (and you're only feeding the attention-seeker there). — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 09:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop dobbing on me mate. We can be mates if ya wanna. Stop dobbing and get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.58.220 ( talk) 10:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.76.208 ( talk) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Rumplestilskin ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)This makes about the fourth time I have tried to contribute something to Wikipedia, or even to ask a question. It is also the fourth time I have gotten absolutely nowhere. Wikipedia is a mystery to me. I just don't understand it, and I don't think I'll even try again. Life is too short, and I don't want to shorten the time that I have left my spending hours of frustrating, irritating, and unproductive time to unravel its mysteries. I will continue to use Wikipedia, but I have to give up on trying to interact with it.
Here's what I was trying to do this time. I was trying to comment on something I saw at the following address: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Buddy_(song)>
Rumplestilskin ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)This article states the following: It is universally believed this song was written about a World War soldier who lost his friend in battle. Well, you'll have to change this to "almost universally," because Charles Marowitz believes differently. In his article "The Neglected Walter Donaldson," Mr. Marowitz says the following: " His most durable song may well have been My Buddy written in l922, inspired by the unexpected and heartbreaking death of his young fiancé and curiously adopted during World War II as a song about male camaraderie among the allied troops. A simple but mesmerizing waltz tune, which, sung by an evocative singer, can still subdue a noisy nightclub audience into a reverent silence".
Wikipedia is too tough for me to use, but I have nothing but admiration for it. Keep up the good work.
Hi Meni, Your interesting comment, "I've done some numerical investigation and it looks like the correct expression is , where c tends to some number around 0.7 (maybe it's )" really got my attention. After thinking it over for a few days, I am still baffled. Would it be possible for you to shed some light on how you derived the expression?
Concerning my issue regarding "(without regard to order)," I feel that my question about exactly what the Goldbach partition counting function is enumerating is still kind of up in the air. In my opinion, mathworld's article, Goldbach Partition seems to adequately address this issue, but then muddies the water with an extra function . This issue is centered upon exactly what it is that we actually mean when we call something a Partition (or a Composition for that matter). This got me to thinking that as Wikipedeans, we are in a good position to do a much better job (than say, mathworld) of resolving this seemingly mundane issue. While I was mulling this over, I found an interesting short paper, On Partitions of Goldbach’s Conjecture by Max See Chin Woon that contains the seeds of a slightly more formal definition for Goldbach Partitions. To explain myself in better detail, I would be happy to prepare a short paper (prototype wiki article, 'Goldbach Partition') for you, if you are interested. What do you think? Best regards, Mathup ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: As an aside (and this could be nothing), I propose candidate for the constant in the vicinity of ; could it possibly be the Twin prime constant? Mathup ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Meni. Your spot on analysis is just what I needed. It will take me a while to digest what you've done. Before we move this thread to the the article'ss talk page, I want to be sure that I understand your position. Is my position unsupportable because there does not appear to be any conventional or standard terminology 'out there' (mathworld, et. al.)? Do you agree that the operative words here are 'standard' and 'conventional'? Please don't get me wrong, since it's clear to me that mathworld is an extremely valuable resource that complements what we are doing here and vise versa. In my opinion, Mathworld's 'micro-article', Goldbach Partition almost hits the nail on the head, but stops short when they introduce the second Goldbach counting function without giving us any clue as to the 'conventional' number-theoretic name for it (the 'Goldbach composition counting function' as opposed to the 'Goldbach partition counting function', and inside an article about partitions? ). Is it un-encyclopedic for us to assume a leadership role and nail down some absent at best or loose at worst (IMHO) conventional/customary/standard terminology? I think that our apparent divergence does not come to the fore until we attempt to actually count those Goldbach puppies. I think convention can step in to save the day, for example, mathworld's article Partition states, "By convention[<--operative word alert], partitions are normally written from largest to smallest addends (Skiena 1990, p. 51)." My issue is that this conventional usage should[<--operative word alert] apply to Goldbach partitions and Goldbach compositions as well. I have been unable to find any meaningful literature about Goldbach compositions -- it's all Goldbach partitions this and Goldbach partitions that. Goldbach schmartitions! Maybe two new sections to Goldbach's conjecture will be in order (or reverse order)[<--sarcasm alert]. Maybe this apparently unnecessary naming rigor upon which I have been harping could cause a small paradigm shift that carries us a little closer to a better understanding Goldbach's Conjecture. Or, maybe not. We will never know if we don't try it out.
I hope that I have not tried your patience too much. I know that you have bigger fish to fry at the institute and I want to thank you for corresponding with me and shining your expert math luminescence on my benign (at first glance) questions and concerns. I hope that you will still be available when subsequent related questions slowly ooze into my faded math consciousness. In local street parlance, "Meni, you da man!"-- Mathup ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Meni, Yes, and are not standard notation as far as I can tell. After some drilling down, I found the same notation in only one paper Fractal in the statistics of Goldbach partition. In a cursory survey of the literature, I found the most common notation for the Goldbach partition counting function to be and sometimes . Both seem quite reasonable to me, but are nonstandard nonetheless. However, my point that counts compositions and does not count partitions is probably forever lost. Since number theorists, like cowboys are a rare breed and Goldbach is a relatively obscure sub-specialty horse in the number theory stable, I wouldn't expect standardized notation for the Goldbach partition counting function. However, the clear and concise math definitions for the English words 'partition' and 'composition' are routinely misused, even by smart people who 'ought' know better, thereby substituting choas for progress on the Goldbach front, in my humble opinion. I guess I'm willing to live with it if they are. You have pointed me in the right direction to help me understand why Wikipedia may not be the proper venue to create an small enclave of order inside a the whirlwind of chaos. I realize that I'm dancing on the edge of what might be construed by some as 'original research' and am now more inclined to just let the sleeping doggies lie, since there is not a plethora of sources to reference. I suspect that your assessment that the issue is fairly insignificant may be well founded. But, wouldn't it delightful if we are both wrong? I admire your willingness to tread into strange waters outside your specialty. Finding myself in the unenviable position of being my own research director, I'll definitely let you know if I happen upon something less insignificant. I'll have some more questions about evaluating summations with ugly summands as I trundle into the future. Until then, shalom Mathup ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Meni, Hope all is well with you. After groping in the dark all night, I've made a modicum of progress. Would it be possible for you to numerically investigate the following summation for me?
.
My best naive guess for the highest order term so far is
.
Take care, Mathup ( talk) 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Meni, This useful (to me) result looks really good at first glance. With conflicting priorities, I won't be able to test it thoroughly straight away, but I'll get back to you as time permits. Thank you soo...o much, Meni! Shalom, Mathup ( talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Meni (rather belated) for your clear and concise answer to my question as to whether triplet primes are possible. Of course, now I see that they cannot exist, but I did immediately note that in the case of twin primes, the even number separating them MUST always be divisible by three. What an insight, eh?
And I was very interested to hear that there is no formal proof that the set of twin primes is infinite! Myles325a ( talk) 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw your post about the angle of rotation of an ellipse, I'd never seen it done that way before - it's very neat.
I'd normally use a more heavy-handed approach of taking a standard ellipse , rotating to an arbitrary angle etc., substituting in and expanding and then comparing coefficients. Your version is much less work - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlumb ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Belated thanks for your reply on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 May 17#Life density. I got way behind on my watchlist. — Tamfang ( talk) 07:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The RD entry is getting huge, so I thought I'd place this here. You made me dig all the way to the 1920's for this one, but you've helped me in the past so I don't mind... This request is not popular, so it isn't worked on much in computer science. It was semi-popular as an attempted variation of the Dining Philosophers problem. The following solution is a compilation of notes I pulled from various old papers and books:
Everyone has the same algorithm:
In your 3-person example, let's assume they are trying to make 3 numbers. A chooses the number 6. B chooses the number 42. C chooses the number 123:
This works with any number of participants, but it has been criticized as non-terminating. Theoretically, adding a maximum number of rounds makes it possible to force a user to give information that may identify his/her entry. However, smart encoding of the protocol will have "garbage" lines purposely mimic what is in the file, obscuring the user's entries. I hope this is usable for you. -- kainaw ™ 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please reconsider the proof mentioned in the reference desk.The angle is indeed trisected.-- 117.227.118.221 ( talk) 16:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Baibhab Pattnaik
Can you please check if the angles formed by joining the vertex angle to the points of trisection of the base trisect the vertex angle?-- 117.226.210.176 ( talk) 12:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Baibhab Pattnaik
Hi, thanks for the nice answer at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Summation_beginner!! Such intuition-building approaches is what's missing from maths as it is usually presented! Thanks, -- WillNess ( talk) 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
(barnstar by NorwegianBlue moved)
I'm putting this here because of multiple edit conflicts. Feel free to copy it to the ref desk. The fire bet is only available on the shooter's first come out roll. The numbers "2", "3", "7", "11", and "12" are irrevelant for the fire bet, so we'll disregard those. The shooter rolls until s/he throws a "4", "5", "6", "8", "9", or "10". Let's say the shooter rolls a "6". This number is the "point". The shooter continues to roll until a "7" is thrown and s/he loses, or a "6" is thrown, in which case the point is made and one-sixth of the fire bet is complete. The shooter must continue in this fashion, establishing a point, and making each point without rolling a "7" first. Any "7" thrown on a come out roll does not affect the fire bet. If the shooter establishes, and makes a "6", and then establishes and makes another "6", the second "6" is irrevelant to the fire bet. "4", "5", "6", "8", "9", and "10" must each be established (thrown on the come out roll), then made (thrown after the come out roll, before a "7" is thrown). Any "7" thrown between the establishing and making of a point renders the bet lost. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything else. Joefromrandb ( talk) 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Meni Rosenfeld, I am working on American Jews article now and I would like to ask you to translate the phrase "American Jews" or "Jewish Americans" into Hebrew. Is there a common name for Jews living in the US in Hebrew language? If yes, please let me know.-- Yerevanci ( talk) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Meni! We have had interesting discussions regarding statistical induction and prediction. You may like to read my article www.academia.edu/3247833 . The result is not reported in wikipedia because it is original research. Your comments and corrections are welcome. Yours truly, Bo Jacoby ( talk) 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC).
The most difficult and time-consuming part of my response to the homework question was checking that I could source the "special bonus" wine glasses sufficiently cheaply to still make a profit on the total package! As it happens, I'm planning to use what I wrote in my answer to the question about simultaneous linear equations in a rather more interesting way than the question might suggest... One of the courses I have to teach this year includes a section on information asymmetry, and as I was writing my original, rather shorter, response to the homework question it occurred to me that I could use this case as a nice introductory example. The prospective customer doesn't know who I am, nor does he have any idea of my abilities, so how can I persuade him to use my services? Of course I can offer a lower price, but I also need a way of signalling that I am capable of providing him with correct information. In my offer I therefore use various strategies. First, I show that I am more competent than my competitor by finding a failure in my competitor's offering that is obvious to the prospective buyer (I count the number of questions correctly) and provide a correction for free (there are four questions). Second, I find an obvious failure in my competitor's offering (he hasn't spotted the typo in 1.3) and indicate that I can provide the correct solution to the pair of equations in that question, but instead of doing so I provide information about my answer that the prospective buyer can check without my providing the answer immediately. Third, I provide general, publicly available evidence of my competence that the buyer can check immediately (my large number of edits to Wikipedia). Fourth, I provide (or in this case offer to provide) specific testimonials from previous people who have been able to assess my expertise (my degree certificates). Fifth, I signal my confidence in my ability to deliver the correct solutions by incurring a (potential) cost (I agree to a costly penalty) if my answers are wrong. Sixth, I signal that I am confident that on average my business model is profitable and that he will use my services again by agreeing to provide an introductory discount or bonus (in this case a non-cash bonus in the form of wine glasses or cuddly toy). Though not all of these are perfect examples of their kind, nor have I exhaustively covered all the possible things I could do to address the information asymmetry between myself and the prospective buyer who doesn't know how well I can provide my services, I have created an example that can be used in the course I shall be teaching. Even the time I spent on this response to you is time well-spent, as it has helped me get my thoughts and wording clear in my mind! RomanSpa ( talk) 16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I made an edit to define lower bound and upper bound in that article, but someone keeps reverting it and accusing me of being wrong. here. You seem to have a good knowledge about math. Maybe you can tell them that I'm not wrong, or you can explain to me what's wrong with my definition if it's indeed wrong. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.84.226 ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
[3] Hi Meni. Did your problem get a satisfactory solution? Happy new year! Bo Jacoby ( talk) 11:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful, patient posts here. Because this is the internet (and because of the behavior of the interlocutor), I am not exactly optimistic about them having a good effect, but they are much better than anything I would have written. Thanks! -- JBL ( talk) 12:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I know I asked this question many times before in the mathematics page, but I'd like to ask you personally:
Is it possible to unlock out of the cubic - without at all
changing variables as to reduce the equation to a suppressed cubic our even quadratic?
You see, what I'm trying to avoid is using variables "out of nowhere" without understanding how. As you know, in the quadratic it's pretty trivial. How many times could I ask this - is it at all possible to avoid anomalies like this!? יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pppery ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Meni Rosenfeld. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Meni Rosenfeld. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:RD1. Since you had some involvement with the Template:RD1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Meni Rosenfeld. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Meni Rosenfeld. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
This user left Wikipedia. Meni Rosenfeld has not edited Wikipedia since July 27, 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Write a new message. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply on this page, under your post.
Hello Meni Rosenfeld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Thank you for making an account.
I replied on my talk page about the square root. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a newcomer to the Wiki-world too. Thanks for the correction! MathStatWoman 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I kind of suspected you might have wanted to prepare a general intro page (which is why I warned you). I don't know how old you are, but I get the strong feeling that the "Boomer" and following generations, for the most part, prefer "trial & error"— not something that would appeal to a mathematician— but something strongly appealing to the "Adventure Game" set. (I, myself, am a recently retired Computer Scientist— and I date from the early '50s and analog and hybrid computers.)
I am now testing the intro page. I realize the spirit of Wikipedia is more in the nature of communal activities. But I feel some obligation not to provide non-working or otherwise defective references for the newbies.
But, hey, I placed a copy on a page called User:Meni Rosenfeld/Toolset It's all yours to do with as you please! But keep track of any changes you make to the generic (true content) stuff; you may want to change the Generic Page when I make it public. (At the end of the week; I promise.)
I suggest you bookmark that page and put a reference to all your other pages in the "My Shortcuts" section.
Hi and thanks for the comments. I responded on the shatter page. MathStatWoman 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I had a long holiday (8 days of candles and oily food), and did not have time for Wikipedia. I must be getting old and not getting enough sleep!!! YES, I meant unit circle! sigh...thanks...and thanks for being polite...some folks on Wikipedia are uncivil! I shall answer your other q's on the shatter page after I get some sleep -- too tired now. MathStatWoman 13:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jitse, I have noticed that you have a tool for a Random article in mathematics. That is of great interest to me (please see my discussion of the issue). Do you have any remarks on what is said in that discussion? Do you know a way to make such a tool more built-into Wikipedia? -- Meni Rosenfeld 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I have an opportunity to make you glad :)
-- Meni Rosenfeld 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, See discussion on shattering for my answer to one of your q's. More when I have time.
