This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hello, Wcherowi. 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)
Please review that page and tell others (such as high school and college math students and faculty) about it.-- 2602:304:CDC1:90:64C5:4976:D62C:FF33 ( talk) 10:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
About the proof for the algorithm, I didn't make the proof up; I received it from Adam E. Parker, who is Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wittenberg, through a third party. I'd upload the PDF with the proof, but I don't have a Wikipedia account, so I can't upload files, so I'm kind of stuck. I don't want this to turn into an edit war with reversions every week or so, but I feel that if Wikipedia requires someone to have an account in order to be able to get a mathematical statement with a mathematical proof from a reliable source that is in the publishing process to be "noteworthy and reliable enough" to be on one of Wikipedia's pages, it sort of defeats the whole point of even letting people who don't have Wikipedia accounts from editing Wikipedia at all because an account is required to get something that meets all of Wikipedia's criteria on its page. It's like saying, "Here, you may create whatever songs you want in the music room and write them on staff paper, but we'll erase all of it within a day." Is that really what Wikipedia stands for? 2601:2C1:C301:6350:383D:4226:1A53:8B3B ( talk) 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I would just like to let you know that following our dispute over grammar in the edit section, I have made a Request for Comment on the nontransitive dice talk page. Skewb? ( talk) 11:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Please write here a proof that shows that the order of composition is correct as stated in the wiki page. I tried writing such proofs and the order is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.242.43 ( talk) 18:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll fix this and also put in a numerical example tonight.-- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Wcherowi,
is " de:Mengendiagramm" or any other German interwikilink actually visible in your view of the page? It isn't in mine. Also the referenced Wikidata page cannot list it since it is already used to link to the more general page on Euler and Venn diagrams.
best regards, KaiKemmann ( talk) 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You stated that indication of base is unnecessary, because the discourse has already established that we are in base 2. I think that's a fair point, but I respectfully disagree that the notation g(t)=0.t_{(2)} is superfluous. Because t is used as a sequence on the LHS (essentially an element of R^\infty), but as a radix notation quantity on the RHS (where it equals \sum_k a_k2^{-k}), it helps the reader to be reminded of that fact.
(It's really an egregious abuse of notation, but for the sake of simplicity, I support the current usage, provided that the base is explicitly indicated.)
Obviously, some people felt very strongly about how this section should be written, despite its numerous problems in English language and style, so I won't begrudge a few subscripts if you insist on removing them.
Cheers, -Jimmy Alsosaid1987 ( talk) 06:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder why you reversed the edits on Pascal's triangle? The country calls Iran and people are Iranian. I know before 1936 in western world used word Persia to reference the entire country, the countries authorities requested all foreign nations to call the country Iran and its residents Iranians (what they always used to call themselves). And this is officially accepted. So if you feel this is not convincing please let me know what is the rationales behind your reversion otherwise please undo your reversion.-- F4fluids ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you edits at Determinant. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wcherowi,
Anita5192 and I are seeing something different per the following exchange regarding the last bullet near the bottom of the article; can you understand what she just said to me in Imagine taking the triangle..., and flipping it over. ....? I'm an engineer so I must be missing something subtle.
Anita, Thanks for your hawk eyes; I am the 68.98.184.101 and wonder if the following needs fixing; "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b, the semi-minor axis;..." should IMO per all previous discussion have 'focus' replaced by 'vertex' at minimum, and might be clearer by saying "The distance from either vertex to either of its asymptotes is b,...."? Jedwin 68.98.184.101 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC) I just changed one line to read correctly, "The distance b (not shown) is the length of the perpendicular segment from either focus to the asymptotes." It is unfortunate that the diagram does not show b or θ. The line which reads, "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b . . ." is already correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Anita, A*A + B*B == C*C cannot exist if the focus is used because it is not a right triangle; and also, C is already the distance from the center to the focus that is actually A*(E-1) beyond A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.184.101 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC) b is the distance from a focus to an asymptote, i.e., the perpendicular distance, hence the triangle is a right triangle. Imagine taking the triangle with base from C to the vertex and a right angle at the vertex, and flipping it over. If you do the math, you will see that it is correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
THANKS, JEDWIN at 68.98.184.101 68.98.184.101 ( talk) 02:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jedwin, I'll do my best.
Anita5192 is correct about the edit, but her last bit of explanation to you was missing a vital piece of information. Here is the diagram that I believe you are thinking of:
Unfortunately, this isn't labelled so the explanation will be a bit long winded. The line segment from a vertex, drawn perpendicular to the major axis and ending at an asymptote has length b. I think that this is what you are thinking of when you want to replace focus with vertex. However, b is not the distance from the vertex to the asymptote because that distance is measured along the line drawn from the vertex that is perpendicular to the asymptote. If that distance was also b you would be in the awkward position of having a right triangle whose hypotenuse was the same length as one of its legs. (If you don't see it, label a vertex V, the end of a vertical line through V on the asymptote Q and the foot of the perpendicular dropped from V to the asymptote P. VPQ is the right triangle with right angle at P. VQ is the hypotenuse with length b and VP is the leg with length b.) Now, when you drop a perpendicular from a focus (say F) to an asymptote, its length will also be b. To see this, consider the right triangle VQO, where O is the origin (I think Anita labelled this point C), the right angle here is at V. Note that Q is at distance c from O (see diagram). Rotate the asymptote that Q is on so that it lies on the major axis and Q coincides with F. Now flip the right triangle VQO over its hypotenuse (OF) and V turns into the foot of the perpendicular drawn from F to the asymptote (in its original position). Since the rotation and flip are rigid motions, the length of that segment is still b. I hope this helps.
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your work on math articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark ( talk) 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wcherowi, could you explain this reversion? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Partially_ordered_set&oldid=prev&diff=771120063
What are you saying is not consistent with general terminology? The word "precedes"? That word is used in the same sense in the lede, which is why I chose it. I think it's more likely to cause confusion to say "a is related to b" to mean "a ≤ b", since in ordinary English, "is related to" is symmetric. To the non-mathematician, I think "a is related to b" immediately implies that b is also related to a. CodeTalker ( talk) 18:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, someone placed a link to a Youtube video within the article Rytz's construction. Is that OK ? Or should it be in a section weblinks ? I am not quite familiar with the WIKI-rules. Could You have a look ? Thanks !-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Even though we disagree, I do thank you for seeing my edit as good faith. LakeKayak ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I thank You very much for Your patience and so many improvements of my contributions ! -- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 07:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was informed you reverted my edit on Line Segment. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Line_segment&oldid=prev&diff=777931485 I probably did not get my message across, which might of ended up in the Talk page, but I was trying to be constructive. The problem is, kids at school get set problems dealing with the size of segments, circumferences and areas, but nowhere in this article does it hint to how a segment is measured, or why a segment should be linked to a distance. I have tried to make amends by editing the paragraph in Euclidean distance. Any revision would be welcome. Apparently it is considered too elementary to mention, or too circular to define, but I do feel there is a gap in the current set of articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Euclidean_distance&action=history Ziounclesi ( talk) 13:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I put notes on NeilN's and Meters' talk pages to inform them about the recent Calculus edits, since both already warned him. Regards, Purgy ( talk) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've added links to open source, academic (all MIT or BSD licensed) software stacks that help one to simulate graph theory in practice. Current article is all talk, no action. They are removed with the reason "link farm". I'm confused. Github, the platform that hosts these software free and show no ads, is no more for-profit than Wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esokullu ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a section to the vacuous truth article's talk page ( link), entitled "Article quality has become poor. Has inconsistencies and also needs explanation of why vacuous truth exists.".
It seems to me that if this is how the editing culture is on Wikipedia then I should probably spend my time elsewhere, somewhere with a more reasonable culture. My time is valuable, and I shouldn't have to argue over even the most basic and obviously useful changes.
-- MagneticInk ( talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wcherowi
I learned several materials related and know follow things.
1 Avoid linking to Arxiv. That's not allowed by them.
2 There is risk about conflict of interest with journal to which my paper will submit.
3 Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. I post it on talk page and want to ask other people to give me their opinions about it then I can improve my work. It’s difficult for me to discuss my work with people. I’m an engineer and don’t work in a university. However contents in my post are enough simple to be understand. I want to know if my statement is clear enough and how difficult for it to be accepted by people. I participated ICM 2010 in Hederabad. Woodschain175 ( talk) 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi ! I wrote a new version of orthogonal trajectory. An essential statement there is: two lines intersect perpendicular, if . My question: Where (in en.wp) is this simple statement hidden ?. I would like to insert a link to this statement.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 11:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No indeed axioms are not proven(notice causality direction). Rather it is "a thing is a proof(proven), and THEN" that is an axiom, so yes: proof --> axiom; and: no(i.e. false) axiom--->proof. Yes, yes. Perhaps you may see this then make that change yourself. Sinsearach ( talk) 00:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the revert [2], I agree with the revert because the information made little at that location. However the IP was not completely wrong either the "basic proportionality theorem" is another name for the intercept theorem, which is also called Thales' theorem, but the article already links to that with a had note anyhow. It seems "basic proportionality theorem" is particularly common with Indian authors and (English) math education in India (judging by Google). -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Scr★pIron IV 16:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please inform me why did you revert my edits on Wikipedia page titled Infinity.
Regards, Wilkn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:C401:190:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Bill:
Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. Coming specifically to my edit, I did give citations from Wikipedia page itself. Please let me know what/where else would you (or any other editor) need so that the useful information may be added to the immense repertoire of Wikipedia knowledge. I am pasting my edit below for ease of reference.
The concept of infinity first originated in the Indian civilization as one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||
which means. [If] That is complete (infinite), this is complete (infinite), from completeness comes completeness (infinite = infinite) Complete (infinite) minus complete (infinite), infinite remains. (infinite - infinite = infinite)
My apologies for not adding my comment at the bottom. As you may have guessed, I was not aware of the norm.
Regards, Wilkn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:C401:190:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 23:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess, possibly because you belong to western civilization, you are considering Sanskrit more esoteric than it really is. Like we are conversing in English, similarly, we converse in Sanskrit as well. Sanskrit has roots and words originate from roots. What you are asking of me is equivalent to asking me to provide citation of each and every word that is every written in Wikipedia. If you look at complex analysis and non-standard analysis in the same article, there are no citations for even statements there. In the case in question, I am providing citation of where the mantra occurs and in which text.
Lets take the example of the fist word - poorna-adah. Poorna means complete - adah means that. The second word: Poorna-idah, again poorna means complete and idah means this. I am totally at loss as to why would you want me to provide citations for word meanings. Could you please clarify? At worst, I think you can just add "citations needed" to my post?
Regards, Wilkn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I am respectably disregarding the part before "Now the mantra you've quoted...," because as you rightly stated it is not relevant. It is a very simple Sanskrit sholoka, meaning of which is universally accepted. Similar to English language we are conversing in.
As per the Wiki philosophy of finding a solution to move forward, I have following proposals as citations:
0. /info/en/?search=The_Principal_Upanishads (This is a book written by Second President of India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC) 1. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/parama/isa.asp 2. http://siddharthssinha.blogspot.com/2013/02/isha-upanishad-yajur-veda-part-of-four.html 3. http://aumamen.com/mantra/om-purnamadah-purnamidam-shanti-mantra 4. http://pushpagowda.blogspot.com/2016/01/meaning-of-shanthi-mantra-poornamadah.html 5. http://www.eaglespace.com/spirit/poornamadah.php 6. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-meaning-of-the-Sanskrit-shloka-Om-Purnamadah-Purnamidam-very-similar-to-the-continuum-theory 7. We leave it as is and have "citations needed"
What do you think?
Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Cherowitzo, I am charging you with bias. The very first source is a book, which is considered a reliable source according to your own citation. Further, I am citing exactly from the original source, which again is the most authentic form of the citations as per your citation. You are not ready to accept that as well. Third, all the citations that I provided do indeed have the word infinite, and you wrote that it is not the case. I think, and I say that based on proofs, you are not able to digest that the concept of infinity originated in India way before than other civilizations, therefore, you are are finding lame excuses to justify your personal bias. Respectfully, I seek a neutral adjudicator. (vagarities - did you mean vagaries?)
Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
How can you cite, the same sources for your argument, if those sources do not qualify as proper sources? Such behavior, in my opinion, is bias. Wilkn ( talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have edited some articles on Wikipedia about Algebraic geometry and Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi and you reverted my work without providing any explanations but your own opinion, so i'm here to know why. My sources where University St Andrews and Roshdi Rashed. You said that the great mathematician and historian " Roshdi Rashed´s bias is this matter is well known", this looks like a personal opinion. If i'm wrong, could you please provide a reliable source supporting your claim ? if not, please avoid reverting orher contributors edits without providing a legit reason.
I had a look at WP:BRD as you wanted, so can we now discuss about the real problem which is the removal of sourced informations ? I see nothing in your message or on Wikipedia which supports you doing so. And as you're giving me lessons about how Wikipedia works, i would like to inform you that removing of sourced materials is forbidden on Wikipedia. I can see on your page that you are a mathematician, and i inform you that so i am (i studied PhD in the field of stochastical calculus at the University Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris and i expect a real answer from you as you're speaking to someone who knows the field of mathematics...). I'm open to discussion and waiting for your explanation about your statement on Roshdi Rashed who is a prominent scholar about this topic (just have a look at his Wikipedia page...). By the way, as i don't have a Wikipedia account, i can't sign my comments, i'm sorry for that.
I understand your point of view but all i have seen about Rashed is elogious, the guy works for CNRS in France and owns a medal from that prestigious intitution, so, when i say he is a great mathematician and historian, this is not my personal opinion (as i don't know him) but only the reflect of what i have red about him... As long as Rashed is believed to be a legit source and cited in various articles (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), you should not revert edits which cite him as source (and in our case, Sharaf al-Din al -Tusi is not Arab but Persian) claiming that he is not legit. Just have a look at Wikipedia's articles about medieval mathematicians and you will find innumerable articles citing Rashed as a legit source. Berggren mat have a different point of view, but who can say if he is right or if Rashed is ? All we can say then is that sources are not unanimous, do you agree ? Thanks for the time you spent about this topic. (I don't know what you mean by "tiping in 4 tildes", until now, when i used the talk page on Wikipedia, an automata called "sinebot" signed my messages...)
Yeah, so, my edit was completely true. I get that u deleted it without actually checking with Mr. Royen, bc I am still basically an unknown at this point, but this was one of those circumstances where the mistake was on yalls' end. However, no hard feelings on my end; my first edit was far too specific, was long-winded, and did read too much like a story. So, all is forgiven. Have a great, productive day.
Sincerely, Joshua H. Lempert Jlempert87 ( talk) 11:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, awesome. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. I'm gonna swing for the Mensa Bulletin, but we'll see where it ends up being published. Thank you for ur time and info. Hopefully, it won't be too long before I can get my name back up there. Many thanks, and have a productive day! Jlempert87 ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, my edit on the Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi's page is supported by the following sources:
University of St Andrews, Oxford islamic studies and Science and Religion Around the World (Oxford University Press). You said my edit is weakly sourced, can you explain me why ? Farawahar ( talk) 16:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, i think you're wrong. The source cited in your version is Rashed's book (edited in 1994) and cited by St Andrews. So thiis source is also in my version but if it pleases you, i will remove St Andrews and replace it by Rashed, they roughly say the same thing. Even if you want to remove the second source (which, according to you, is Rashed again...), the third one (Oxford islamic studies) is a reliable secondary source. So my version is richer when it comes to sources and more complete, because your version makes people think that only Rashed is thinking that Tusi introduced algebraic geometry, and this is blatantly wrong. Farawahar ( talk) 21:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Not to sound like a broken record... If i understand well, according to you, Rashed and Oxford islamic studies are not reliables, what proof do you have for that ? If it's the best you can do, then i'll revert your edit again because as you can see below, Oxford islamic studies IS a reliable source for this topic :
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/about.html
"This authoritative, dynamic resource brings together the best current scholarship in the field for students, scholars, government officials, community groups, and librarians to foster a more accurate and informed understanding of the Islamic world. Oxford Islamic Studies Online features reference content and commentary by renowned scholars in areas such as global Islamic history, concepts, people, practices, politics, and culture, and is regularly updated as new content is commissioned and approved under the guidance of the Editor in Chief, John L. Esposito."
Farawahar ( talk) 08:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this is not a reliable source- https://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/ .Better source template ( better source needed ) should be added after Reference number 13 of the article ( Algebra ) F0r★bin IV 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hello, Wcherowi. 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)
Please review that page and tell others (such as high school and college math students and faculty) about it.-- 2602:304:CDC1:90:64C5:4976:D62C:FF33 ( talk) 10:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
About the proof for the algorithm, I didn't make the proof up; I received it from Adam E. Parker, who is Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wittenberg, through a third party. I'd upload the PDF with the proof, but I don't have a Wikipedia account, so I can't upload files, so I'm kind of stuck. I don't want this to turn into an edit war with reversions every week or so, but I feel that if Wikipedia requires someone to have an account in order to be able to get a mathematical statement with a mathematical proof from a reliable source that is in the publishing process to be "noteworthy and reliable enough" to be on one of Wikipedia's pages, it sort of defeats the whole point of even letting people who don't have Wikipedia accounts from editing Wikipedia at all because an account is required to get something that meets all of Wikipedia's criteria on its page. It's like saying, "Here, you may create whatever songs you want in the music room and write them on staff paper, but we'll erase all of it within a day." Is that really what Wikipedia stands for? 2601:2C1:C301:6350:383D:4226:1A53:8B3B ( talk) 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I would just like to let you know that following our dispute over grammar in the edit section, I have made a Request for Comment on the nontransitive dice talk page. Skewb? ( talk) 11:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Please write here a proof that shows that the order of composition is correct as stated in the wiki page. I tried writing such proofs and the order is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.242.43 ( talk) 18:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll fix this and also put in a numerical example tonight.-- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Wcherowi,
is " de:Mengendiagramm" or any other German interwikilink actually visible in your view of the page? It isn't in mine. Also the referenced Wikidata page cannot list it since it is already used to link to the more general page on Euler and Venn diagrams.
best regards, KaiKemmann ( talk) 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You stated that indication of base is unnecessary, because the discourse has already established that we are in base 2. I think that's a fair point, but I respectfully disagree that the notation g(t)=0.t_{(2)} is superfluous. Because t is used as a sequence on the LHS (essentially an element of R^\infty), but as a radix notation quantity on the RHS (where it equals \sum_k a_k2^{-k}), it helps the reader to be reminded of that fact.
(It's really an egregious abuse of notation, but for the sake of simplicity, I support the current usage, provided that the base is explicitly indicated.)
Obviously, some people felt very strongly about how this section should be written, despite its numerous problems in English language and style, so I won't begrudge a few subscripts if you insist on removing them.
Cheers, -Jimmy Alsosaid1987 ( talk) 06:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder why you reversed the edits on Pascal's triangle? The country calls Iran and people are Iranian. I know before 1936 in western world used word Persia to reference the entire country, the countries authorities requested all foreign nations to call the country Iran and its residents Iranians (what they always used to call themselves). And this is officially accepted. So if you feel this is not convincing please let me know what is the rationales behind your reversion otherwise please undo your reversion.-- F4fluids ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you edits at Determinant. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wcherowi,
Anita5192 and I are seeing something different per the following exchange regarding the last bullet near the bottom of the article; can you understand what she just said to me in Imagine taking the triangle..., and flipping it over. ....? I'm an engineer so I must be missing something subtle.
Anita, Thanks for your hawk eyes; I am the 68.98.184.101 and wonder if the following needs fixing; "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b, the semi-minor axis;..." should IMO per all previous discussion have 'focus' replaced by 'vertex' at minimum, and might be clearer by saying "The distance from either vertex to either of its asymptotes is b,...."? Jedwin 68.98.184.101 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC) I just changed one line to read correctly, "The distance b (not shown) is the length of the perpendicular segment from either focus to the asymptotes." It is unfortunate that the diagram does not show b or θ. The line which reads, "The distance from either focus to either asymptote is b . . ." is already correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Anita, A*A + B*B == C*C cannot exist if the focus is used because it is not a right triangle; and also, C is already the distance from the center to the focus that is actually A*(E-1) beyond A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.184.101 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC) b is the distance from a focus to an asymptote, i.e., the perpendicular distance, hence the triangle is a right triangle. Imagine taking the triangle with base from C to the vertex and a right angle at the vertex, and flipping it over. If you do the math, you will see that it is correct.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
THANKS, JEDWIN at 68.98.184.101 68.98.184.101 ( talk) 02:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jedwin, I'll do my best.
