User talk:174.3.125.23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Filter problem[edit]

The problem with the edit filter that was blocking you has been repaired.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah thank you. Can you explain what happened?174.3.125.23 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Not in great detail without providing clues that I do not wish to give out. There's a long-running disruption coming from your IP range, and some of the words you used tricked pattern matching software into believing you were the source. I tweaked the patterns so that you would no longer match.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Would it be better to communicate through email or IRC?174.3.125.23 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Only if you think there is some reason that you need to know the internal workings of the filter, which I am very uninclined to divulge.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bachelor of Business may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Bachelor's degree#Business and management

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Requirements of IFRS[edit]

I've made edits to the first paragraph of the article and commented further here.Swinnow16 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ascot Racecourse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Ascot Racecourse''' {"ascot" pronounced {{IPAc-en|ˈ|æ|s|k|ə|t|}}) is an English racecourse, located in the small town of [[Ascot, Berkshire]], used for [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Git (software) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 00:01:30) Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git|publisher=google |date= |accessdate=2014-07-20}}</ref>) is a [[distributed revision control]] and [[source code management]] (SCM) system with an emphasis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of calculus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • MathPages — [http://mathpages.com/home/kmath343.htm Archimedes on Spheres & Cylinders]</ref>) It should not be thought that infinitesimals were put on a rigorous footing during this time,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your heading changes in math articles.[edit]

Please, stop your indiscriminate heading changes that you have done in angle trisection, derivative and other mathematical articles. Most of them change the meaning and make the heading confusing about the content of the section. For an example in angle trisection, a previous heading was "With a marled ruler", which clearly says that the section is about angle trisection with a marked ruler, while your heading "Marked ruler" suggest that the section is about marked rulers, which is not the case.

Please again, change headings only when you are sure that the new heading is mathematically correct and indicates clearly the content of the section. D.Lazard (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Download. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to CLT— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -download 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Whole Numbers[edit]

Thank you for the vote of confidence, it means a lot to me as being yelled at on the talk pages has not been a pleasant experience. Yeah, arithmetic (linear recursive structures) and foundation of integer math has been my thing since I was a kid. I've been fortunate enough to have found jobs on occasion where I can put it to use. I get a little hazy on the philosophy and history, and I've learned a lot by participating here and having to look things up and reconcile sources.

About whole numbers. Yeah, I see it as a dangling subject on this page (natural numbers). It appears to me that whoever guided the drafting of the page as I saw it when I arrived wanted to use wikipedia as a tool to express his or her view that the positive integers, the counting numbers, and the natural numbers are exactly the same set.

There are three aspects to the article, that of math definition, convention used in the literature, and math pedagogy. (Math education is what I get when I go to skool ;-) Math pedagogy is the science of teaching the subject.) It appears to me based on comments about school books that at least one of the editors supporting set equivalence was concerned about education material, and I believe there is a domain of discourse in the early classroom where these three sets are equivalent.

You might put your suggestion under the title change proposal now in the lede section, so others can comment also this section. It would be nice if something diplomatic could be said about the prior discussion on this question... There are a lot of nice things on the topic on that integer page. The timing is good for such a discussion as I'm about to fix a bunch of redirects.Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

justed added the section link above, now I notice there is a new section at the bottom of the talk page Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please use {{cn}} or {{cn span}} tags to identify unsourced text[edit]

In this edit, you removed text as "unsourced". It would be much better to use {{cn}} or {{cn span}} to tag unsourced text, so that editors have an opportunity to cite sources. --50.53.41.238 (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on the hatnote for Natural number[edit]

Your edit to the hatnote for Natural number, was reverted, but you drew attention to some problems with it. Could you comment here: Talk:Natural_number#hatnote? --50.53.39.150 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't follow the hat note issue yet. I have proposed a new lead that mentions whole numbers, and that definition also suggests a definition for integers. I think getting the lead in place could help the entire article by bringing focus. discussion of new lead (scroll to the bottom]Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the comment about the new lead proposal, good point. Checkout v2: discussion of new lead (scroll to the bottom] Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations in your proposed text were being expanded at the bottom of Talk:Natural number[edit]

The proposed article text that you put into a comment on Talk:Natural number contained citations. Those citations were being expanded at the bottom of the talk page, which causes confusion and clutter. I have put the citations inside wiki markup comments. This doesn't affect the proposed text. In the future, it would probably be best to delete citations from text you are putting onto a talk page. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for splitting the MathWorld citation in Natural number[edit]

Splitting the MathWorld citation in Natural number is a very good idea. And thanks for retaining the naming convention for the named references. --50.53.36.23 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I sometimes combine closely related citations in one footnote to reduce visual clutter in the article. In this edit you separated two definitions of "Natural number". Those are closely related citations, so they were combined. I approved of your earlier splitting, because the footnote had citations for different terms, and the citations needed to be placed in different parts of the article. Anyway, your version is fine with me. --50.53.38.50 (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

your edit of Number broke the redirect from Number system[edit]

In this edit you changed a section name. While that is certainly an improvement, you broke the redirect from Number system. There is a hatnote on that section that says:

  • {{Redirect|Number system|systems for expressing numbers|Numeral system}}

Anyway, I fixed the redirect.

--50.53.55.68 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI and being blown off ..[edit]

Look at the proposal for a new lead I provided information based on citations. Though the proposal is shorter than the current lead, there are some vague "too complicated" replies, and some remarks, which I again replied with explanation of lack of merit. You will notice there are no replies or defense of the remarks provided. Instead the discussion moves elsewhere, and the lead is edited further as a response through the article rather on the talk pages, and a definite message 'we control the article'.

The current editors, especially one of them, is using the article to establish his personal opinion. As another example, there was already a section on origin, which had citations supporting an explanation of the origin of the term. Then the conversation was instead continued in a new section etymology. Where the opinion and memories of another editor fill the top of the section with no citations. Comments on that, are then left unreplied to as the conversation moves to yet another section and the article supports this uncited opinion in contrast to actual source material. The person who brought the source material is then threatened with administrative action.

As a third example, consider what this talk page looked like before I arrived. It was three pages. I suggested two changes, and now it is 25 pages. One of the changes was adopted, the mention of 0 as a natural number convention, but notice editor in question is still taking issue with this with the most recent talk history.

The second change is to note that the Peano Axioms define natural numbers, and that these axioms allow for the definition of a number of natural number sets, including some that are very important in mathematics, N={{}, {{}}, {{{}}} ..} which has been used in set theoretic proofs of important properties of Natural numbers, and N={"s", "ss", ..} Which is the basis of the formalization of computer arithmetic and leads to many proofs in computation theory. These points were cited. (note the successor function is not defined in the Axioms, only its properties are given, this is the source of the abstraction - i.e. you can make it anything you want as long as it meets the specified properties).

Why would the editor be so energetic about ignoring the Peano Axioms, the set theoretic definition, the computation theory definition - and in preventing the material in the citations provided, especially those of Peano's book, the cited math history books, the math philosophy books -- it is because he wants his opinion stated in the section [etymology to be what is in the article, i.e. that N={1,2,3 ..} only and that they *are* the counting numbers. He wants a standard and is using the wikipedia page to support this position.

Complicating this is that N={1,2,3..} is a valid definition for natural numbers - but it is not the only one. The abstraction provides for many. Furthermore, notice that the Peano Axioms are numbered. Where do those numbers come from? Fact is there are counting numbers {1,2,3..} which are a similar notion to Natural Numbers but do not have the component of abstraction. Yes, natural numbers of all sorts can be used for counting, but they are not *the* numbers used for counting in the sense of ancient man making marks on sticks or students counting apples, but rather a more powerful concept, a set with arithmetic (sometimes said recursive) structure. .. all this is based on sources I gave in the talk pages.

It was approximately 20 hours of work to get 0 recognized. It has been twice that to attempt to bring in the true history with citations to this article [etymology opinion. I've also had to withstand personal attacks -despite wikipedias policy against this - such as can be seen on my denied request for moderation. One could talk forever as long as new sections can be opened, calls are made for consensus etc.

I've spent the process here, and it isn't working. Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

many ideas-> There were two, but you were probably turned off by a trick of manipulation where a person will constantly lead a subject to apparently new areas to create the impression of substantial disagreement, though there is no substance. This technique may be called "piled high and deep", or making a "shit storm". This manipulation works by causing reviewers/overseers to not want to "wade through" it all, thus leaving the victim isolated. Generally people are turned off by 'petty bickering' and that strengthens the technique. The tendency is to blame the messenger or to shun both parties. You see this technique used in political campaigns, sometimes in court rooms, and apparently on Wikipedia.218.187.85.47 (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ..."[edit]

In this edit summary you say:

  • 'the Musser et al. source is a secondary source to the standards. the standards should be quoted directly to indicate what these standards define as "whole number", etc.'

Musser, et al, is a secondary source, because the authors rely on and refer to the NCTM and Common Core standards, which are, in this context, primary sources. You appear to have inverted the meanings. More to the point:

--50.53.40.60 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)