Cheers. MathStatWoman 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A page by the above name has been created to assist newbies. It is an eclectic index into Wikipedia. Here's hoping it will arouse some interest in improving upon it. —> normxxx talk—> email 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The weekend has ended, Shabbat and the day after to recover from Shabbat, and time again for work, school, and Wikiworld. So here we are.
Back to your q's:
1. About subsets, we probabilists do indeed use the notation that I used, but if it bothers set theorists, and I change it, then the notation will annoy the probabilists. Sigh... we cannot satisfy everyone... I really want to leave it as it is, but if Wikipedia demands otherwise, let me know, and we'll discuss it further.
2. We settled that, right?
3. More to come on empirical process article as I get time between work, research, school. Thanks to everyone who entitled that article well and re-directed it properly.
4. About discussing distribution functions (df's): [incidentally, probabilists, when doing serious research, do not use the teminology "cumulative" df's(cdf's), but just df (see all the peer-reviewed papers in Ann.Prob,. J.Appl Prob, and texts such as Loeve's on the grad level); cdf is used for undergrads, though.] Anyway, in the article on shattering, we re-cast df's in terms of collections of sets because this is a very important example: we want to study sets on the real line of the form { v : v ≤ x }, that is, sets of values that are less than or equal to x. Let C be the collection of all such sets on the real line, that is, of the form , { v : v ≤ x } for all real numbers x. This is not done in the article on df's because it does not belong there; it belongs in the article on shattering. It really is vital to discuss it in the article shattering. It is an example that appears in many peer-reviewed articles on shattering.
Cheers, MathStatWoman 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful advice. All that info is good to know. How did you learn so much, so fast? MathStatWoman 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser :- CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you for help about 'decipher a ciphertext by a simple Caesar sipher.'
dear Meni: I am not clear about your answer, I just want to know how to decrypt the message zycu. "given f(x)=23x+10 (mod 26) is a bijection(one to one and onto) that it can be used as a subtitution cipher, then decrypt the message ZYCU was enctypted by using the function."
thank you
Those will be very useful! Thanks for the information. I especially like that they can be specialized for each section of the Reference Desk. Thanks again. -- Natalya 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I agree completely and appreciate the constructive tone. Cheers, rodii.
Thanks. How come you are only active in the english wikipedia? Omer Enbar 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Though more commonly I play skat. Omer Enbar 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in answerimg my question about "including my article in a broader search." (Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute) When you get a chance, could you let me know how to add redirects to my article? Also, is there any way to make my article come up as an option when someone searches for something more vague, such as "bioethics"? Thanks so much! Kathychen 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
#Redirect [[Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute]]
Was that helpful? I could have sworn I had a differential equations textbook which explained how to calculate asymptotic expansions for solutions, but I can't find it. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed at the help desk that you seem to think that a newly created article needs "a few weeks" before it can be searched for. This is not the case, a newly created page will be able to be searched for immediately or if thing are running slowly then in a few minutes. Please contact me on my talk page if you need any further help or discussion about this. hydnjo talk 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This method doesn't seem to be averting all the Ref Desk questions. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be caused by 1 of 2 things:
Therefore, I was trying to minimize the instructions and keep them positive. I'll give it another shot. -- Go for it! 19:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the template advice (on the helpdesk page). I've begun reading the talk pages and will soon do some testing. They are a bit esoteric, but fortunately invoking them seems reasonably easy. Thanks! MattHucke (t) 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Wiki-star 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to say thank you for your assistance on the formula, I have verified it- privately, of course- and discovered the errors you have mentioned, correcting wherever I could. I AM sorry that the wrong information has stayed on Wikipedia for so long, and grateful that you came to assist me. The question is that my education in mathematics is somewhat strangely developed- my interest for it has developed to fanaticism, and in many respects I have educated myself or tried to prove things out, just to satisfy my interest and curiosity. We have not yet done trignometry at school, and my knowledge of it was mainly self- taught, and thus sometimes defective. I am afraid I do not know the identity you have mentioned, but shall doubtless find out more about it myself. My ability is also very strangely developed- I am afraid I have not done dimensional analysis at all, but I have taught myself relativistic mathematics, and differential calculus. Luthinya 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you do, sir. It's yet another note from me and once again it is to thank you on the marvellous help you have provided for me, relating to the formula. Seeing these advice also reminded me of another thing I adored about mathematics- it allows you to express very complex ideas so succintly, yet never once looses the initial beauty of the idea.
As far as mathematics itself is concerned, I tend to view it in a similar model to Pygmalion's ivory virgin, an art at once so cold and precise, like the beauty of sculpture, yet endowed with a grace so celestial and unearthly, as of a most wondrous maiden, waiting only to be roused by the breath of a spring wind. To see her figure is to be ecstatically tantalized, yet one is also filled with a curious regret, upon touching her sides, to know that she is unfortunately not of the flesh. In any case, the beauty of nature is explicit through geometry, especially fractal geometry. Yet one must not confuse between the symbol of nature and nature itself, the latter being more wondrous than we will ever make of it.
I hope these opinions have somehow been amusing for you to read and not wasted your userspace. Delete them if you like. Luthinya 12:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
em actually i have been told on sevral occasions by engineers (my my maths teacher's brother and engineers who visited the school) by the way did you thing i just made that up? never mind
I have a question. If I find an article and nkow that it needs to be improved, What tag shoud I stick on that article? Is there such a tag? What will this tag to to the article? Will it make it more visible to other editors(will it put it into a special list of articles that need to be improved)?-- BorisFromStockdale 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with the original template? The old one worked. In this new one, the "click here"-link doesn't work properly. - Mgm| (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I appear to have been blocked but don't understand why. Yesterday I asked a perfectly innocent question and received a very terse answer from Erik to which I edited a thankyou note with a supplementary question, and then having saved it I noticed I had misspelt Erik as Eric so I tried to correct it but was told I had been blocked. Surely that cannot be fair? Please advise and unblock me if you agree. Thanks. Jamesatnumber8@aol.com 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response advising I had not been blocked - but - I just tried to re-edit the mistake I discussed earlier and got the message that either my name or my I.P. had been blocked and when I checked the blocked list, my I.P. was there for the 16th April.White Squirrel 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Meni, for your appearance on User talk:Sean Black regarding his capricious block of my account. He's popped up briefly, but without diffs to support his claim that I'd violated WP:3RR, which I am quite certain do not exist - I assume he's realized that by now. We'll see what happens. Timothy Usher 06:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. -- Alf 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Meni. I was reading our article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, which says that "The Hebrew Wikipedia is renowned for its high standards of mathematical articles". I have to say, this comment makes me a bit jealous, as I consider our math coverage at en.wikipedia to be quite good (compared to other online sources). I noticed on your userpage that you are a Hebrew speaker, and of course I've known you for a while around here as a mathematically minded editor. I was just wondering, are you also familiar with the Hebrew wikipedia? Are you familiar with its math coverage? Would you be able to make some anecdotal comments about how good their math coverage is (especially as it compares to ours)? I just wonder how seriously I should take their claim of expert math coverage. - lethe talk + 10:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a happy Birthday message to you, Meni Rosenfeld, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
S t e v e o 2 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello friend. I wish you a very happy birthday, one day late - yesterday I was away and so I missed the party. I learnt of the same from
Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year. --
Bhadani 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Meni for your reply.