Anita5192 is correct about the edit, but her last bit of explanation to you was missing a vital piece of information. Here is the diagram that I believe you are thinking of:
Unfortunately, this isn't labelled so the explanation will be a bit long winded. The line segment from a vertex, drawn perpendicular to the major axis and ending at an asymptote has length b. I think that this is what you are thinking of when you want to replace focus with vertex. However, b is not the distance from the vertex to the asymptote because that distance is measured along the line drawn from the vertex that is perpendicular to the asymptote. If that distance was also b you would be in the awkward position of having a right triangle whose hypotenuse was the same length as one of its legs. (If you don't see it, label a vertex V, the end of a vertical line through V on the asymptote Q and the foot of the perpendicular dropped from V to the asymptote P. VPQ is the right triangle with right angle at P. VQ is the hypotenuse with length b and VP is the leg with length b.) Now, when you drop a perpendicular from a focus (say F) to an asymptote, its length will also be b. To see this, consider the right triangle VQO, where O is the origin (I think Anita labelled this point C), the right angle here is at V. Note that Q is at distance c from O (see diagram). Rotate the asymptote that Q is on so that it lies on the major axis and Q coincides with F. Now flip the right triangle VQO over its hypotenuse (OF) and V turns into the foot of the perpendicular drawn from F to the asymptote (in its original position). Since the rotation and flip are rigid motions, the length of that segment is still b. I hope this helps.
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your work on math articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark ( talk) 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wcherowi, could you explain this reversion? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Partially_ordered_set&oldid=prev&diff=771120063
What are you saying is not consistent with general terminology? The word "precedes"? That word is used in the same sense in the lede, which is why I chose it. I think it's more likely to cause confusion to say "a is related to b" to mean "a ≤ b", since in ordinary English, "is related to" is symmetric. To the non-mathematician, I think "a is related to b" immediately implies that b is also related to a. CodeTalker ( talk) 18:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, someone placed a link to a Youtube video within the article Rytz's construction. Is that OK ? Or should it be in a section weblinks ? I am not quite familiar with the WIKI-rules. Could You have a look ? Thanks !-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Even though we disagree, I do thank you for seeing my edit as good faith. LakeKayak ( talk) 15:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I thank You very much for Your patience and so many improvements of my contributions ! -- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 07:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was informed you reverted my edit on Line Segment. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Line_segment&oldid=prev&diff=777931485 I probably did not get my message across, which might of ended up in the Talk page, but I was trying to be constructive. The problem is, kids at school get set problems dealing with the size of segments, circumferences and areas, but nowhere in this article does it hint to how a segment is measured, or why a segment should be linked to a distance. I have tried to make amends by editing the paragraph in Euclidean distance. Any revision would be welcome. Apparently it is considered too elementary to mention, or too circular to define, but I do feel there is a gap in the current set of articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Euclidean_distance&action=history Ziounclesi ( talk) 13:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I put notes on NeilN's and Meters' talk pages to inform them about the recent Calculus edits, since both already warned him. Regards, Purgy ( talk) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've added links to open source, academic (all MIT or BSD licensed) software stacks that help one to simulate graph theory in practice. Current article is all talk, no action. They are removed with the reason "link farm". I'm confused. Github, the platform that hosts these software free and show no ads, is no more for-profit than Wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esokullu ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a section to the vacuous truth article's talk page ( link), entitled "Article quality has become poor. Has inconsistencies and also needs explanation of why vacuous truth exists.".
It seems to me that if this is how the editing culture is on Wikipedia then I should probably spend my time elsewhere, somewhere with a more reasonable culture. My time is valuable, and I shouldn't have to argue over even the most basic and obviously useful changes.
-- MagneticInk ( talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Wcherowi
I learned several materials related and know follow things.
1 Avoid linking to Arxiv. That's not allowed by them.
2 There is risk about conflict of interest with journal to which my paper will submit.
3 Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. I post it on talk page and want to ask other people to give me their opinions about it then I can improve my work. It’s difficult for me to discuss my work with people. I’m an engineer and don’t work in a university. However contents in my post are enough simple to be understand. I want to know if my statement is clear enough and how difficult for it to be accepted by people. I participated ICM 2010 in Hederabad. Woodschain175 ( talk) 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi ! I wrote a new version of orthogonal trajectory. An essential statement there is: two lines intersect perpendicular, if . My question: Where (in en.wp) is this simple statement hidden ?. I would like to insert a link to this statement.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 11:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No indeed axioms are not proven(notice causality direction). Rather it is "a thing is a proof(proven), and THEN" that is an axiom, so yes: proof --> axiom; and: no(i.e. false) axiom--->proof. Yes, yes. Perhaps you may see this then make that change yourself. Sinsearach ( talk) 00:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the revert [2], I agree with the revert because the information made little at that location. However the IP was not completely wrong either the "basic proportionality theorem" is another name for the intercept theorem, which is also called Thales' theorem, but the article already links to that with a had note anyhow. It seems "basic proportionality theorem" is particularly common with Indian authors and (English) math education in India (judging by Google). -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Scr★pIron IV 16:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please inform me why did you revert my edits on Wikipedia page titled Infinity.
Regards, Wilkn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:C401:190:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 13:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Bill:
Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. Coming specifically to my edit, I did give citations from Wikipedia page itself. Please let me know what/where else would you (or any other editor) need so that the useful information may be added to the immense repertoire of Wikipedia knowledge. I am pasting my edit below for ease of reference.
The concept of infinity first originated in the Indian civilization as one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||
which means. [If] That is complete (infinite), this is complete (infinite), from completeness comes completeness (infinite = infinite) Complete (infinite) minus complete (infinite), infinite remains. (infinite - infinite = infinite)
My apologies for not adding my comment at the bottom. As you may have guessed, I was not aware of the norm.
Regards, Wilkn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:C401:190:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 23:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess, possibly because you belong to western civilization, you are considering Sanskrit more esoteric than it really is. Like we are conversing in English, similarly, we converse in Sanskrit as well. Sanskrit has roots and words originate from roots. What you are asking of me is equivalent to asking me to provide citation of each and every word that is every written in Wikipedia. If you look at complex analysis and non-standard analysis in the same article, there are no citations for even statements there. In the case in question, I am providing citation of where the mantra occurs and in which text.
Lets take the example of the fist word - poorna-adah. Poorna means complete - adah means that. The second word: Poorna-idah, again poorna means complete and idah means this. I am totally at loss as to why would you want me to provide citations for word meanings. Could you please clarify? At worst, I think you can just add "citations needed" to my post?
Regards, Wilkn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I am respectably disregarding the part before "Now the mantra you've quoted...," because as you rightly stated it is not relevant. It is a very simple Sanskrit sholoka, meaning of which is universally accepted. Similar to English language we are conversing in.
As per the Wiki philosophy of finding a solution to move forward, I have following proposals as citations:
0. /info/en/?search=The_Principal_Upanishads (This is a book written by Second President of India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC) 1. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/parama/isa.asp 2. http://siddharthssinha.blogspot.com/2013/02/isha-upanishad-yajur-veda-part-of-four.html 3. http://aumamen.com/mantra/om-purnamadah-purnamidam-shanti-mantra 4. http://pushpagowda.blogspot.com/2016/01/meaning-of-shanthi-mantra-poornamadah.html 5. http://www.eaglespace.com/spirit/poornamadah.php 6. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-meaning-of-the-Sanskrit-shloka-Om-Purnamadah-Purnamidam-very-similar-to-the-continuum-theory 7. We leave it as is and have "citations needed"
What do you think?
Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Cherowitzo, I am charging you with bias. The very first source is a book, which is considered a reliable source according to your own citation. Further, I am citing exactly from the original source, which again is the most authentic form of the citations as per your citation. You are not ready to accept that as well. Third, all the citations that I provided do indeed have the word infinite, and you wrote that it is not the case. I think, and I say that based on proofs, you are not able to digest that the concept of infinity originated in India way before than other civilizations, therefore, you are are finding lame excuses to justify your personal bias. Respectfully, I seek a neutral adjudicator. (vagarities - did you mean vagaries?)
Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
How can you cite, the same sources for your argument, if those sources do not qualify as proper sources? Such behavior, in my opinion, is bias. Wilkn ( talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have edited some articles on Wikipedia about Algebraic geometry and Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi and you reverted my work without providing any explanations but your own opinion, so i'm here to know why. My sources where University St Andrews and Roshdi Rashed. You said that the great mathematician and historian " Roshdi Rashed´s bias is this matter is well known", this looks like a personal opinion. If i'm wrong, could you please provide a reliable source supporting your claim ? if not, please avoid reverting orher contributors edits without providing a legit reason.
I had a look at WP:BRD as you wanted, so can we now discuss about the real problem which is the removal of sourced informations ? I see nothing in your message or on Wikipedia which supports you doing so. And as you're giving me lessons about how Wikipedia works, i would like to inform you that removing of sourced materials is forbidden on Wikipedia. I can see on your page that you are a mathematician, and i inform you that so i am (i studied PhD in the field of stochastical calculus at the University Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris and i expect a real answer from you as you're speaking to someone who knows the field of mathematics...). I'm open to discussion and waiting for your explanation about your statement on Roshdi Rashed who is a prominent scholar about this topic (just have a look at his Wikipedia page...). By the way, as i don't have a Wikipedia account, i can't sign my comments, i'm sorry for that.
I understand your point of view but all i have seen about Rashed is elogious, the guy works for CNRS in France and owns a medal from that prestigious intitution, so, when i say he is a great mathematician and historian, this is not my personal opinion (as i don't know him) but only the reflect of what i have red about him... As long as Rashed is believed to be a legit source and cited in various articles (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), you should not revert edits which cite him as source (and in our case, Sharaf al-Din al -Tusi is not Arab but Persian) claiming that he is not legit. Just have a look at Wikipedia's articles about medieval mathematicians and you will find innumerable articles citing Rashed as a legit source. Berggren mat have a different point of view, but who can say if he is right or if Rashed is ? All we can say then is that sources are not unanimous, do you agree ? Thanks for the time you spent about this topic. (I don't know what you mean by "tiping in 4 tildes", until now, when i used the talk page on Wikipedia, an automata called "sinebot" signed my messages...)
Yeah, so, my edit was completely true. I get that u deleted it without actually checking with Mr. Royen, bc I am still basically an unknown at this point, but this was one of those circumstances where the mistake was on yalls' end. However, no hard feelings on my end; my first edit was far too specific, was long-winded, and did read too much like a story. So, all is forgiven. Have a great, productive day.
Sincerely, Joshua H. Lempert Jlempert87 ( talk) 11:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, awesome. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. I'm gonna swing for the Mensa Bulletin, but we'll see where it ends up being published. Thank you for ur time and info. Hopefully, it won't be too long before I can get my name back up there. Many thanks, and have a productive day! Jlempert87 ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, my edit on the Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi's page is supported by the following sources:
University of St Andrews, Oxford islamic studies and Science and Religion Around the World (Oxford University Press). You said my edit is weakly sourced, can you explain me why ? Farawahar ( talk) 16:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, i think you're wrong. The source cited in your version is Rashed's book (edited in 1994) and cited by St Andrews. So thiis source is also in my version but if it pleases you, i will remove St Andrews and replace it by Rashed, they roughly say the same thing. Even if you want to remove the second source (which, according to you, is Rashed again...), the third one (Oxford islamic studies) is a reliable secondary source. So my version is richer when it comes to sources and more complete, because your version makes people think that only Rashed is thinking that Tusi introduced algebraic geometry, and this is blatantly wrong. Farawahar ( talk) 21:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Not to sound like a broken record... If i understand well, according to you, Rashed and Oxford islamic studies are not reliables, what proof do you have for that ? If it's the best you can do, then i'll revert your edit again because as you can see below, Oxford islamic studies IS a reliable source for this topic :
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/about.html
"This authoritative, dynamic resource brings together the best current scholarship in the field for students, scholars, government officials, community groups, and librarians to foster a more accurate and informed understanding of the Islamic world. Oxford Islamic Studies Online features reference content and commentary by renowned scholars in areas such as global Islamic history, concepts, people, practices, politics, and culture, and is regularly updated as new content is commissioned and approved under the guidance of the Editor in Chief, John L. Esposito."
Farawahar ( talk) 08:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this is not a reliable source- https://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/ .Better source template ( better source needed ) should be added after Reference number 13 of the article ( Algebra ) F0r★bin IV 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)