User talk:Cheeser1/Math Archive

NOTICE: This page is an archive! Modifications to this page will be reverted. Please go to my main talk page to post new messages, when necessary. Issues in this archive are generally more-or-less resolved.

Large set (same as Small set) and related topics (N-cube, 2-large, etc)

I see you working hard on small set. This article has three parts, each with its own "see also" and references. How about spitting it into three articles, and making small set a disambiguation page? Oleg Alexandrov 23:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, I've never done any work beyond creating and editing articles so I wouldn't know how to do this, but I don't see why not. Do you know how to do this sort of thing? If so, go ahead, I can make any necessary corrections/additions to the Ramsey theory definition and its description on the disambiguation page. 149.43.x.x 0:01 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly necessary right now. It is a reasonable candidate page to get expanded into a survey of some kind. Charles Matthews 07:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, in any event, I have no objections to any sort of splitting/reorganizing of this topic, and would be happy to contribute what I can. 149.43.x.x 22:04 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :-)

Thanks very much for reverting unhelpful edits from Calculus; i know this message is somewhat superfluous but it's always nice to be thanked for doing a nice thing! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One of them wasn't "unhelpful" as you say. 86.31.70.128 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-universal religious notation of years is not helpful at all. This article has no religious content, and includes primarily historical information outside the Christian tradition. Use of BCE and CE are highly appropriate, and I'd thank you to stop introducing bias and Christian-centricism into the article as if it were neutral. Cheeser1 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; i'm not a christian myself, but i dont want to have to have the whole debate of "what do you mean exactly by "before christ"?", yadayada. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 21:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the appropriate Wiki policy which states that both BC and BCE are OK, and that the preference of the first editor should be acknowledged. In Calculus the first use of era terminology used BC, so that should stay. And what on earth are you talking about when you say "no-universal religious notation"? It's BCE that's non-universal. There are many non-religious articles on Wikipedia where era notation is used. BC is undertstood by everyone; BCE isn't - especially not in North America. 86.31.70.128 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "up" on wikipedia policy, but in the interests of neutrality.. BCE just sounds better and doesn't evoke controversy. BC evokes the idea of Christianity as Cheeser has said, hence his revert. There's nothing wrong with it -- there are a lot of people who resent the use of "BC" because it implies that human history is based entirely off the account of biblical events, rather than just recounting the events. Besides, there is no reason to argue about this; it's a Calculus article and not a historical one! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's no reason to argue about this then why did you and Cheeser revert my original edit, which was only replacing first usage? Even if BCE sounds better, and that's debatable, no one knows what it means. 86.31.70.128 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, it's just an anti-vandalism knee-jerk reaction. Secondly, we're restructuring the article via talk page chats, and really.. (sigh) it was a knee-jerk reaction. Done; let's go home. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes to an encyclopedia, I'd prefer we not verify and validate any bias, regardless of how ubiquitous you might think a term might be (BCE is well known to people, in my experience, but that is actually irrelevant since one may simply type BCE and there's an explaination). BCE is relatively neutral, BC is not. This is an article about science, and the history of this aspect of science - primarily outside the Christian tradition. It makes sense to use BCE; if for nothing else, there's no reason to use BC (although that argument may be more germane here, I would assert that it applies everywhere). As for "first usage" I'm not sure what you're talking about - the article seems to have used BCE notation for quite a while, which is actually the most relevant point in this debate (regardless of how appropriate I can argue it must be). Cheeser1 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

linking to redirects

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with linking to redirects. It is the best thing to do when there is any chance, even if extremely slim, that the redirect will ever become an article. The performance issue is entirely negligible. --Trovatore 06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And I can tell you that there is zero chance. But let's assume my professional opinion doesn't count. There is still no reason not to link to "large set" because that disambig page is for both. It is not exclusively the small set article, it is both large set and small set. If there were a circumstance like the one you describe, then a page for large set would have to be created, and the appropriate link would have to be moved there anyway. There is no reason to link to a redirect, and we are supposed to always repair links to redirects. Also, please obey my instructions and discuss article-related concerns on that article's talk page. I have duplicated this discussion there. --Cheeser1 07:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a general concern, not one related only to the specific article. Also note that no one is required to "obey" anyone's instructions regarding his/her talk page. --Trovatore 07:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't demanding your obedience, I was asking you to help keep your contribution and mine as productive, civil, and transparent as possible. And I know about redirect policy, it is not a redirect problem, it is a content problem. Content concerns outweigh concerns about concerns regarding unjustified changes. The redirect policy you cited is about unjustified changes that eliminate redirects, not changes justified by content concerns or other considerations. --Cheeser1 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said (well, at least implied), if you want to remove the link entirely from the dab page, I have no objection. As far as I can see, that addresses all your concerns. --Trovatore 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If I look up large set, I get that page. If I want large set (Ramsey theory), that link should be there, and it should be worded correctly. Redirect-link policy is not the policy in question. But like I said, do whatever you want, you've repeated your points several times without wavering, I'm not here to proselytize common sense to you. If you insist on obeying rules that you've imagined apply, do whatever you want. I don't care enough to stop you. --Cheeser1 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I may have been too sharp at WP:WPM. What I was trying to say is that you will do better by figuring out what the concerns of the other editors are and working towards a compromise. I don't have any stake in the outcome. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarifying. I have done everything I can to understand what Trovatore wants - during/after his reversion(s) of my edits changing "Small set (Ramsey theory)" to "Large set (Ramsey theory)", I explained to him repeatedly that Small set (Ramsey Theory) may be a helpful redirect, but that it is not a term that anyone has ever used. We both agreed then that we shouldn't link there, but instead of simply leaving my link to Large set (Ramsey theory), he insisted that the disambiguation page be split. I cannot imagine why - the page had served well to disambiguate both terms ("large set" and "small set") up until that moment. His explanation is only that he prefers if they are all "small set (subject)" because otherwise it's "ugly." It sounds like nonsense to me, and while I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith, I'm perturbed by the fact that he can't admit that there's no compelling consensus or policy to support his sweeping revisions to the page. --Cheeser1 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

indeterminate form

Your suggestion of L'Hopital's rule is misguided. Indeterminate form is the existing article that treats the topic. Michael Hardy 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read my response on the relevant page, and don't continue to pursue this line of discussion. It's meaningless and pedantic. --Cheeser1 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories by Erdos numbers

User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `'Míkka 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"a number of math undergrads"

From User talk:SparsityProblem:
You know, Wikipedian's personal expertise is certainly interesting and worth noting, but it's not how we decide disputes (especially in what is clearly a matter of opinion). But to take what is clearly a pot-shot at me (and possibly others, but it came up explicitly in the previous discussion, and was clearly intended for me) by asserting that my opinion is to be discredited because I'm not quite as renowned (as far as you know) as R.e.b. is ludicrous and insulting. I'm a published mathematician and being between undergrad and grad school should lead you to draw no conclusions about my ability to contribute to this dispute. I can't fathom how you could use the fact that I don't yet have a PhD as a reason to dismiss or discredit me, and I find it insulting that you went out of your way to expound this point in the middle of a dispute that has plenty of on-topic points going on that you could have commented on instead. --Cheeser1 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHILLOUT, please. If a number of editors hadn't tried to argue that all the Delete voters were non-mathematicians and the only conceivable reason someone would oppose these categories is "they just don't understand mathematics", the matter of anyone's undergrad status or lack thereof would never have come up. When people are arguing from authority, it shouldn't be shocking when in return they get called on their lack thereof. SparsityProblem 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's complete hooey. The only people making arguments about "outsiders" are "real" mathematicians, and the only person with "undergraduate" status was me - don't try to dress that up as some legitimate point of discussion. Wikipedians' personal expertise is sometimes marginally relevant, but is not something you should throw back at someone as if their contributions aren't credible because they don't have a PhD or some nonsense. You've made an insulting remark. Rather than apologize, apparently you consider WP:CHILLOUT to be a defense for actions of yours that others find questionable or inappropriate? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I was hoping for a more mature response than this childish defensiveness. --Cheeser1 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that in this case, the deletionists are overwhelmingningly nonmathematicians, and the keepers are overwhelmingly mathematicians. It may not matter to the Wiki process, but it surely does matter to understanding why the deletionists care, so we can answer them in a way they understand. I despair of it, but anyway have called for an overturn of the deletion, as noted above. Pete St.John 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Parabola

You say it is not really true that all parabolas are the same shape. I can't see how that can be, but I notice you are a mathematician and so not to be ignored lightly. Can you explain in what way two parabolas can be different shapes? Man with two legs (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's like saying all rectangles have the same shape - it just isn't true. Rectangles do not share the same proportionality, nor do parabolas. Some are "skinny," others are "wide." They are not like circles - all circles are similar. Not all parabolas have such a relationship. The information you are introducing is incorrect, unsourced, and has been contested. Please refrain from continuing to add it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Parabolas are similar, as can be easily proven.

Let $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ be arbitrary parabolas. The similarity relation between shapes is not affected by rotations and translations. We can thus suppose their defining equations have the following form:

$y^{2}=4ax\quad (P_{1})$

$y^{2}=4bx\quad (P_{2})$

To show that $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ are similar we show that there exists a $\lambda$ such that $P_{2}=H_{\lambda }(P_{1})$, where $H_{\lambda }:(x,y)\mapsto (\lambda {}x,\lambda {}y)$ is the homothety of factor $\lambda$.

Define $\lambda :={\frac {b}{a}}$. Then

$(x,y)\in {}H_{\lambda }(P_{1})\Leftrightarrow ({\frac {x}{\lambda }},{\frac {y}{\lambda }})\in {}P_{1}\Leftrightarrow {\frac {y^{2}}{\lambda ^{2}}}=4a{\frac {x}{\lambda }}\Leftrightarrow {}y^{2}=4a\lambda {}x\Leftrightarrow {}y^{2}=4bx\Leftrightarrow (x,y)\in {}P_{2}$

Therefore $P_{2}=H_{\lambda }(P_{1})$.

I'm adding this (correct) information back to the article. Please refrain from removing it. If you don't understand the proof, write on the article's talk page. Morana (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for actually discussing the content, and for attempting to direct the discussion towards the appropriate place (the talk page). You are correct, and I should refrain from thinking to hard while in bed with the flu. However, I have again removed the content as redundant and more poorly written than the proper explanation, which is only a few lines further down in the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and User:SparsityProblem

From User talk:SparsityProblem:
I would like to draw your attention to this policy, and ask that you read it. You frequently interrupt content disputes and other disputes by simply hurling (frivolous) accusations of civility violations at others, instead of discussing the issues at hand. And yet you frequently defend your comments about other users as civil, because you are belittling or insulting their actions and not the editors themselves. Please familiarize yourself with this policy and cite it appropriately. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment, "I'm not the one who pitched a fit when the first DRV didn't go my way, and then had the thing overturned at my whim. That was you." oversteps the bounds of both common-sense civility, and civility as defined by WP:CIVIL. Let's focus on discussing content, rather than people. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it was in response to you making the exact same sort of comments about others. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you believe it's appropriate to reply to comments you perceive as incivil with your own incivil comments? SparsityProblem (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you seem to think that you are immune from your own interpretation of WP:CIVIL. It doesn't matter whether or not I share that interpretation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous user

I see that you once dealt with 76.118.216.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Seems the warning you once gave the anon regarding swearing didn't help and the person is giving me a deal of trouble on the Ash Ketchum page. What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest asking administrator(s) to intervene. Such hostility and obvious disregard for consensus seems pretty clearly actionable. I would be careful though as to what you call vandalism - I'm not sure if what the user contributes can always be exactly called vandalism (however tendentious his editing might be or however little he seems to respect consensus). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I have mistakened you for an admin. Well, I'll keep that in mind. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I responded to Sesshomaru on his talk page and offered to help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable. I've grown to be a harassment/retaliation magnet with attractive force comparable to that of some admins apparently. :p --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrlika (from User talk:Thewanderer)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This warning was left for User:Thewanderer regarding his reverting a revert (twice [1] [2]) on Vrlika. His response was to fire back that my vandal-fighting on that article was "10x" worse. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are totally unacceptable. You cannot honestly believe that my reverting vandalism is justification for you to make inappropriate comments. If you continue to do so, I have no choice but to conclude that you are not interested in WP:AGF, WP:CONS, or anything of the sort, and I will report you to the ANI for picking up where the IP-vandal left off. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You have very poor Wikiettiguette, my friend. Stop threatening me, and stop likening me to vandals. You have reverted the Vrlika article many, many, more times than I have. When I have removed the Cyrillic I have provided an explanation, while when you revert back to it, you simply call me a vandal. I more than encourage you to call all the admins you can, if you believe I am breaking some rules.--Thewanderer (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting a long-term vandal on that page - that is apparent from the pagehistory and this page, both of which you should have read before frivolously complaining about my keeping that article vandalism-free. Respect consensus, especially when you are making the exact same edits as a long-term vandal over and over again. My asking you to do so is not incivility. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Greyhound

[3]

See talk page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to inform me of such a discussion. That is the function of a watchlist. Thanks for the thought, but it's normally not necessary (for me or anyone else). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)