I will keep my nose out of Marco Polo discussion from now on. I hope they just delete the vandal posts and stop putting my ip number up. If they do i will keep deleting them. This Eugameo and his many alias names keeps calling me a vadal just because i posted some facts and evidence that Marco Polo is not Italian. A document written by an Italian in those days clearly says Marco Polo is Dalmatian and originated from Dalmatia. Countless other sources written by Italians and other non Croatians support this view. If he was born on Korcula and most agree the chances of him being Croatian are very high. Korcula was mostly populated by Croatians in those times. Many documents of those times also show that Polo and De Polo last name was Italianised under Venice rule of Dalmatia, so all these Polos and De POlos from Venice and Korcula were in fact Croats. Last but not least Iam Montenegrin so I think i would be unbias in my view of the matter.
I have nothing agianst the Italian people just Euganeo who so contradicting. He said Croat names were Italianised but Marco Polo did not...how silly when proof suggests he did.
Peace
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming and straghtening out these two articles. I knew nothing at all about these terms before I started copy-editing them (which they badly needed).
Now that I see the two articles in their context, have looked at the few articles that link to them, I know something about them and I believe they should be merged. There could be one short article on Average and Over, with explanations of the two varieties. I can write the copy, but I don't know how to merge the articles, or propose the merger, or whatever is done. They are pretty obscure articles, so if there's a quick way to merge them, IMHO that is what should be done.
Either do what you know how to do, or leave word on my Talk page, or both. Thank you. Lou Sander 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
HELP!!! The article Average and over (hands lost) seems to have come back alive. It may have something to do with conflicting or simultaneous edits by you and by me. As far as I'm concerned, all articles on the baseball term "average and over," including versions with the modifiers "(runs)" or "(hands lost)," regardless of capitalization, can and should now be properly redirected to Average and over, which, though brief, covers it all. Am I wrong, did I kill it improperly or fail to kill it, is there a better way to do this, etc.???? Lou Sander 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the question. It is for a math competition.
Given that
(For some reason it wouldn't let me write as the upper bound of the integral, so I improvised)
Evaluate
-- Codeblue87 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that (for example, ) Evaluate .
Hello. I was looking for someone who is He-n to help with a very quick translation related to a disambiguation project that I am on. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at Talk:Rimmon and either comment there or edit the artcicle accordingly? Thanks in advance. -- Brian G 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. The process is quite daunting. I am trying to put a biography on my company into the database because we have recently been the focus of a lot of media attention due to our projects in the Hurricane Katrina area. We are not trying to advertise, but trying to get factual information out because some of the articles printed recently have contained a lot of rumors.
My posting has been tagged as advertising even though I tried to make it very neutral. Is there a place or person whom I might consult for specific recommendations on my posting to prevent it from being thrown off the site? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angikay2 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your helpful answer to my question on the help page! Ccrrccrr 13:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thank you but if you could elaborate more i will be grateful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaily iitian ( talk • contribs) .
You think I should do it? I found the time stamp to fill up more space than helpful to me. — Mac Davis] ( talk) ( Desk| Help me improve)
Thank you for answering my question at the Helpdesk. -- After Midnight 0001 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
My kingdom for an in-place, WYSIWYG, wikitext math and table editor. Heck, an OpenOffice plug-in to use a wiki as a back-end would be pretty darned handy! Know of anything in this approximate constellation of tools? -- Fuzzyeric 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Auroranorth 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Mark! Wwhere exactly and how exactly would I change the wikicode on the page? Would I add something like "Pricing details for NZ added" where I made the change, and then put this also in the edit summary? Regards, Drahmad 05:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
GRRR! Sorry I got the name wrong Meni!! Thanks again and feel free to delete this section as you see fit :) Drahmad 05:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that you saw my (multiple) edits to the Wii page, is it considered poor form/bad etiquette to perform "multiple" edits to reach the end goal? The main reason I had those "micro-edits" was that I was afraid I might destroy the whole page by making some formatting mistake, so did things one at a time to ensure that I didn't stuff it up. It helps now knowing that I can "revert" a page, and I will also copy and paste the code somewhere until I'm satisified I can put it back together again if needed. Drahmad 07:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, I compleatly forgot that Wikipedia is pretty much global, and on another note that was a fas reply! Have a nice day--- Seadog.M.S 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does the comment you removed not belong there? The range of the tangent and cotangent functions should be viewed as the real projective line with only one point at infinity. Michael Hardy 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind my asking, what's your f(), or at least what values do you have already? It might be possible to coerce your definition of f() into a form amenable to inverse z-transformation. -- Fuzzyeric 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, sorry about the correction I made, I didn't understand it, I realised right after that I had made a mistake. And I don't know how to revert articles, so I left it.
what I was trying to say in my comment, is, that a trapezium is a shape with at least 2 sides parallel... I no longer have my Australian Math text book, but it explains it completely, with the diagram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkeysone ( talk • contribs) ..
I was thinking that some elements of our discussion on the math reference desk would be useful if added to the probability section of Dice. Would you mind if I copied the math markup you wrote for that second formula (specifically,
for use in the article? — Saric ( Talk) 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting to an unclean version on square root. I think I thought "von eduard" was the name of the function. Excuse my ignorance. Itsmejudith 10:38, 11 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 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about Mr Troll, I will ignore him from now on. Your work on the 0.999... discussion is great and very helpful. I'm sorry if I've been annoying ranting about how we should give more emphasis to number systems that make use of infinitesimals. It's mainly just that I remember years ago, when they taught me this at school how it annoyed me, so perhaps I feel too sorry for people in a similar position. Besides, I feel like the intuition is very interesting and has some relevance and a kind of correctness in other areas. Anyway, thanks for your patience.
(copied to User talk:157.161.173.24) -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your efforts on 0.999... and the discussions thereof. I wanted to ask you, is there anything we can do to get this troll blocked from the Arguments page? He really is disrupting the discussion to a serious degree, and I'm losing interest in helping with it because of him. It is sad to think of people leaving the article knowing less than they could, because of all his crap. What can we do about it? Maelin 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There most certainly is a "mathematics of the real numbers", in the same way that there is a "mathematics of the hyperreal numbers" or a "mathematics of the transfinite cardinals". The fact that 0.999... = 1 is a direct consequence of the structure of the real numbers, and does not necessarily hold for the similarly-named objects in other axiomatic systems. The properties of sums of infinite series, and the absence of infinitesimals from the standard reals, are not intuitively obvious; hence all the controversy about this small, but crucial result. -- The Anome 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you participated in the discussion at talk:division by zero about the chart being sold by an (allegedly) educational publisher that says that 1/0 = 0, 2/0 = 0, etc., perhaps it will interest you to know that at this web site where the chart is sold, the publisher now solicits opinions of the product. You can go there and tell them what you think. Michael Hardy 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Great post there on Talk:0.999.../Arguments#Let's end this madness ("John: Okay, I'll try this one more time.")! -- Kprateek88( Talk | Contribs) 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Meni -
First, I want to thank you for the obvious time and effort you spent editing/maintaining this subject.
Second: I wanted to express my concern over your decision to remove other methods of calculating an initial estimate (ref 10:55, 8 September 2006). (I am sorry I have not replied sooner - I made some edit back in May 2006 and stored a copy of the page for my reference and had not returned to this WP page until now.) I have long developed software for embedded applications with both processor and real-time limitations. The type of estimation that was described was very useful as an initial seed for a Newton's method iteration on an reciprocal square root algorithm (which, as the page correctly states, can require a fairly accurate seed value to converge). The only (rough) estimation technique currently left on the page is, by comparison, grossly inaccurate, as it omits the correction factor. Also, the one you deleted is valuable for processors and applications where divisions are too costly to consider.
A third note: Rather than merely being a means of finding a square root, the reciprocal square root is extremely important for direct use in very fast normalization/rescaling of L2 vectors (by a single multiply). For this very common use, it is vastly superior to directly finding and using the square root, especially in cases where there is no hardware support for division.
And lastly: As for the basis upon which I tweaked the adjustment factors (my edits of May 2006), I explicitly wrote how I derived the adjustment factors: "where the derivation of the adjustment is the average of the square root of first digit and the square root of the first digit incremented by one, all divided by √10." Put another way, the adjustments were spaced to minimize the maximum errors generated on each interval --- for a leading digit of 1 on the interval of [1,2) I used the midpoint of the function's interval of [1/SQR(10), SQR(2)/SQR(10)). I believe I had made a study of this technique at the time, and found the theoretical values I had provided in WP were correct & superior to the original values when supported by a large sample set of calculations. For my use I needed to fully comprehend the underlying concept, as I was hoping to characterize/implement it for a moderately larger binary sized table, not one with just 9 (decimal) entries. Plus I needed to adapt it to RECIPROCAL square root estimation. Once I analyzed what was being shown, I recognized it as a simple table based technique I had commonly implemented in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.173.64 ( talk) 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey Meni, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- Cronholm144 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Politics rule 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
GrooveDog 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I appologise for the impoliteness, I just hadn't checked my refference question for a while, and I guess I just let them pile up. Sorry! I'll be more carefull in the futer! Gbgg89 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think so, but I just love that name, "Caratheodory" .... ;-) iames 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We always look forward to your clever posts and this is an excellent example. ;-) - hydnjo talk 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your opinion that only half of the square roots in the world matter, the “most texts” you refer to are undoubtedly written for those who understand very little about the consequences of having multiple roots to an equation. One example, from an engineering standpoint, is that some machines operate differently in the forward direction than the reverse. For instance, the shock absorbers on a car are angled to the front of the vehicle. As non-symmetrical elements, they operate differently when expanding than contracting, and are positioned to provide a critically damped experience when the car moves in the forward direction. If one drives in reverse over a speed bump, the impact is significantly more forceful. Try it!
Your point that “most texts refer to...” is actually the one that isn’t meaningful. Your point refers to your personal philosophy that only principle square roots are meaningful. The mathematical actuality is that both roots matter, and this equation is a perfect example of why. It will very much be to your benefit in your continuing education if you realize that math works, not just your perception of what is an appropriate convention.
Best, Dr. Gnow. Dr gnow 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The “dubious utility” from your previous post is the reason that the original equation in question is internally consistent. It is the convention of considering only primary root of 1 that leads to what appears an inconsistent equation. You are correct that equalities are transitive, then you go on to make the same mistake I previously pointed out by using only one root on each side of the equation.
Claiming that I did not read the article or your post reflects your perception that as we disagree, your opinion is somehow more valid than mine. It is you who completely missed the point of my original post.
Also, if you choose to be offended so easily, perhaps you should not refer to the contribution of others as “not really meaningful.”
Dr gnow 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Just, wow. You have huge, gigantic balls. I can't believe that you have actually tried to make an argument with such circular logic and such an authoritative voice, then you play the "I can't see you" card by claiming our discussion is going nowhere. How arrogant of you.
If you're really that unable to follow through with a discussion, please remove your comment from my post on the square root page. Also, I think it would benefit you to put quite a bit more thought into what you put on Wikipedia, it's fairly permanent way to document your work. I don't particularly like or respect you, but I'd still hate to see your quest for self importance injure your career later in life.
Best. Oh, and why don't you write "convention" one more time? Again, your "convention" clearly doesn't apply here, but you seem to enjoy writing the word.
Dr gnow 05:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Meni,
Thank you for defending the REAL WORLD from the witchcraft of the AMERICAN SCIENTIST. How dare he claim that there are two answers to a factual question? The Lord advises us on difficult questions, and I'm glad he's spoken to you and shown you THE WAY in this matter. Its best that you ignore that rapscallion, Jesus wouldn't respect you if you entertained his nonsense. I don't think you're arrogant, I think you walk in the path of the Lord, even if, as a Jew, you don't yet appreciate the grace of Jesus. Nobody should hold that against you in the context of math and science.
JesusLuver247 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC) JesusLuver247, You're way off the mark. I hope that even someone like Meni can put you back on track, and I really hope that your zeal and self conviction in a field you don't understand invites Meni to reconsider his self-biased conclusions. Just like Meni, you need a wider perspective before you comment on these issues.
Best, Dr gnow 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate it. The soon to be registered unanonymous user ;) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.125.254 ( talk) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, I've spent some time editing on my page and have included (though not yet complete) one of my more significant/useful works relating to polynomials. Feel free to check it out. A math-wiki 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I was only really interested in looking at the graphincal behavior of complex solutions for different polynomials, so restricting the output to real values is of no real consequence. A math-wiki 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I got a little over my knowledge level their on the paths question in the refence desk. I think I have the algorithm he's looking for now. A math-wiki 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with the block matrices. I am still not absolutely sure about the proof yet. Since the page has been archived I was wondering whether you could take a look at the proof that I have written here and help me finish it. Again thanks-- Shahab 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection for Division by zero and Theory of everything. — Loadmaster 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed in couple instinces that our answers for some of the questions asked on the reference desk have been at odds. I want to preempt any bad blood. I find it occasionally worrysome that you sometimes give answers that are quiet possibly well beyond the understanding of the OP. Such answers aren't wrong, but are generally not that helpful nor are they what the OP is really looking for. If want to point out that their question relates to somethings they as yet may not understand that's ok but try if at all possible to answer there question at the same level as it was asked. I took me several years before I learned how not confuse people I tried to help in math class. Keeping your explanations on par with someone's understanding is not always that easy! It usually translates to giving through explanations for anything that is even slightly beyond their appearant understanding it is necessary to give a clear answer to their question. A math-wiki 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind, I suppose a good example would be mention in the imaginary number question about i and -i, yes you are right that the distinction is arbitrary but mentioning field theory to someone who is probably a high school Junior or Senior is basically a waste of text, even if it might be useful to some of the others who are answering. If you feel it is still necessary to reference something like that well beyond the OP's understanding try adding an explanation of at least the ideas behind it. I should also mention that people like our OP here sometimes are not very proficient with mathematical terminology and might miss interpret from your tone that arbitrary meant that it was impossible to distinguish between i and -i, implying it does matter if you write i or -i and that they are freely interchangable, which I am pretty sure is not correct. I should also note when I feel that a correction to someones answer in order I usually try to kritique the person's answer, being extremely specific as to what is completely correct and what is misleading or not correct. A math-wiki 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being able to calmly say what I was getting too upset to say! I have been hugely heartened by the response of so many Wikipedians to the difficulties recently, it really means a lot to me. Thanks again, and best wishes, DuncanHill ( talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me in the Help:Reference Mathematics section. My math teacher isn't so good, and just gives our class worksheets to do on ourown without explaining how to do them. Then they turn to me to tutor them and teach them how to do it. It's so much easier when someone older explains it out and gives assistance, instead of everyone just expecting me to know what's going on. Thanks again, S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ( Talk to Me)
(I see you have many similar headings on your talk page)
but anyway, you mentioned something about uses for the division by zero.
What could they possibly be, we're not even talking about something in the real number line?
and thanks for the correction about the math book thing. Freenaulij ( talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to your answer. Yes, I meant that (with the absolute value), forgot to type it, but it still doesn't work, why? -- Taraborn ( talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Just felt like dropping some aditional lines to my apologies at the RD. You are right in that my posting there today was appalling. But I give you my word that no offense was intented. I'll try next time to be more precise and cautious before giving an answer. Regards, Pallida Mors 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info for my inquiry on wanting a domain name and email without needing hosting. I looked more at your list of 10 and you are right there are better options. I set up a Bluwiki to help with my decision making here: http://www.bluwiki.com/go/Domain_and_email. Guroadrunner ( talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed that you were perhaps on the receiving end of some possibly negative comments from some anonymous trolls on the mathematics reference desk. Just wanted to advise you not to put up with it (warn and report where necessary) and also consider just removing stupid comments and not replying to them. Perhaps I'm making too much of this, but it just annoyed me that you are trying to help people with attitudes like this. Regards, MSGJ ( talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meni, Hope I didn't disillusion you too much about computer vision and clustering. Anyway I had a though about possible datasets. What about using data collected from wikipedia? Its a vast source of data with lots of revision/contribution histories, internal linking and such like. Not quite sure how you would get a Euclidean metric out of it though.
The other thing to try is to ask around your university, There are probably people there in all sort of disciplines with handy datasets. -- Salix alba ( talk) 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: You may want to look at this regarding some of the question raised on the userpage. Basically, you should be okay as long as you don't use sockpuppetry for evil and don't use both accounts to participate in the same (or related) articles\discussions. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
should work. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.185.240 ( talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Idontknow 610 TM 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes from Canada! ;-) -- Rob NS 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meni, I replied to your Nash equilibrium question on the archive page of the maths reference desk. Not sure if it's at all relevant, but I wanted to point it out anyway. Oliphaunt ( talk) 10:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Gandalf61 and Algebraist and Lambiam and KSmrq and Meni Rosenfeld and others have taught me more about mathematics than have all of my formal instructors - THANKS. hydnjo talk 02:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This user is a Reference desk regular. |
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r c 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Meni, I came to your page after searching for users with knowledge of Arabic. We are discussing Al Farooj Fresh at AfD and I think it's close to being notable with English language sources, however it's probably not quite there. I wonder if you could have a look for relevant Arabic sources and bring them to the party please?! Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Long time no see at the reference desk. Really nice to see you're back! Wellcome! NorwegianBlue talk 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The other answers given appear correct, but here's a more concrete way of looking at it:
Say we're measuring heights above sea level, and you get 0, 1, and 5 (after measuring the heights at high tide). Your average is (0 + 1 + 5)/3 = 2 feet above sea level. I measure the heights at low tide when the water is 4 feet lower, so I get 4, 5, and 9. My average is (4 + 5 + 9)/3 = 6 feet above sea level. You got 2 feet. I got 6 feet, when the water is 4 feet lower. So we BOTH got the same average height. But if it were correct to say the average of 0 numbers is 0, then should that 0 be your sea level, or mine? There's no non-arbitrary answer. So it doesn't make sense to say the "empty average" is 0. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for spending so much time on my Reference Desk question! A pity that it's such a ridiculously hard question; I never imagined that it would be virtually impossible to answer. Nyttend ( talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Rosenfeld:
I was the person asking the Bernoulli trials. Thanks for your response! Your solution is excellent, I found it very educational.
70.29.26.221 ( talk) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Meni, I have a small curiosity raised by a recent thread. At a certain point they mentioned a representation of real numbers in base π. I understand it as writing a number as a series of decreasing powers of pi: but where do we pick the coefficients? A minimal set should be {0,1,2,3} although it gives non-unique representations. Is it just this, or is there something more subtle? Is there a standard form for this representation, like the one you mentioned for the golden ratio base? (Ah I see, there is a maximal one...) Do not loose too much time to answer my question. I'm just shy about putting the question there because it seemed a kind of hot topic and I do not want to stir up troubles... Thanks, Pietro -- pma ( talk) 13:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Meni
Is your problem asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Evaluating a probability estimator solved?
Bo Jacoby ( talk) 06:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC).
I am not sure I understood the problem right. If it can be explained by means of a small example perhaps you get more suggestions. Bo Jacoby ( talk) 12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC).
I am perfectly within my rights to delete any or all of the contents on my talk page. It is not rude in the slightest. I don't feel that your comments in any way add to the quality of Wikipedia or to my article editing; so they have been removed. This is a right that I intend to exercise for a third time. As for your comment "If you wish to remove this post you are within your right, but in this case do not expect me to ever communicate with you again." Well, to be honest, I would be very pleased if you were to stop communicating with me. (Although whether giving lectures is really communication is debatable.) In the last few weeks, you have made five unsolicited posts on my talk page about topics which do not involve you directly. If the parties involved have accepted my attempts to make peace ( see here) then I don't see why you should keep writing condescending messages almost 24 hours after the event. Why can't you just let it drop? I would ask you not to post anything more on my talk page with regard to this matter since all parties involved see the matter as closed. If you continue to add similar posts after I have deleted them then I shall view your action as harassment. Please stop! ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
To anyone who stumbles upon this page and is wondering what the fuss is all about, see my original attempt to reason with User:Declan Davis. After he has assured me that there was nothing to worry about, his continued behavior (evidenced everywhere in WP:RD/math) demonstrated that in fact there was. He then refused to accept any criticism and deleted my posts here, here and here. Now that I am convinced beyond any doubt that User:Declan Davis is a troll with no desire to amend his ways, I will be delighted to honor his request to cease my attempts to help him. I hope others will follow. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 04:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: The above links no longer work. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
כמובן שכל הדיון אינו מתיחס למצבים טריויאליים, כגון למצב שבו אחד מביטויי-השורש שבאחד מאגפי המשוואה - זהה במקדמים שלו לאחד מביטויי-השורש שבאגף השני, או כאשר היחס שבין שני המקדמים שבאחד מביטויי-השורש - זהה ליחס הזה באחד משאר ביטויי-השורש. וכעת, לגופו של ענין: כזכור, אתה טענת שכשיש יותר מארבעה ביטויי-שורש אז כבר אין דרך [אלגברית] לפתור את המשוואה. ובכן, אני בכוונה בחרתי משוואה עם ששה ביטויי-שורש ולא עם חמישה, שכן יש מקרים - לא טריויאליים - שבהם כן ניתן לחלץ באופן אלגברי את פתרונה של משוואה בעלת חמישה ביטויי-שורש (מה שאין כן כשבמשוואה ששה ביטויי-שורש). לדוגמה
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
לכן
כל ביטוי של שורש ריבועי מייצג מספר ממשי אי-שלילי, ומכאן שכל אחד מאגפי המשוואה הנ"ל חייב להיות מאופס, ולכן
לכן
HOOTmag ( talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:Whitespace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The concept "f is a bijection from A to B" has a very strict unambiguous definition. Whatever is a "bijection f from A to B" according to the classical definition, is also a "bijection f from A to B" according to the following definition:
What happens if I delete the words "in A" from the last condition? Then I get another definition, very similar (and almost equivalent) to the first one. Yet, the two alternative definitions are not equivalent to each other: For example, the correspondence (on the real numbers): "be the opposite number of" can be restricted to a bijection from the set of negative numbers to the set of positive numbers - according to both definitions, while the correspondence (on the real numbers) "be the square of" can be restricted to a bijection from the set of negative numbers to the set of positive numbers - according to the first definition only, yet not according to the second one - which doesn't enable the restriction.
Let's call the first definition (described above): "the extended definition of classical bijection", and let's call the last definition (received by deleting the words "in A"): "the definition of strong bijection". My question is about whether there is a simple brief term for what I call "strong bijection", or I have to explicitly display the second definition whenever I have to use "strong bijections".
HOOTmag ( talk) 10:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just put it at the Reference desk. Have a nice day. HOOTmag ( talk) 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You suggested the identities of and to prove ( × ) ⋅ (( × ) × ( × )) = ( ⋅ ( × ))2. My left side looks like: ( × ) ⋅ ( ⋅ ( × )). How should I proceed? Thanks in advance. -- Mayfare ( talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
for your help here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.243.41 ( talk) 09:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Meni, I hope you don't mind me approaching you on your talk page. I always though that the natural numbers were contained in the integers, which were themselves contained in the rational numbers, which were themselves contained in the real numbers, which were themselves contained in the complex numbers, which were themselves contained in the quaternions, i.e. ℕ ⊂ ℤ ⊂ ℚ ⊂ ℝ ⊂ ℂ ⊂ ℍ.
A question on the mathematics reference desk seems to have replies which claim, for example, that the integers are not a subset of the real numbers. This seems to be something to do with the formal definition of the integers and/or the real numbers. But how can this be? Is there a definition of the real numbers that says that −1 is not a real number? That 0 is not a real number? That 1 is not a real number?
Surely we have: If n is an integer then n is a real number? Therefore ℤ ⊂ ℝ. •• Fly by Night ( talk) 14:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help on the question I had on correlation coefficient. You helped me a lot :-) - 114.76.235.170 ( talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking at an active infestation, take it to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If Materialscientist is offline, he won't be able to do anything to help you, and if you're talking about the same individual who's plaguing Materialscientist's talk page, you don't need to inform him (and you're only feeding the attention-seeker there). — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 09:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop dobbing on me mate. We can be mates if ya wanna. Stop dobbing and get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.58.220 ( talk) 10:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.76.208 ( talk) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Rumplestilskin ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)This makes about the fourth time I have tried to contribute something to Wikipedia, or even to ask a question. It is also the fourth time I have gotten absolutely nowhere. Wikipedia is a mystery to me. I just don't understand it, and I don't think I'll even try again. Life is too short, and I don't want to shorten the time that I have left my spending hours of frustrating, irritating, and unproductive time to unravel its mysteries. I will continue to use Wikipedia, but I have to give up on trying to interact with it.
Here's what I was trying to do this time. I was trying to comment on something I saw at the following address: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Buddy_(song)>
Rumplestilskin ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)This article states the following: It is universally believed this song was written about a World War soldier who lost his friend in battle. Well, you'll have to change this to "almost universally," because Charles Marowitz believes differently. In his article "The Neglected Walter Donaldson," Mr. Marowitz says the following: " His most durable song may well have been My Buddy written in l922, inspired by the unexpected and heartbreaking death of his young fiancé and curiously adopted during World War II as a song about male camaraderie among the allied troops. A simple but mesmerizing waltz tune, which, sung by an evocative singer, can still subdue a noisy nightclub audience into a reverent silence".
Wikipedia is too tough for me to use, but I have nothing but admiration for it. Keep up the good work.
Hi Meni, Your interesting comment, "I've done some numerical investigation and it looks like the correct expression is , where c tends to some number around 0.7 (maybe it's )" really got my attention. After thinking it over for a few days, I am still baffled. Would it be possible for you to shed some light on how you derived the expression?
Concerning my issue regarding "(without regard to order)," I feel that my question about exactly what the Goldbach partition counting function is enumerating is still kind of up in the air. In my opinion, mathworld's article, Goldbach Partition seems to adequately address this issue, but then muddies the water with an extra function . This issue is centered upon exactly what it is that we actually mean when we call something a Partition (or a Composition for that matter). This got me to thinking that as Wikipedeans, we are in a good position to do a much better job (than say, mathworld) of resolving this seemingly mundane issue. While I was mulling this over, I found an interesting short paper, On Partitions of Goldbach’s Conjecture by Max See Chin Woon that contains the seeds of a slightly more formal definition for Goldbach Partitions. To explain myself in better detail, I would be happy to prepare a short paper (prototype wiki article, 'Goldbach Partition') for you, if you are interested. What do you think? Best regards, Mathup ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: As an aside (and this could be nothing), I propose candidate for the constant in the vicinity of ; could it possibly be the Twin prime constant? Mathup ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Meni. Your spot on analysis is just what I needed. It will take me a while to digest what you've done. Before we move this thread to the the article'ss talk page, I want to be sure that I understand your position. Is my position unsupportable because there does not appear to be any conventional or standard terminology 'out there' (mathworld, et. al.)? Do you agree that the operative words here are 'standard' and 'conventional'? Please don't get me wrong, since it's clear to me that mathworld is an extremely valuable resource that complements what we are doing here and vise versa. In my opinion, Mathworld's 'micro-article', Goldbach Partition almost hits the nail on the head, but stops short when they introduce the second Goldbach counting function without giving us any clue as to the 'conventional' number-theoretic name for it (the 'Goldbach composition counting function' as opposed to the 'Goldbach partition counting function', and inside an article about partitions? ). Is it un-encyclopedic for us to assume a leadership role and nail down some absent at best or loose at worst (IMHO) conventional/customary/standard terminology? I think that our apparent divergence does not come to the fore until we attempt to actually count those Goldbach puppies. I think convention can step in to save the day, for example, mathworld's article Partition states, "By convention[<--operative word alert], partitions are normally written from largest to smallest addends (Skiena 1990, p. 51)." My issue is that this conventional usage should[<--operative word alert] apply to Goldbach partitions and Goldbach compositions as well. I have been unable to find any meaningful literature about Goldbach compositions -- it's all Goldbach partitions this and Goldbach partitions that. Goldbach schmartitions! Maybe two new sections to Goldbach's conjecture will be in order (or reverse order)[<--sarcasm alert]. Maybe this apparently unnecessary naming rigor upon which I have been harping could cause a small paradigm shift that carries us a little closer to a better understanding Goldbach's Conjecture. Or, maybe not. We will never know if we don't try it out.
I hope that I have not tried your patience too much. I know that you have bigger fish to fry at the institute and I want to thank you for corresponding with me and shining your expert math luminescence on my benign (at first glance) questions and concerns. I hope that you will still be available when subsequent related questions slowly ooze into my faded math consciousness. In local street parlance, "Meni, you da man!"-- Mathup ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Meni, Yes, and are not standard notation as far as I can tell. After some drilling down, I found the same notation in only one paper Fractal in the statistics of Goldbach partition. In a cursory survey of the literature, I found the most common notation for the Goldbach partition counting function to be and sometimes . Both seem quite reasonable to me, but are nonstandard nonetheless. However, my point that counts compositions and does not count partitions is probably forever lost. Since number theorists, like cowboys are a rare breed and Goldbach is a relatively obscure sub-specialty horse in the number theory stable, I wouldn't expect standardized notation for the Goldbach partition counting function. However, the clear and concise math definitions for the English words 'partition' and 'composition' are routinely misused, even by smart people who 'ought' know better, thereby substituting choas for progress on the Goldbach front, in my humble opinion. I guess I'm willing to live with it if they are. You have pointed me in the right direction to help me understand why Wikipedia may not be the proper venue to create an small enclave of order inside a the whirlwind of chaos. I realize that I'm dancing on the edge of what might be construed by some as 'original research' and am now more inclined to just let the sleeping doggies lie, since there is not a plethora of sources to reference. I suspect that your assessment that the issue is fairly insignificant may be well founded. But, wouldn't it delightful if we are both wrong? I admire your willingness to tread into strange waters outside your specialty. Finding myself in the unenviable position of being my own research director, I'll definitely let you know if I happen upon something less insignificant. I'll have some more questions about evaluating summations with ugly summands as I trundle into the future. Until then, shalom Mathup ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Meni, Hope all is well with you. After groping in the dark all night, I've made a modicum of progress. Would it be possible for you to numerically investigate the following summation for me?
.
My best naive guess for the highest order term so far is
.
Take care, Mathup ( talk) 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Meni, This useful (to me) result looks really good at first glance. With conflicting priorities, I won't be able to test it thoroughly straight away, but I'll get back to you as time permits. Thank you soo...o much, Meni! Shalom, Mathup ( talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Meni (rather belated) for your clear and concise answer to my question as to whether triplet primes are possible. Of course, now I see that they cannot exist, but I did immediately note that in the case of twin primes, the even number separating them MUST always be divisible by three. What an insight, eh?
And I was very interested to hear that there is no formal proof that the set of twin primes is infinite! Myles325a ( talk) 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw your post about the angle of rotation of an ellipse, I'd never seen it done that way before - it's very neat.
I'd normally use a more heavy-handed approach of taking a standard ellipse , rotating to an arbitrary angle etc., substituting in and expanding and then comparing coefficients. Your version is much less work - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlumb ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Belated thanks for your reply on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 May 17#Life density. I got way behind on my watchlist. — Tamfang ( talk) 07:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The RD entry is getting huge, so I thought I'd place this here. You made me dig all the way to the 1920's for this one, but you've helped me in the past so I don't mind... This request is not popular, so it isn't worked on much in computer science. It was semi-popular as an attempted variation of the Dining Philosophers problem. The following solution is a compilation of notes I pulled from various old papers and books:
Everyone has the same algorithm:
In your 3-person example, let's assume they are trying to make 3 numbers. A chooses the number 6. B chooses the number 42. C chooses the number 123:
This works with any number of participants, but it has been criticized as non-terminating. Theoretically, adding a maximum number of rounds makes it possible to force a user to give information that may identify his/her entry. However, smart encoding of the protocol will have "garbage" lines purposely mimic what is in the file, obscuring the user's entries. I hope this is usable for you. -- kainaw ™ 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please reconsider the proof mentioned in the reference desk.The angle is indeed trisected.-- 117.227.118.221 ( talk) 16:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Baibhab Pattnaik
Can you please check if the angles formed by joining the vertex angle to the points of trisection of the base trisect the vertex angle?-- 117.226.210.176 ( talk) 12:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Baibhab Pattnaik
Hi, thanks for the nice answer at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Summation_beginner!! Such intuition-building approaches is what's missing from maths as it is usually presented! Thanks, -- WillNess ( talk) 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
(barnstar by NorwegianBlue moved)
I'm putting this here because of multiple edit conflicts. Feel free to copy it to the ref desk. The fire bet is only available on the shooter's first come out roll. The numbers "2", "3", "7", "11", and "12" are irrevelant for the fire bet, so we'll disregard those. The shooter rolls until s/he throws a "4", "5", "6", "8", "9", or "10". Let's say the shooter rolls a "6". This number is the "point". The shooter continues to roll until a "7" is thrown and s/he loses, or a "6" is thrown, in which case the point is made and one-sixth of the fire bet is complete. The shooter must continue in this fashion, establishing a point, and making each point without rolling a "7" first. Any "7" thrown on a come out roll does not affect the fire bet. If the shooter establishes, and makes a "6", and then establishes and makes another "6", the second "6" is irrevelant to the fire bet. "4", "5", "6", "8", "9", and "10" must each be established (thrown on the come out roll), then made (thrown after the come out roll, before a "7" is thrown). Any "7" thrown between the establishing and making of a point renders the bet lost. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything else. Joefromrandb ( talk) 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Meni Rosenfeld, I am working on American Jews article now and I would like to ask you to translate the phrase "American Jews" or "Jewish Americans" into Hebrew. Is there a common name for Jews living in the US in Hebrew language? If yes, please let me know.-- Yerevanci ( talk) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Meni! We have had interesting discussions regarding statistical induction and prediction. You may like to read my article www.academia.edu/3247833 . The result is not reported in wikipedia because it is original research. Your comments and corrections are welcome. Yours truly, Bo Jacoby ( talk) 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC).
The most difficult and time-consuming part of my response to the homework question was checking that I could source the "special bonus" wine glasses sufficiently cheaply to still make a profit on the total package! As it happens, I'm planning to use what I wrote in my answer to the question about simultaneous linear equations in a rather more interesting way than the question might suggest... One of the courses I have to teach this year includes a section on information asymmetry, and as I was writing my original, rather shorter, response to the homework question it occurred to me that I could use this case as a nice introductory example. The prospective customer doesn't know who I am, nor does he have any idea of my abilities, so how can I persuade him to use my services? Of course I can offer a lower price, but I also need a way of signalling that I am capable of providing him with correct information. In my offer I therefore use various strategies. First, I show that I am more competent than my competitor by finding a failure in my competitor's offering that is obvious to the prospective buyer (I count the number of questions correctly) and provide a correction for free (there are four questions). Second, I find an obvious failure in my competitor's offering (he hasn't spotted the typo in 1.3) and indicate that I can provide the correct solution to the pair of equations in that question, but instead of doing so I provide information about my answer that the prospective buyer can check without my providing the answer immediately. Third, I provide general, publicly available evidence of my competence that the buyer can check immediately (my large number of edits to Wikipedia). Fourth, I provide (or in this case offer to provide) specific testimonials from previous people who have been able to assess my expertise (my degree certificates). Fifth, I signal my confidence in my ability to deliver the correct solutions by incurring a (potential) cost (I agree to a costly penalty) if my answers are wrong. Sixth, I signal that I am confident that on average my business model is profitable and that he will use my services again by agreeing to provide an introductory discount or bonus (in this case a non-cash bonus in the form of wine glasses or cuddly toy). Though not all of these are perfect examples of their kind, nor have I exhaustively covered all the possible things I could do to address the information asymmetry between myself and the prospective buyer who doesn't know how well I can provide my services, I have created an example that can be used in the course I shall be teaching. Even the time I spent on this response to you is time well-spent, as it has helped me get my thoughts and wording clear in my mind! RomanSpa ( talk) 16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I made an edit to define lower bound and upper bound in that article, but someone keeps reverting it and accusing me of being wrong. here. You seem to have a good knowledge about math. Maybe you can tell them that I'm not wrong, or you can explain to me what's wrong with my definition if it's indeed wrong. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.84.226 ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
[3] Hi Meni. Did your problem get a satisfactory solution? Happy new year! Bo Jacoby ( talk) 11:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful, patient posts here. Because this is the internet (and because of the behavior of the interlocutor), I am not exactly optimistic about them having a good effect, but they are much better than anything I would have written. Thanks! -- JBL ( talk) 12:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I know I asked this question many times before in the mathematics page, but I'd like to ask you personally:
Is it possible to unlock out of the cubic - without at all
changing variables as to reduce the equation to a suppressed cubic our even quadratic?
You see, what I'm trying to avoid is using variables "out of nowhere" without understanding how. As you know, in the quadratic it's pretty trivial. How many times could I ask this - is it at all possible to avoid anomalies like this!? יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pppery ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Meni Rosenfeld. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Meni Rosenfeld. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:RD1. Since you had some involvement with the Template:RD1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Meni Rosenfeld. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Meni Rosenfeld. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the
Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |