Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 July 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Miscellaneous desk
< July 17 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 19 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 18[edit]

Military Medals[edit]

I have received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal and the Navy Commendation Medal. How do I get these posted on this web site? I can send these documents if I have a email address or address. You can also contact me on this site mlcatcdog10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcatcdog10 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is probably not the right place, unless you're intending to merely post pictures of examples of those awards. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You added a name here to the Navy and Marine Corps Medal article. Please note, in order to add names to that list, the subject should have an article here first and then their name can be added. But to have an article here, the person must first be notable enough for an article. We don't simply list every recipient of those medals. If we did, that list would be far longer than the 19 or so names that are currently listed. Dismas|(talk) 01:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. In simple terms, you must be famous to be listed in Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This was asked [1] and answered [2] at the Help desk. Dru of Id (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That answer apparently vanished, perhaps from autosign or autodate. Try this (at least until that page is archived): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=501813362&oldid=501813197 —— Shakescene (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't expect hardened combat veterans to just give up at the first hurdle, do you? -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 08:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

which u.s. city has the most colleges and universities?[edit]

which u.s. city has the most colleges and universities? how many colleges and universities are in philadelphia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immsbee (talkcontribs) 07:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. Largest total number of colleges and universities ? (If so, how would you count a single institution which has several "colleges", as in a college of law, college of medicine, etc.) Largest total enrollment ? Largest total enrollment as a percentage of total population ? And by "city", do you include colleges and universities in the suburbs ? StuRat (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This table has data on a per-state basis. California has 454 "degree granting institutions", making them the most, while Alaska has only 7, making them the least. This is for the 2010-2011 school year. This website hosted the above table. They may have more information availible, including what the OP is looking for, on a per-city basis. Cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago have a lot of universities within their borders and/or metro area; so it may be one of those four. Not every large city has a lot of colleges (Houston, for example, doesn't have as many as the above, despite having a comparable population). --Jayron32 13:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
New York City has between 88 and 130, depending on how you count institutions with multiple campuses. I doubt anything else beats that, especially because if you take into account the greater metro area, it is going to be even more. (The Philly metro area has 69; the Boston metro area has a "mere" 52. Chicago seems like a lot less.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleting contact details from Wikipedia[edit]

Last year, just before Wikipedia's tenth birthday celebrations, I gave my contact details in the site http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai . The site's now closed to editing, however, my contact details are still displayed, and there are other websites now using that page as a mailing list as sorts, which has led to me getting calls from confused people who think I'm some sort of contact for the various websites displaying the mailing list... How do I remove my name and number from that page? Any ideas? Thanks in advance. La Alquimista 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation? [3] or [4]Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Prove 1+1=2[edit]

Huh? Prove 1+1=2. 116.202.211.103 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't. In most number systems (eg, those where 1+1 does not equal 0), 2 is defined as what you get if you add 1+1. It's axiomatic, and I'm not sure what other sort of axiom you'd expect to derive it from. (For what's worth, one of the axioms of Peano arithmetic is that every number x has a successor sx. I guess you could go about proving that 1+1=s1.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Huh indeed. Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell set out to do just that in Principia Mathematica. The full text is available from the University of Michigan here, and the relevant section dealing with the proof you're looking for is on page 378. If you can understand a single word of it, you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din. You might also like to take a look at this blog, which discusses the proof and why it might not, in fact, be a complete proof. Again, I don't profess to fully understand the reasoning! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Principia Mathematica theorem 54-43.png
✸54.43: From this proposition it will follow, ... that 1+1=2
I'm not familiar with the notation, but I'm pretty sure that proposition is "given two sets of cardinality 1, their intersection is empty iff their union has cardinality 2." Russell and Whitehead were more interested in sets than in numbers. -- BenRG (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the "1+1=2" corollary is supposed to be slightly tongue-in-cheek, isn't it? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, here's my attempt at a proof using the Peano axioms:
1. Let's start by defining terms: 1 is represented as S(0), and 2 as S(S(0)).(Peano axioms 1, 6, and 7)
2. Under the second part of the definition of Peano addition, a + S(b) = s(a+b). So 1+1 can be represented as S(0)+S(0), which is equal to S(S(0)+0).
3. Under the first part of the definition of Peano addition, a+0=a. So S(0)+0 = S(0). We susbtitute that into the outer brackets at the end of the previous step...
4. ...and thus get that 1+1 = S(S(0)). QED.
AlexTiefling (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have quite often asked a similar question - prove 2+2=4. I find that only small kids around 5 years old are really capable of proving this. Older people treat it like an axiom. But AlexTiefling's proof will do for me! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that the 'axiomatic' answer and the proof given show different things about the statement "1+1=2". To say it's axiomatic is to say that the symbol '2' has no intrinsic property of being '1+1', and that we normally do arithmetic with sets of more than two elements. To prove it is to show that the integer ordered following unity is the same as unity added to unity.
I'm curious, though - how does a five-year-old prove this? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
E.g., if you have one thing and you add another thing then there are two things so one plus one equals two. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This is partially why I am glad I am not a mathematician.--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You might enjoy theorem 2p2e4 at Metamath. Note that Metamath defines 2 = (1 + 1), though, as AlexTiefling said, Peano arithmetic doesn't.
These "trivial" questions are tricky only because a person asking such a question presumably isn't interested in the answer "it's trivial"—which would be a valid justification for assuming 1+1=2 in any other situation. It's the same reason "why is the sky blue?" is easier than "why is blue blue?". -- BenRG (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Once you start questioning if there is ANYTHING we can prove, you've left mathematics and entered philosophy, specifically epistemology. You can go really deep into this rabbit hole: Mathematical truth, Proof theory, Philosophy of mathematics, Foundations of mathematics... Vespine (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistics on earnings of UK graduates[edit]

I'm interested in the level of employment and average earnings of recent graduates in the UK. The exact question I'd like to answer is "for X degree course or Y university department, what percentage of graduates earn a basic salary (before any bonuses or perks) of at least £21000 two years after graduation?". Trouble is, I'm not a statistician and really don't know where to start. Does the available data even support answering something that specific, or is it all muddled together (and effectively meaningless)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.25.35 (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no data for two years after graduation but there's data for six months after graduation, from the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey. The level of employment, at six months, is readily available now on www.unistats.direct.gov.uk. The salary at six months isn't available in that format at all at the moment, but will be in the Key Information Set from September, for comparison in the same way that you see on unistats. A special government website is being set up to carry the information, and it is intended to be very visible. The performance indicators for universities were published today, and you can find them by clicking on links at www.hesa.ac.uk. Some surveys of employment after two years have been conducted, but not regularly and not for all universities. You would track them down by searching in Google Scholar. Finally, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings has data on the earnings levels in the workforce as a whole, and the Quarterly Labour Force Survey asks about qualification levels and earnings, but handling the analysis is an expert task. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

tom cruise, katie holmes working together?[edit]

Did these actors ever work together? Ochson (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

According to [5], they have not. Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Limit on stay of Americans who renounce citizenship[edit]

The Terry Gilliam article states, "As a result of renouncing his citizenship, Gilliam is only permitted to spend 30 days per year in the United States, fewer than ordinary British citizens."

Does America really limit the amount of time a person can stay on holiday there? He really can't stay with his American family for more than a month a year?

5.48.60.180 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of countries, maybe most countries even, limit the amount of time you can stay on holidays. Otherwise, what would stop people just coming for a holiday and never leaving? The relavant article might be Visa. More specifically, the Entry and duration period section. Vespine (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that most Western countries (and indeed most countries, full stop) limit the amount of time that an individual can remain as a visitor on vacation without requiring extensive paperwork. Citizens of the UK can generally visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without a visa: [6]. (In the other direction, U.S. citizens may visit the UK for up to six months without a visa: [7].)
I can't comment on whether or not the U.S. really has the punitive policy described towards their former citizens; it sounds spiteful, but I admit that it also sounds plausible. (The source linked from our article [8] only quotes Gilliam, so we don't have what I would call a reliable source for immigration policy.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a reliable source, but as it boils down to taxation, compelling: this blog states (within the context of a discussion of renouncing citizenship, "a change of law in 2008 that means non-U.S. citizen, nonresidents can now annually visit the U.S. for 120 or more days without becoming taxed as U.S. residents (under the pre-2008 rules, visits to the U.S. for more than 30 days during any of the 10 years following expatriation caused the individual to be treated as a U.S. resident for that year)." --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Accountants confirm, in an article about Taxation and Renouncing Citizenship: "The expatriate could not be present in the U.S. for 30 days in any one year, or one would be treated for tax purposes as a citizen and taxed on all worldwide income." --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And if so, then the sentence in the article is wrong & misleading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't Zeppelins viable?[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

This seems like a splendid invention, why didn't it get more commercial? (ignoring that major disaster in the US, what else?). Ochson (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question is likley contained in our article on Zeppelins and Blimps. Please review them. Hipocrite (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget dirigibles. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Once you take the hydrogen out, you're still left with the problems that such a light-weight object easily gets blown around in the wind, so you can only use them on calm days. The low passenger/cargo capacity combined with the need for immense hangars also work against them. Then, of course, they are slow, so not good if you want to get somewhere in a timely manner (although slow transport does have it's place, as on cruise ships). StuRat (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nearly all the most famous dirigibles eventually crashed, with the notable exception of the Graf Zeppelin, which had a perfect safety record. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought only one Zeppelin was no longer viable. The other three still seem to be going strong... --Jayron32 03:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That joke went over like a Led balloon. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You've heard about fried Hamburgers and grilled Frankfurters. Unfortunately, the Hindenbergers were severely overcooked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
"Economics of Airships for Perishable Food Trade" suggests that airships might be commercially viable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
There have been a number of attempts to produce an economic cargo-carrying airship. See Hybrid Air Vehicles CargoLifter CL 160 and KNARR Cargo Airship. NASA is the latest entrant in the field. Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)