User talk:Hans Adler

NOTE: If I left a message on your talk page, then I am watching it at least for a couple of days. Perhaps it is better if you reply there so we have a coherent discussion.

Archive 1

Elementary substructure

Dear Hans Adler,

Grüß Gott! Thank You for notifying me about my writing "Material equivalence" in the newly created section of Elementary substructure article. It was a mistake: I mixed the terms, I wanted to write just the opposite, logical equivalence. I wanted to emphasize that the condition

${\mathfrak {A}}_{0}\models \phi [a_{0}]\Leftrightarrow {\mathfrak {A}}\models \phi [a_{0}]$

is part of the metatheory, and sign $\Leftrightarrow$ is meant as part of the metalanguage. Now I have renamed the section completely to Equivalent valuation of formulae, using the "more restricted" assignments.

I wanted to write since long time: thank You for tidying the articles I initiated but failed to complete. I have yet only very few knowledge and overview in mathematical logic.

From Your greeting, I conjecture, You speak Hungarian? I learn two Eskimo languages: one Siberian Yupik language and the [recently extinct] Sireniki Eskimo language, and their morphological, typological similarity to Hungarian is a great help to me (genealogical relatedness cannot be proven). In generally, I like the rather "mechanistic" mythologies of hunter-gatherer groups. Some Eskimo myths are described in ethnographic literature as blurring [passive] object vs [active] subject distinctions (e.g hunter vs prey, child vs educator distinctions get blurred by assuming strange soul concepts including soul dualism, partial reincarnation etc). The years when I was busy learning Eskimo hard was also a time when I was busy in combinatory logic and lambda calculus, in generally, in functional programming. Because these calculi sort of allow functions to be arguments, and all "objects" (natural numbers, truth values, lists i.e. finite sequences, trees, instances of monads) have to be constructed as functions, thus they gave me a similar flavor of blurring familiar distinctions like some Eskimo myths.

Best wishes and many thanks,

Physis (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Re: [1] - His static I.P. address is at User:156.34.142.110 but please bare in mind that he probably wouldn't have done it without good reason :-) Hope this helps, take care. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the warning. I had already noticed that it's probably more complicated than it looks. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First order logic

Sorry about that. It is true that for this article I when too fast, my apologies. However, it is not out of interest, it is just that I don't know much (read anything) in that field. I'll post what needs disambiguation in the discussion page. Randomblue (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for a clear feedback. I didn't view redirects in that manner. Indeed, redirects need to be avoided and if an article "Mathematical theory" gets created then one just has to look up what links to the page and fix the link(s) of any relevant article. Randomblue (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Natural languages

Dear Hans Adler,

Thank You for Your message and reassurement. Thank You also for mentioning the Language Log, I have not known about it before. Although I know almost nothing about the Eskimo words for snow, but I know a similar sophisticatedness for distinctions around "walrus": Eskimos indeed have a dozen, etymologically different words for it: distinct words for walrus

1. sleeping lazily on the ice floe,
2. swimming west
3. swimming north
4. floating in water with its head bent down

…

And besides of all this, they have also a general word for "walrus" as well.

Even more interesting in Eskimo: there are cca a dozen demonstrative pronouns as well (not only "here" and "there" but also ones like "that beyond the horizon", "on the other side [of the river]"). And, for contrast, there are just a few numerals (even those expressed in a lengthy, complicated additive and substractive way).

As for skills in reading inscriptions for everyday use in a foreign country, there is a strange situation in China. "Chinese" is not a single language, but a set of mutually unintelligible languages. This is not so painful as it sounds, because their writing system does not depend on pronunciation (has a grammar of its own, as it is ideographic), thus, it is able to serve as a common tool for the whole area (like mathematics or ideograms). This works well, but this is no help for illiterate people in China. It has happened that an old woman went to visit her relative in a remote town, failed to be met there on the railway station incidentally -- and lost her way seriously (being unable both to read the signs and to understand people for asking help), thus she had to be searched for finally by the police.

You wrote You have Hungarian relatives in Transylvania. At a time, I wanted to learn Romanian (in the 90s there were many immigrants here, and also beggars, many Gipsy children as well, and I often wanted to talk to them, listen to the experiences they narrated, learn what dialects they use etc.), but finally I learnt just a few lections in Romanian. As for most beggar children, I could talk to most of them in Gipsy. I have learnt Gipsy since my childhood, I regularly visited even Gipsy talking families. My family is of Lower Austrian German origin (although having undergone a complete language shift). But if I have to speak German then I simply keep on using our South German dialect (even on my language exam).

Menovščikov, G. A. (= Г. А. Меновщиков) (1968). "Popular Conceptions, Religious Beliefs and Rites of the Asiatic Eskimoes". In Diószegi, Vilmos (ed.). Popular beliefs and folklore tradition in Siberia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Best wishes and many successs to Your work,

Physis (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy, tiger...

...whilst I agree with your sentiment, this edit is probably against WP:NPA! gb ^{(t, c)} 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. You are right. Sometimes it's better to call a spade a shovel. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or take 5 minutes and not call it anything ;-) gb ^{(t, c)} 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pregeometry

Please see my answer to your remarks on my own talk page (since I thought it preferable to keep the discussion in one place). Zaslav (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation (including taking a look at a physics article on pregeometry) I concluded the physics concept is unrelated to the model theory or combinatorics concept. I made separate articles. See the disambiguation page Pregeometry and my talk page. I await your comments (I hope not too distressed!). Zaslav (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WQA

Threads at the WQA are not archived in the fashion you seem to think they are. Do not mark them with archivetop/archivebottom. The only time we use those is to close discussions that refuse to end on their own (stubborn/argumentative editors, etc.). If you must close one in this fashion, be sure also to put the arthivetop under the section header, or MiszaBot will screw it up royally when it tries to move the thread to the archive. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry, this was the first time I did it, and I thought I had done it the way I had seen it done with another thread. Perhaps that was incorrect as well. I see you have fixed it for me. What made me do this was the absurd Jeff G. vs Jeffrey Gustafson and Mr. Gustafson thread. I wanted to make it very clear to Jeff G. that the discussion is over — but perhaps that wasn't such a good idea anyway. Thanks a lot for fixing my mistake. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded.

I responded to your message on my talkpage.

To understand my overall frustration with Wikipedia, I suggest you see two things:

• Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Worked on the part about objectivity. -- Wikipedia holds a naive, wishy-washy philosophy which has no regard for reason and relies on ridiculous assumptions of human rationality reminiscient of 18th century Liberalism, Anarchism, and Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
• Question #9 for Aitias. [2]

Very rarely do users quiz potential admins on logic. They just ask them "what do u think about policy x" and "show me why ur a good person." It's the intellectual equivalent of running for class president in high school.

Step outside articles on logic. Try editing articles on either religion, politics, or even just more broad topics that aren't particularly religious or political-in-nature. What you will find is this: WP:Zombies. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you didn't respond to the above. Why? You've blatantly accused me of bad-faith and I'd like to clarify that isn't true. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished by your strange request. Sorry that I have to say this, but you are paranoid. So far I haven't replied because I was interrupted when I was writing my response. I copied it into a text file and forgot about it. Here is how far I got:

Well, concerning the university professors, I am sure you understood my point. I don't consider myself a "fan" of Feynman, although I have a nice edition of his 3-volume "Lectures on Physics" and I read "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" a long time ago. The fact that I am a mathematical logician has nothing to do with my opinion on the "Feynman Algorithm", which I never heard of before. As a mathematician I don't think it works (as it usually degenerates into the "Winnie the Pooh Method"), and I agree with Rota's account of the "Feynman method" that is cited at the end of the page.

I can't say much about your literary references: I haven't read any of the three books. One

I have certainly not knowingly accused you of bad faith other than in my post to ANI, where I think I have provided excellent evidence to meet the Duck test standard. Do you want me to say more about that, or can you point to another specific point in my post to you that you object to? You see you have changed the tone in which I am talking to you. I am human, you know, and I react to the way people approach me. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not have knowingly did it, but in your post to WP:ANI, you assumed bad faith because (see WP:AAGF) you assumed that I assumed the assumption of bad faith, which is itself a form of assuming bad faith. Particular evidence is irrelevant if extraneous evidence is ignored (which it was, see my response there) and existing evidence is not tied together by logic (which it did not seem to be, you hand-selected various remarks, here and there). Otherwise, what you have is not a logical argument, but conspiracy theorism. Conspiracy theorists, too, could put forth a long bulleted list, of the "evidence" that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.

I noticed something which may explain why you are not aware of your assumption of bad faith. In your accusation here. [3] You started off by confirming that you were accusing me of accusing Markussep of lying.

Yes, I am accusing you of that

Later on, your description of events changes:

Now you accuse me of not assuming good faith because I asked you whether you want to accuse Markussep of lying?

Were you accusing or asking? Aside from our subjective biases, the definitions of both terms are quite different.

Falsely accusing of lying != Asking whether I want to make the false accusation of lying

Falsely accusing => