![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hello, recently you removed what I added to the Catenary page. I am very new to this, would you mind elaborating on the reason for the removal? Legoatoom ( talk) 18:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you removed the Unit Circle sammary image I've added. Many people fail exams because of lack of such sammary on Google searches. It's a very common topic in many school tests and academic courses.
I saw you commented there is no link to resource. So first of all, I added a discussion prior to making the changes. Why undo someone's work and not leaving a comment asking for proper sources if that's the problem?
Secondly, you want me to add the sources in order to undo the undo?
Best regards,
Vitalipom
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalipom ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The image I added might help people learn for their exams more efficiently. Where can add to be findable and in appropriate context? Vitalipom ( talk) 18:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @Bill Cherowitzo: not sure if I know how to tag Vitalipom ( talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Bill Cherowitzo oh I see, you're saying that sin(2pi) has nothing to do with the Unit Circle, well then you're not right. sinus(teta) is the relation in the triangle which's angle teta and hypothenuse is 1 (one unit). Now look what you did. You reverted my work, deleted twice something that someone else did. You are not aware of this material and apparently you need these schemes more than the students to whom I uploaded it because you publicly call yourself Mathematician on Wiki pages. And finally you prevented thousands of pupil not less smarter than you to prepare for the exam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalipom
Afraid I do not understand the reason for your revert. Can you elaborate? -- Webmgr ( talk) 05:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wcherowi! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
You undid my changes in Vieta jumping and called them "wholesale conversions" and mentioned several reasons for not doing that. I am keen on getting to know them, because those changes took some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangentialvektor ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I doubt using upright=scaling factor
"destroyed illustrations" unless you are using an uncommon browser or display.
Help:Pictures recommends using upright to allow
user preferences to determine image size. In fact,
MOS:IMAGES states:
17px
) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor
is preferred whenever possible.I hope I have explained my rational for the edits sufficiently. User-duck ( talk) 21:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, my error. Due to slow speed in opening the page the images didn't appear as I scrolled down the page and I assumed that it was due to the edit you just made. Again my apologies for a bad revert. Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 23:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Sphere into
Pencil (mathematics). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk) 12:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latin rectangle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fixed point ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Wcherowi/Archive 6,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The geometric series section on repeating decimals was incorrect, even listing the formula incorrectly as (a/1-r) equaling the sum of r^n with respect to n, when it already acknowledged that the series is instead equal to a-r^n/1-r. You must include the infinitesimal difference in expressions of infinitesimals.
You reverted two edits I made on the article on Integration by substitution. I believe the edits were correct and would like to see if we can agree.
In the statement of a theorem concerning subsitution in definite integrals and its proof, the formulation "if u = φ(x)" occurred. I submit that even if we may say something like that when explaining to beginner students, it actually makes no sense. The integral is some number by the definition of the Riemann integral, and equally , being the integral over the function f on the interval , is some number. The content of the theorem is then that these numbers happen to be equal. Note that we could equally well state
Would you explain that by saying ?
MathHisSci ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It is a very tortured way and also it is stated when it is said there "in general they are not permutations" Check the formula k^n as is all the possible tuples made with the elements of a second set. The decimal numeric system is an example: you have a set of 10 symbols 0..9 so all the possible 3-tuples from the set 0,1,2,...,9 are 000,001,002,003,010,011,012,...,999 so 10^3 tuples is only the plural of tuple: ordered list. The least to do to clarify is change tuples to tuples of set S Orendona ( talk) 22:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that Permutations with repetition are not permutations. That also is stated in the article, It is a probability scalar number as it is used Orendona ( talk) 11:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ck12.org/probability/permutations-with-repetition/lesson/Permutations-with-Repetition-BSC-PST/#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20subset%20of,of%20objects%20that%20are%20identical. https://brilliant.org/wiki/permutations-with-repetition/ https://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html https://www.google.com/search?q=Permutations+with+repetition&oq=Permutations+with+repetition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4j69i60l3.9800j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orendona ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, why did you delete my contribution? My solution is valid and verified by faculty peers. If you have any mathematical or logical criticism, please elaborate. If not, please do not strike down with no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.zalman ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Wcherowi, The changes I made you reverted as "good faith edit". However, I'm afraid that the current definition of the percentage point may be interpreted in the way that 44% - 40% = 4% is wrong. Of course, it is 4 percentage points as well. I am not against "percentage points". However, from the mathematical point of view, the arithmetic difference of two percentages is the value in percentages again. So, I wanted to ask why did you revert my contribution? I'm looking forward to your reply, so I can improve my contribution. ToMiBi ( talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The water level indicator displays the water level in a rainwater tank from 0 to 100%. It corresponds to the volume of water divided by the volume of the rainwater tank. Let's say (due to the rain), there is a change of water level from 1% to 5%. I agree that the volume of water has relatively increased by 400%. However, it is still true that the water level has increased by 4%, since water level is defined as the volume of water divided by the volume of the rainwater tank. And that volume of new water corresponds exactly to 4% of water level change. In other words, if the total water volume divided by the tank volume is 5%, could you explain why the new/added water volume divided by the tank volume is not 4%???
So, the problematic part is not the percentage itself, but 1) expressing what is a base of percentages, 2) providing the information if the increase is expressed as a relative change (fold change) or as a difference (absolute change or actual change).
Wikipedia says: "For example, moving up from 40% to 44% is a 4 percentage point increase, but is a 10 percent increase in what is being measured."
To me, it is not clearly defined what is being measured... "The water volume or the water level"? It is a relative increase or an absolute increase? Moreover, if 40% + 4 pp = 44%, then for sure it implies that 4 pp = 4% (otherwise we cannot sum up these numbers).
I hope you can see my point. ToMiBi ( talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with your example. There is no discussion about that. Or are you suggesting that I can use percentage points instead? I.e. add or subtract p.p. as their numerical values? In that case I do not agree with you (200 ml. of milk that is 80 p.p. cream makes no sense to me). Moreover, my example is telling a different story. You basically said that I'm not taking into account the total volumes. Ok, let's fix this. If rainwater tank volume is 100 liters and there is just 1 liter of rainwater, then the volume of rainwater corresponds to 1% of the tank volume (water level indicator displays 1%). If due to the rain, there is a 4 liters increase, then there are 5 liters of rainwater in total. Thus, new water level corresponds to 5% of tank volume (and the water level indicator displays 5%). So, could you explain, please, why the new/added water volume divided by the tank volume is not 4%? ToMiBi ( talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
the p.p. is synonymous to the percentageNo: as Bill has explained several times, p.p. is the unit of measurement of a change in a percentage. The true statement is that some (but not all) uses of the words "percentage point" can be rephrased to not use those words, by referring to an absolute change whose size is a percentage of some other quantity, as in the 3rd bullet point above. But there are also examples (Bill has offered several) where no such substitution is possible.
To me, the change from "The water level has increased by 400%." to "The water level has relatively increased by 400%." makes a huge differenceI understand that you believe there is a difference between those things, but that is because you are confused. Percentages are always relative measures; the phrase "X increased by 400%" always means "... by 400% of its previous value". The existing definitions are completely fine; it is your preferred interpretations that are in error, and once you adjust them, everything will be ok. -- JBL ( talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sexism |
I wonder why you have reverted several undid edits in the Fields Medal wiki page?! This is the first minutes of my activity on Wikipedia website on an account and I was just reading the Fields Medal page that came across an actual Sexism and wanted to edit that but I couldn't as I do not have a verified account. As a random visitor to the website, this is absolutely a case of sexism and it needs to be removed and maintained gender-neutrally. TraceyxD ( talk) 01:44, 20 June 2021 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hello, recently you removed what I added to the Catenary page. I am very new to this, would you mind elaborating on the reason for the removal? Legoatoom ( talk) 18:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you removed the Unit Circle sammary image I've added. Many people fail exams because of lack of such sammary on Google searches. It's a very common topic in many school tests and academic courses.
I saw you commented there is no link to resource. So first of all, I added a discussion prior to making the changes. Why undo someone's work and not leaving a comment asking for proper sources if that's the problem?
Secondly, you want me to add the sources in order to undo the undo?
Best regards,
Vitalipom
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalipom ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The image I added might help people learn for their exams more efficiently. Where can add to be findable and in appropriate context? Vitalipom ( talk) 18:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @Bill Cherowitzo: not sure if I know how to tag Vitalipom ( talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Bill Cherowitzo oh I see, you're saying that sin(2pi) has nothing to do with the Unit Circle, well then you're not right. sinus(teta) is the relation in the triangle which's angle teta and hypothenuse is 1 (one unit). Now look what you did. You reverted my work, deleted twice something that someone else did. You are not aware of this material and apparently you need these schemes more than the students to whom I uploaded it because you publicly call yourself Mathematician on Wiki pages. And finally you prevented thousands of pupil not less smarter than you to prepare for the exam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalipom
Afraid I do not understand the reason for your revert. Can you elaborate? -- Webmgr ( talk) 05:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wcherowi! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
You undid my changes in Vieta jumping and called them "wholesale conversions" and mentioned several reasons for not doing that. I am keen on getting to know them, because those changes took some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangentialvektor ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I doubt using upright=scaling factor
"destroyed illustrations" unless you are using an uncommon browser or display.
Help:Pictures recommends using upright to allow
user preferences to determine image size. In fact,
MOS:IMAGES states:
17px
) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor
is preferred whenever possible.I hope I have explained my rational for the edits sufficiently. User-duck ( talk) 21:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, my error. Due to slow speed in opening the page the images didn't appear as I scrolled down the page and I assumed that it was due to the edit you just made. Again my apologies for a bad revert. Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 23:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Sphere into
Pencil (mathematics). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk) 12:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latin rectangle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fixed point ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Wcherowi/Archive 6,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The geometric series section on repeating decimals was incorrect, even listing the formula incorrectly as (a/1-r) equaling the sum of r^n with respect to n, when it already acknowledged that the series is instead equal to a-r^n/1-r. You must include the infinitesimal difference in expressions of infinitesimals.
You reverted two edits I made on the article on Integration by substitution. I believe the edits were correct and would like to see if we can agree.
In the statement of a theorem concerning subsitution in definite integrals and its proof, the formulation "if u = φ(x)" occurred. I submit that even if we may say something like that when explaining to beginner students, it actually makes no sense. The integral is some number by the definition of the Riemann integral, and equally , being the integral over the function f on the interval , is some number. The content of the theorem is then that these numbers happen to be equal. Note that we could equally well state
Would you explain that by saying ?
MathHisSci ( talk) 20:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It is a very tortured way and also it is stated when it is said there "in general they are not permutations" Check the formula k^n as is all the possible tuples made with the elements of a second set. The decimal numeric system is an example: you have a set of 10 symbols 0..9 so all the possible 3-tuples from the set 0,1,2,...,9 are 000,001,002,003,010,011,012,...,999 so 10^3 tuples is only the plural of tuple: ordered list. The least to do to clarify is change tuples to tuples of set S Orendona ( talk) 22:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that Permutations with repetition are not permutations. That also is stated in the article, It is a probability scalar number as it is used Orendona ( talk) 11:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ck12.org/probability/permutations-with-repetition/lesson/Permutations-with-Repetition-BSC-PST/#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20subset%20of,of%20objects%20that%20are%20identical. https://brilliant.org/wiki/permutations-with-repetition/ https://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html https://www.google.com/search?q=Permutations+with+repetition&oq=Permutations+with+repetition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4j69i60l3.9800j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orendona ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, why did you delete my contribution? My solution is valid and verified by faculty peers. If you have any mathematical or logical criticism, please elaborate. If not, please do not strike down with no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.zalman ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Wcherowi, The changes I made you reverted as "good faith edit". However, I'm afraid that the current definition of the percentage point may be interpreted in the way that 44% - 40% = 4% is wrong. Of course, it is 4 percentage points as well. I am not against "percentage points". However, from the mathematical point of view, the arithmetic difference of two percentages is the value in percentages again. So, I wanted to ask why did you revert my contribution? I'm looking forward to your reply, so I can improve my contribution. ToMiBi ( talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The water level indicator displays the water level in a rainwater tank from 0 to 100%. It corresponds to the volume of water divided by the volume of the rainwater tank. Let's say (due to the rain), there is a change of water level from 1% to 5%. I agree that the volume of water has relatively increased by 400%. However, it is still true that the water level has increased by 4%, since water level is defined as the volume of water divided by the volume of the rainwater tank. And that volume of new water corresponds exactly to 4% of water level change. In other words, if the total water volume divided by the tank volume is 5%, could you explain why the new/added water volume divided by the tank volume is not 4%???
So, the problematic part is not the percentage itself, but 1) expressing what is a base of percentages, 2) providing the information if the increase is expressed as a relative change (fold change) or as a difference (absolute change or actual change).
Wikipedia says: "For example, moving up from 40% to 44% is a 4 percentage point increase, but is a 10 percent increase in what is being measured."
To me, it is not clearly defined what is being measured... "The water volume or the water level"? It is a relative increase or an absolute increase? Moreover, if 40% + 4 pp = 44%, then for sure it implies that 4 pp = 4% (otherwise we cannot sum up these numbers).
I hope you can see my point. ToMiBi ( talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with your example. There is no discussion about that. Or are you suggesting that I can use percentage points instead? I.e. add or subtract p.p. as their numerical values? In that case I do not agree with you (200 ml. of milk that is 80 p.p. cream makes no sense to me). Moreover, my example is telling a different story. You basically said that I'm not taking into account the total volumes. Ok, let's fix this. If rainwater tank volume is 100 liters and there is just 1 liter of rainwater, then the volume of rainwater corresponds to 1% of the tank volume (water level indicator displays 1%). If due to the rain, there is a 4 liters increase, then there are 5 liters of rainwater in total. Thus, new water level corresponds to 5% of tank volume (and the water level indicator displays 5%). So, could you explain, please, why the new/added water volume divided by the tank volume is not 4%? ToMiBi ( talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
the p.p. is synonymous to the percentageNo: as Bill has explained several times, p.p. is the unit of measurement of a change in a percentage. The true statement is that some (but not all) uses of the words "percentage point" can be rephrased to not use those words, by referring to an absolute change whose size is a percentage of some other quantity, as in the 3rd bullet point above. But there are also examples (Bill has offered several) where no such substitution is possible.
To me, the change from "The water level has increased by 400%." to "The water level has relatively increased by 400%." makes a huge differenceI understand that you believe there is a difference between those things, but that is because you are confused. Percentages are always relative measures; the phrase "X increased by 400%" always means "... by 400% of its previous value". The existing definitions are completely fine; it is your preferred interpretations that are in error, and once you adjust them, everything will be ok. -- JBL ( talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sexism |
I wonder why you have reverted several undid edits in the Fields Medal wiki page?! This is the first minutes of my activity on Wikipedia website on an account and I was just reading the Fields Medal page that came across an actual Sexism and wanted to edit that but I couldn't as I do not have a verified account. As a random visitor to the website, this is absolutely a case of sexism and it needs to be removed and maintained gender-neutrally. TraceyxD ( talk) 01:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC) |