User talk:Dmcq/Archive 5

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 3

→

Feedback requested

Your input would be appreciated in the discussion here. Just about everyone who's recently been involved in this article has been contacted about this discussion except for you, so I figured I should let you know about it too.Boothello (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exponential function

About exponential function under formal definition section, the error term of the limit that added by User:A. Pichler has been seen nowhere. I already asked him for some reference but he refused to do that. (How unreasonable he is.) I still suspect how it becomes and whether it is true, since I have never studied about Taylor series before. Could you help me prove his statement? If it is true, we can just remove the citation-needed tag. Or is it better to remove his paragraph? --Octra Bond (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be calculated quite easily but the main point is why bother? The error term is of no particular interest in that context. I'd just remove it. The only place an error term like that might possibly be of interest is in the characerization article and that already has a proof of the equivalence of the limit definition to the others. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Godel Religious View

The section is talking about Kurt Religious views, and the Islam is one of the major religion, so his point of view about Islam was noted. The logical question is why note was removed not why added, since we are talking about the Logic God Father Godel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.158.226 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Gödel not Islam. That Islam is famous is if anything not a reason to to include it since he is more likely to have something about it by chance in his life. It was not anything of particular to him, he made a throw away remark about it. It simply has no weight. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

the concept of "consistency" is an essential logical concept so it is important to know which religion verify this concept in Gödel point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.158.226 (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It simply has no weight. Have you actually read the book or even the page this comes from? Anyway the place to discuss this is the talk page of the article. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

Thanks for your thoughtful input at the noticeboard. I have just, finally, responded there to your observation made yesterday. Early morning person (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Civilty

I am not justifying incivilty, I am saying that I was not uncivil, but simply pointed out an attitude problem in VictorChmara's characterization of scholars with whom he apparently disagrees. Consensus is made difficult by that kind of behavior that arrogantly dismisses scholarship in pejorative terms without providing any evidence. I have not "started a dispute" I have pointed out a problem with the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Say you don't like it and why rather than characterizing the other editor as arrogant. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I characterized the statement not the editor. I don't know Victor, I know what he says. Just like you are not saying I'm incivil but saying that you found that statement of mine to be incivil (which is why poiunting out incivilty in others is not a personal attack). I concede that you are right that if I had simply said "I don't like how you dismiss those scholars, it seems arrogant" that would have been better. But I did not violate the civilty policy by a longshot and your warning did not help anyone. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have much preferred the way you said it here. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What are they up to? Poland....

Hi D, you probably saw the discussion at scientific opinion on climate change about Poland.... I never thought to search the archives but JJ did (bless his heart) and it seems you participated in the [same discussion awhile back]. There you asked "what are they up to?" and the answer is.... the geo committee made their statement just a few weeks after a major discovery of potentially lucrative frackable shale gas. If a world cap and trade system were to go into place, that find would be a lot less valuable, and suddenly global warming was the enemy of most Polish geology and energy-related interests. We all know that talent goes where the money is. Statistics show that most geology trained graduates go to the oil/gas industry. They certainly do not go into climate change research by the droves. Anyway... its my guess - actually its my firm conviction - that major gas exploration dollars started flooding Poland during the six months prior to the position statement and that's the answer to your question....they're paving the way for development of that greenhouse gas laden resource. Not unlike what happens in the US geology/oil/gas conglomerate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Alien mind rays from Saturn...

Happens all the time. If its the Gornatians, their rays influence your visual center, and you just can't see your typos. If it's the Artridians, their rays actually flip bits in transit. If you plot the error by class (typo vs. random), you will see that the distribution changes in a way that's correlated with the orbit of Saturn. I think the range of the Artridians is higher, so they dominate if Saturn is far from the Earth, while the Gornatian rays have higher density, so they dominate if we are closer. Of course, that last detail is only a hypothesis so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right. What I'd really like for a transaction processing system is to be able to display something to a user as part of the secure stage for the information and then delete it from their minds if the transaction isn't committed and has to be rolled back. I'd guess they must have the technology for that but it has some spill over effects on us humans. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

log base

Regarding the change:

and in Engineering describing exponential solutions to differential equations. The binary logarithm uses base b = 2 and is prominent in computer science and Nuclear Physics (half life).

The original (and reverted) version looks like pure math uses natural log, and engineering uses log10. The point of my changes was to indicate that wasn't completely true. You say exponentials, but, as they say, you can't have one without the other.

Natural log is, for example used in time constants for capacitors and filter design. It is used because the appropriate quantity goes into an exponential that is the solution to a differential equation.

