User talk:Daqu

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

Sock and Buskin[edit]

See the revised article. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


It sounds plausible that Isaac Asimov coined "millihelen", but where is the evidence/documentation? Even finding an early use in his writing would be a good start. The earliest use in Google Books is 1970 (possibly; full text is not available); one book mentions Denis Norden as having coined it, but that book was published in 2003 and gives no source.... --Macrakis 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

From my knowledge of the personalities of the two of them, I would say it is much more the sort of thing I would expect from Denis Norden, but of course that is not a reliable source. I vaguely seem to remember hearing Denis Norden use the word on the radio in the 1960s or just possibly late 1950s, but obviously even if I were 100% certain, that would not prove that he was the first to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Jonathan Raban article[edit]

You mindless and needlessly deleted the entire article on the author, Jonathan Raban, without any proper explanation. Please can you explain the rationale for your actions? Ivankinsman 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I have no recollection of making the edit you described to me. I have looked at "my contributions" and the only edit I made was a small grammar update edit by changing "has been" to "was". Furthermore, by looking through the history of the page, if I compare the edits you made on May 5th, the change you claim I made was your own doing. --CmaccompH89 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I'm glad that the issue was resolved easily. Cheers. --CmaccompH89 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

...for your message on my talk page. Yes I have a few user boxes, but nowhere near as many as some folks do! As for the graphic on the punctuation box (the code for which, by the way is {{User british quotes}}), I guess it depends whether the quoted text is a question. Not quite sure though why the Olivia Judson article would lead you to my user page... – ukexpat (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK I see now. To be honest I don't even remember reverting that vandalism, I was patrolling recent changes with WP:Huggle and didn't pay attention to the article names. – ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

rock-paper-scissors magmas?[edit]


I noticed belatedly that you'd commented on this, and I wanted to bring your attention back to it, since you appear to know more about abstract algebra than me. At the talk page for Example of a commutative non-associative magma, I commented on my problem with what's there. What do you think? To me it looks bogus, in which case, I'll get rid of its reference in the RPS article. Thanks! Cretog8 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

four quantifiers[edit]

Hi, I just noticed your comment at the talk page of limit of a function concerning the difficulty of the definition. I think your point is well taken. Believe it or not, there is a radically simple solution to the problem; see non-standard calculus. Katzmik (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comment at my talk page: there is a common misconception that non-standard analysis is based on a different system of axioms as compared to ordinary analysis. This is not the case. Namely, NSA is based on ZFC, just as ordinary standard analysis does (as opposed to the constructivist approach). To help understand NSA, some authors have developed systems of axioms for it. However, this took place after NSA was constructed within ZFC. I suggest you read the lead paragraph, recently added by Charles Matthews, at Criticism of non-standard analysis. Katzmik (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? "Believe it or not"??? I've known about non-standard analysis for 40 years, and I would definitely 'not say it uses the same axioms as standard analysis. You really think the only issue is whether both kinds of analysis are based on ZFC ? When two mathematical systems differ (i.e., are not identical), it is precisely because there is *some* difference in the axiom systems. This includes the case where a definition of a given "concept" -- or, more accurately, *term* -- is different. (Like "real numbers" or "limit".)
The standard real numbers have no element that's > 0 but < every rational number. The standard definition of "limit" is -- well, I'm sure I don't need to repeat it here -- but you do know it's different from the definition of "limit" in non-standard analysis.Daqu (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

question about infimum of the empty set[edit]

Daqu: I removed your question from Katzmik and copied it to User talk:Katzmik, as I believe is the appropriate ettiquette. Also I gave an explanation and evidence to confirm that what Katzmik said is in fact a standard convention (although not defining the inf/sup of the empty set is also a standard convention). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plclark (talkcontribs) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pupusa and Parantha[edit]

These Pupusa look just like stuffed Parantha, just that these pupusa are made from corn, rather than wheat flour. Any thoughts???? EyeMD T|C 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cone over simplex[edit]

I fleshed out your characterization of color space in terms of a cone over a simplex at Color vision#Mathematics_of_color_perception, hopefully correctly, please check. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied to your question at my talk page. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Octopus discussion[edit]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I realise that neither side was deliberately trying to be combative and the purpose of my comment was to try to encourage those who were opposing a revision to seriously consider it. When I made my first comment, the proposition was based on personal incredulity. However, it later emerged that the statement wasnt unambiguously supported by the expert sources, and as such a revision might be needed. I'm sure that even Dominus would agree that if it turns out not in fact to be accurate, it should be changed. K-22-22 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Complex polytope[edit]

