# User talk:Root4(one)

Cleaned up Root4(one) 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) test

## ENPOV

It looked like you were composing a draft, so I moved your article on ENPOV to your userspace at User:Root4(one)/ENPOV. NawlinWiki 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

## my user page

hahaha, thanks for your edits to my user talk pages. Perhaps I am preferring something just a bit stronger... Locriani 04:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

## more fingers

$\sqrt[4]{1} = i^n$ has twice as many values as a mere double-entendre. —Tamfang 00:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I guess I was using "double-entendre" in a sense that... well, if a word has three meanings (triple-entendre?), certainly, it has two. (Some people use "has" or "have" as if you say you have X, you must only "have" exactly (or approximately) X, while I'm saying here if I "have X", I may actually "have" exactly or approximately some Y > X.)
If you include homophones, I get all of these possible interpretations:
1. "Root for one!" (It'd be more like the chant "All for one and one for all!", but, well, OK, It's a stretch.)
2. The forty first root (of a number)
3. The forty first root (of a tree (mathematical or biological) that has a numbered set of roots (maybe?))
4. U.S. Route 41
5. The non-simplified expression $\sqrt[4]{1}$
6. $\sqrt[4]{1}$
7. * $\, 1$
8. * $\, i$
9. * $\, -1$
10. * $\, -i$
11. A function or sub-procedure named "Root4" taking a variable named "one" as a single parameter
12. The 41st "Woot!"

I suppose I could go on, but I think if I do add to the list, it gets more pedantic or weird. (Like I'm afraid of oddities on my pages ... haha). Thanks for the note!
Root4(one) 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* These values for $\sqrt[4]{1}$ (except 1) are certainly not conventional, in fact, I would call them downright incorrect, but certainly, if people think that $\sqrt[4]{1}$ is ambiguous, then they may think that my name may, temporarily, mean one of these four values, even though such thoughts are probably erroneous by standard convention ($\sqrt[4]{1} = 1$ is the only accepted value by the conventions I've been taught by, anyway). My apologies if this confused anybody. Root4(one) 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but $-1$ and $+/- i$ would not generally be regarded as incorrect or unconventional solutions. - JCLately (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

## Assumptions

Why do you believe in the principle of bivalence? Arrow740 06:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you did misread my user page, although I do claim "This user believes (in fact knows) at least one of the things he says he believes on this page is wrong. Which one(s) is/are it/they?". By wrong, I don't mean morally, I actually mean, I'm being dishonest with you or myself. However, I can assert that this belief is not one of them.
The quote, corrected for spelling and altered for emphasis, is, "This user strongly rejects the Principle of Bivalence except possibly in extremely limited circumstances. (See below)." I reject it because I think too much human reasoning is clouded by it and there is a potential for people (me included) to obsess over the truthfulness of a particular assertion when the bigger scheme of things that assertion has little relevance or importance.
People want to draw lines, when in fact a true categorization of things in some context, if indeed possible (this is potentially dubious for any particular categorization), maybe more complex than a human or computer can remember or utilize. For me, being a person that has tended to obsess over details, the quote is more of a reminder that not all details count. I always need to try to "step out" and "see the bigger picture", even when I think I'm seeing the bigger picture. Some statements obviously can't be assigned truth values anyway -- see liar paradox. Sometimes things are so much easier if you can let go and say "I don't know" or "I don't care". Not all battles against creatures, people, or ideas need to be won. I do have to remind myself of that. But like many rules of thumb, the utility of such a rule is sometimes quite fuzzily defined, so one must continually adapt and just see what works.
Root4(one) 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

## Watch for vandalism!

Hi,

Your recent edit to the bone fracture page was a good 'un, nice tweak to the lead. Note, however, that the intro was vandalized by an anon ip shortly before, and I'm guessing your re-wording was an attempt to fix it. Anyway, the paragraph immediately following had a line that raised my eyebrows (Any type of bone break can be very painful so try to avoid it.) and it was from the same vandal as before - if nothing else it's a violation of WP:NOT. Thought you'd like a heads-up. WLU (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)