The nuclear physics case I find interesting. One would normally expect natural log, that is, 1/e life. However, unlike the RC filter case in EE, the coefficients to the equation aren't known. The constant term in a base 2 exponential is a log2 value. I am not so sure of the historical reason for using half life (base 2) instead of 1/e life, though. Gah4 (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're stretching it. The cases there are straightforward uses, you're talking about cases where it really isn't used that much at all. Doubling or halving the time constant is done by doubling or halving R or C. For half life the logarithm might be used in its calculation at some time but people don't actually use the logarithm when dealing with half lives. However the base 2 logarithm really is used in computer science. Logarithms are used quite a lot in calculating reaction speeds in chemistry and also in finance but in engineering it really is a bit incidental. There's no reason to dilute something with weak examples when there's perfectly good ones already there is my feeling. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See Arrhenius equation about how it gets in chemistry. This is the differential equations in action but here logarithms actually are used in practice. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubling or halving works in any base. The time constant, though, for an RC circuit, is the time that it takes for a resistor to decrease the charge(and voltage) on the capacitor by a factor of e. The convention would have worked just fine with 2 or 10 or any other base, but it is conventionally natural log base. On the other hand, optical absorption and chemistry (pH, pKa) are commonly base 10. Again, any base would have worked but 10 was chosen. Then there is dB, log base 10th root of 10. But I still find most interesting the use of 1/2 life in nuclear physics instead of 1/e life as one might expect or 1/10 life following engineering tradition. Also, the most common use of log in CS is with big-O notation, where multiplicative constants are ignored. That is, O(n log n) is the same as O(n log2 n), though you will sometimes see the latter. Gah4 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

we should refer to these in article text

See the hatnote, we should refer to these in article text.

Which hatnote? Don't understand. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry should have said we shouldn't refer to internal essays in the article text. The hatnote is the bit under thr title and just before the article text saying:

For the internal Wikipedia essay, see Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read.

Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bummer, I think it is helpful. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all part of ensuring verifiability to separate the article text from any of our own ruminations along with stopping using Wikipedia itself as a citation or source for anything except what we might refer to in any company like their front page or what newspapers say. Dmcq (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll also refer you to WP:5P

Specially to the fourth point. Please show respect for my work and at least read it before trying to delete it. I agree with removing the rocket application from the product rule page, but if you read my new article (assuming you know at least a little bit about the subject) you will realize It's not the same as Tsiolkovsky rocket equation since this accounts for every case and initial conditions, and also fully describes the phenomena. The article itself is about Rocket Dynamics and as I see it it's not too technical. The example may be complicated, but that's just the nature of the subject and as it's stated, it's an example. If you read the article and find any equation wrong then please tell me since it might help more people. About the citations, I personally did this piece of work and thus I don't see the need for further citation other than the links to other wikipages I inserted. If you didn't notice them, please read the article entirely. If you disagree with my point of view I'll ask you to first talk to me about it before making any rash decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabur (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is your own work then it cannot be part of Wikipedia. See WP:Original research. WIkipedia is supposed to summarize what is in WP:Reliable sources, not put out stuff of its own. It is a pity you have put so much effort here, I'm sorry but things like this must be published elsewhere first. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like many, many other Sites what I did was just manipulate equations that are already in wikipedia. The results I show are quite useful for many engineering applications (specially automatic control) and I don't think you have the right to neglect other professionals or students this information, specially since it's not easy to deduce what I show. I'll also refer you again to WP:5P, particularly the fifth point: "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule". In fact I uploaded this article because a bunch of EE students asked me to. I don't really understand your need to delete that article, do you think anyone is benefited by that? Or do you rather think that the more not-redundant information on wikipedia the better? I doubt many people will read my article but the people that do will be thankful for it. For me that's more than enough reason to keep the article. Please give me your thoughts on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabur (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very much against Wikipedia policies to put your own deductions into articles. If you wish to debate the matter about original research with someone else WP:ORN is the right place. You really really do need a citation in a wp:reliable source for something like this so it does need to be published elsewhere first. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead you might like to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and someone there might be able to better advise you about sticking mathematics into Wikipedia and maybe find some citations that are suitable. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Rocket Dynamics. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at cimanyD's talk page. →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Floating point. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your counsel to yourself unless a situation becomes much worse. I do not appreciate this sort of thing when there is no necessity and there is a place in the talk page to start commenting. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are free to delete the above user warning if it displeases you. The reason why I posted the warning is because, at two reverts, several editors including you were one edit away from violating the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. I was surprised the first time someone warned me for two reverts, but upon examining WP:3RR I realized that they were right. Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're technically correct but you could have gone about it in a less confrontational way. Like "hey, you might want to slow down a bit, you're at two reverts I don't want you to get into trouble over this." WP:DTTR is worth reading if you're unfamiliar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, and I apologize to Dmcq, who I consider to be a very valuable contributor. I don't want there to be any bad blood between us. I clearly pulled the trigger on everyone who was at 2RR without thinking. Sorry about that. Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I love happy endings. Take care - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for the compliment, always good for the ego even if I haven't been doing much recently :) Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OPERA experiment

Hi. I removed this comment from Talk:OPERA experiment. Please note that Wikipedia is a not a discussion forum. However, to answer your question: yes, the curvature of the Earth has been taken into account. The details are available in the paper the OPERA team published.--95.209.255.206 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about removing it but I would really like to know exactly where in that paper it says it took the depth of the instruments into account in calculating the distance. You have not answered my question properly. I'll place a variant at the science reference desk instead. Dmcq (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I've searched around a bit more and found [1] which describes how the points were put into a 3D frame and then calculated from that which is what I was looking for. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)