Hi, I have rewritten the lead to try and take your criticisms on board. Any better now? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Psych subtext[edit]

OK but now I'm really, really curious; for me the show is such fluffy fun show I don't give much thought to subtext. I'm usually too busy trying to spot the pineapples and 80s references. Please tell? Feel free to email me through the toolbox interface if you're really that concerned about broadcasting your theory. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)



I should like to explain why I am reverting your recent edit to the Regular polytope article. The term "polychoron" has come into widening use as the four-dimensional analogue of a polygon or polyhedron. I have just linked to its article on this wiki, you may also find such on Mathworld. The term is too embedded in these sites and in the literature elsewhere to ignore.

I do not know who has deemed that only two mathematicians may name these particular objects of study, but perhaps they mean that only Conway may name specific regular examples (Coxeter being deceased)? Either way, named they have been, with the name now in common usage (Google search returns "About 31,000 results - not bad for a relatively new term in a realtively obscure arena), and as a general encyclopedia Wikipedia should acknowledge this.

Should you wish to launch a campaign against usage of the term on Wikipedia, please discuss it with the page maintainers first.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the term, definitely used in the realm of regular and uniform 4-polytopes, but regular google can't be a positive source for inclusion, only a lack of matches as a sign for exclusion. The matches might be 90% copied from Wikipedia, and some are crazy, like an Amazon book [1] - I've seen these before. People take a bunch of topics from wikipedia, and edit them into a book. I mean like they'll add dozens of these books per day! Tom Ruen (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
p.s. 45 matches on Google scholar[2], like [3], 5. The regular polychora. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Support it all you want; there is nothing to discuss. "Polychoron" is a coinage by *one* person that does not occur *even once* in a peer-reviewed journal, based on the extremely extensive professional database known as MathSciNet. Not even *once* in even *one* paper.
As a professional mathematician, I don't feel any need to get permission from a bunch of people with various backgrounds, many of whom think it's the coolest thing in the world to insert new coinages into Wikipedia -- leading to hundreds of other websites copying these instances of the non-existent term, leading to the illusion that it is a standard term.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to serve as a venue for people to promulgate their coinages by taking advantage of this phenomenon. And it is of great importance to not capitulate to such people and their agendas.
The function of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge. If someone pretends that a term of their own coinage is a correct term for a certain meaning, that is making up knowledge -- another form of lying. Wikipedia is not intended to include lies.
So, User:Steelpillow, I strongly urge you to revert your reversion unless and until you have solid evidence that "polychoron" is standard terminology. (I do not expect this to occur anytime soon.)
Finally, I quote the first paragraph from the Wikipedia page on Verifiability:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."Daqu (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The paper that User:Tomruen cites as an example is a paper that someone posted to a website, a paper that has not, apparently, been peer-reviewed. To support its usage of "polychoron" it cites -- you want to guess? -- Wikipedia. Circular reasoning, Tom.Daqu (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
HI Daqu, thank you for replying. I have some sympathy for your passions in seeking to maintain standards. The only point I will make here is that for consistency, if I revert my edit then we should cleanse Wikipedia wholesale of the term, and also of polypeton, polyteron and such which have even less claim to respectability. That clearly goes beyond the remit of a narrow discussion such as this one is at present. Therefore I prefer to maintain consistency, which at least for now means leaving the article returned to its original state (However if you choose to reinstate your own edit, I feel that I have made my point and I will not declare war just for the sake of it). I repeat my suggestion that you post to Talk:Polychoron, where this issue saw some discussion in the past. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, at list of regular polytopes you removed "polychoron" but left "polyteron", which seems inconsistent. If you decide to remove "polychoron" again, I suggest you also remove the even less respectable names for the higher-dimensional polytopes. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
My primary defense for the term polychoron is from Norman Johnson (mathematician) who suggested George Olshevsky's invented term polychorema be shorted to polychora, and this terminology among others is actively being used in the subject of enumerating the convex and star uniform polytopes, the n-dimensional analogies to the regular, semiregular, and uniform star polyhedra. Johnson is the originator of the names of the uniform star polyhedra, given in Magnus Wenninger's book on Polyhedron models, published in 1974.
Johnson worked with Coxeter on his 1966 Dissertation on The Theory of Uniform Polytopes and Honeycombs. His new book uniform polytopes, has been long delayed, but referenced by Branko Grünbaum as a manuscript, credited as the first complete enumeration of the 25 convex uniform honeycombs. Mathworld also apparent had manuscript access to draft copies for using his new terminology for classifying the uniform polyhedra. [4] I sent a message to Johnson yesterday and he replied today saying (in part):
My "Uniform Polytopes" is still not close to publication. However, I have taken out some of the introductory material and expanded it into a separate book called "Geometries and Transformations." The manuscript is being considered for publication by Springer and so far has been well received. I do use the term "polychoron" in this book. I also have a short paper pending acceptance that could provide another credible reference.
So hopefully that will move forward sooner as a definitive reference.
I've tried to keep the articles on uniform polytopes and honeycombs as free as possible from direct dependence upon specific naming system, or given variations as I've seen used. The original source I saw was Olshevsky's listing of the convex uniform polychora, and Johnson confirmed to me that definitions of the terminology and its correspondence to uniform truncations eeach ringed Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.
So my intepreration would be that in the subject of uniform polytopes Norman Johnson is definitive source for terminology, continuing Coxeter's work on the subject Coxeter started. In other research areas on convex and regular polytope, papers and books, this terminology may be completely unused and unnecessary, perhaps for not being as dimension-specific. But regular polytopes are a SUBSET of uniform polytopes so I see no fault in including dimension terminology as it is used in different contexts, and I can judge it is unfair and confusing to readers to not be inclusive. I accept if an article is talking about a specific area of polytopes that exclusively says 4-polytopes, that it is confusing to not say that in such sections. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try to delete the term 'polychoron/polychora' from wikipedia.

  • Firstly, your claim that it is never used in peer-reviewed literature is incorrect. See, for example, or
  • Secondly, "appearance in peer-reviewed literature" is not the criterion Wikipedia uses to decide terminology. Polychoron may be only sparsely used by professional (publishing) mathematicians, but it is widely used by the general public. That should be enough reason to leave the word 'polychoron' in places where it is found.

Personally, I don't use the term in my articles. That doesn't mean it should be expunged. mike40033 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent note. I too have math qualifications. I could try to "pull rank" and point out that my qualifications are actually in a field related to polytopes, but there's no point. No mathematical qualifications qualifies one as a sole arbiter terminology to be used in Wikipedia.

Now, you have argued that polychora should not be used. You have given reasons that are invalid ("it's not found in a refereed publication") which you are now trying to change ("it's not in a refereed publication by a senior mathematician, cited in MathSciNet"). However, you find, regularly, that other Wikipedians disagree with your decisions about the use of the word polychora.

I would suggest, this being the case, that whenever you want to "correct" this "error", you

  • start a discussion and maybe a vote on an article's 'talk' page
  • make sure some other editors actually participate in the discussion
  • finally, abide by the majority decision.

Is that unreasonable?

PS - please note that almost every modern word we use was, once, a coinage by a single person. mike40033 (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you probably should change your edit summary "(only H.S.M. Coxeter and J.H. Conway have earned naming rights for regular polytopes)" the next time you attempt to remove "polychoron". Can we have a stellated great dodecahedron and a dtaC? Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

rational point[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. I made one change that i hope helps, but I'm still not sure what to do about the rest of it. I'll think about it though. You(of course)are welcome to make changes too. regards, Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compact space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Open and Closed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antoine's necklace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Möbius strip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperbolic plane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Divergent series[edit]

You obviously haven't studied the theory of divergent series. There is a book on the subject. With a particular definition, the claim you removed is true, suprisingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Different definitions usually make the same divergent series add up to different sums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia article Divergent series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

[Please sign your comments.] In mathematics we say what we mean and don't redefine notation to mean whatever we want it to mean, à la Humpty Dumpty. To say "1+2+3+... = -1/12" means that the limit of the series 1+2+3+... first of all exists (i.e., is convergent) and second of all is equal to -1/12. I know several ways to calculate the -1/12 from 1+2+3+... - so you need not be concerned about my mathematical knowledge. But it is simply false that 1+2+3+... approaches a limit. And hence it doesn't "equal" -1/12. False statements have no place in an encyclopedia.Daqu (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to -gry 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:
  • word. The only -gry words playable in Scrabble are aggry, ahungry, angry, hungry and puggry.</ref>]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)