# User talk:99.241.166.168

## Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (99.241.166.168) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!

## Reference Errors on 27 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

## February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Braid group 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:
• group]] {{math|''S<sub>n</sub>''}}. Here, {{math|''n''}} is a [[natural number]]; if {{math|''n'' > 1}}, then {{math|''B<sub>n</sub>''}} is an [[infinite group]]. Braid groups find applications in [[
• ≤ ''i'' ≤ ''n''−2}} and in the second group of relations, {math|{!}''i'' − ''j''{!} ≥ 2}}. This presentation leads to generalisations of braid groups called [[Artin group]]s. The cubic

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

## Reproducing kernel Hilbert space

Edits were rolled back as something corrupted the page and it was not obvious how to fix it. The error showed as Failed to parse(PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): \begin{cases} T_K: L_2(X) \to L_2(X) \\ [T_K f](\cdot) = \int_X K(\cdot,t) f(t) d\mu(t) \end{cases} in the third line of Integral Operators and Mercer Theorem section  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

## Blockquotes

Please stop putting theorems in <blockquote> tags. These tags generate a box with quotation marks, and quotation marks are inappropriate for theorems. Ozob (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me expand on that: Don't use <blockquote> or <div> tags to set off theorems, definitions, or proofs from the main body of the text. In fact, don't use <blockquote> tags except for quotations, and don't use <div> tags at all. Furthermore, TeX's default formatting for subscripts and superscripts is just fine, and you should not put \nolimits tags on them. Ozob (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Couple of things, on theorems, I did that because sometimes a theorem is several paragraphs long and it is not obvious where it ends. Also it does not display any quotation marks for me so I don't know what you are referring to there.

As for the subscripts, the \nolimit option is appropriate when you don't have a superscript, other wise the formula's vertical placement will be non-symmetric and closer to the text that appears before it.

So I disagree on your second point, but the first point I was trying to address a problem, maybe you have a better solution.

Long theorems are often indented using a colon at the start of each line (in the same way that I am indenting my reply to you right now; by the way, indenting replies is standard practice). This is sufficent to set off the theorem and does not distract the reader.
It seems that most users, and in particular all logged out users, will not currently see quotation marks around blockquote tags. Logged in users who have the "Typography Refresh" option enabled (like me) will. Eventually this option will become the default, and when that happens everyone will see quotation marks around blockquote tags. Even if this were not the case, it would be poor semantics to use an HTML tag intended for quotations to set off theorems.
I don't understand your statement about \nolimits. With \limits, the subscript is centered underneath the symbol, as in:
$\prod_p (1 - p^{-s})^{-1}.$
With \nolimits, the subscript is placed asymmetrically on the right of the symbol:
$\prod\nolimits_p (1 - p^{-s})^{-1}.$
Is this what you're referring to? If not, then I am misunderstanding you.
(By the way, you should sign your comments. Use four tildes (the ~ character) and the software will fill in a signature for you.) Ozob (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems from your reply on my talk page that you're concerned about vertical asymmetry, not horizontal. I agree extreme vertical asymmetry should be avoided; too much whitespace at the top or bottom of a formula does not look good. But I find a small amount of whitespace, even asymmetric whitespace, to be acceptable. Thus, I do not mind the look of the first displayed equation I gave above, nor do I mind:
$\bigcup_n S^n, \qquad \sum_n \frac{x^n}{n!}, \qquad \varprojlim_n k[x] / (x^n).$
I find formulas with horizontal asymmetry much more jarring, and so I dislike:
$\bigcup\nolimits_n S^n, \qquad \sum\nolimits_n \frac{x^n}{n!}, \qquad \varprojlim\nolimits_n k[x] / (x^n).$
I understand you to say that you prefer the latter. This is fine. However, you have been changing articles to reflect your preference, and this is not such a good thing to do. This kind of situation, where there is more than one conventional way to do things, is usually handled by a recommendation called WP:RETAIN. The text of WP:RETAIN talks about national varieties of English (most commonly, this is British versus American English), but the same principal has been applied in many other situations. The general principal is: Use the style of the first major contributor to the article. Thus, if the earliest major contributor used \limits (even implicitly), then you should use \limits; if they used \nolimits, then you should use \nolimits. Changing an article to be internally consistent is acceptable. Articles should always be consistent with normal usage (an article that uses $\lim^{n\to\infty}$ should be changed, even if the first major contributor disagrees), and in particular if a convention is widespread within a certain specialty, then it's acceptable to conform to that field's convention. But changes between optional styles are specifically discouraged because they tend to lead to WP:Edit warring. This is why, for example, I don't search through physics articles changing every occurrence of $S = \int d^4x\,L$ to $S = \int L\,d^4x$; I prefer the latter, but the former is an acceptable alternative used by some authors, and I am supposed to accept it (at least on Wikipedia).
One other thing, since I've brought up WP:RETAIN. There are some editors who feel strongly about the use of [itex], {{math}}, and plain italics. The mathematics WikiProject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and especially Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics) has had discussions on this issue several times. There is no consensus as to what style is the best, and there are editors who strongly believe in all three. WP:RETAIN is sometimes applied to the proper way to put mathematics into Wikipedia, so you may encounter editors who oppose your changes. That's more a reflection on history than it is on you and your edits. Ozob (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

## Errors

Please make sure that your formatting changes do not otherwise change articles. This edit introduced an error (an ungrammatical sentence). Ozob (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

## Format changes

Hi there,

I don't understand why you're changing the math formatting even when there is no need to do so. Please stop. -- Taku (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

## May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galois connection 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:
• {{math|&thinsp;''f''<sub>∗</sub>}} is then given by the inclusion of {{math|''c''(''A''))}} into ''A'', that maps each closed element to itself, considered as an element of ''A''. In this

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

## June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drude model 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:
• ''p''(''t'')}}. The [[steady state]] solution ({{math|{{sfrac|''d''|''dt''}}⟨'''p'''⟩}} {{=}} 0}}) is then

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

## July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ostrowski's theorem 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

## Formatting change

Please do not make a formatting change. It's not an improvement. -- Taku (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)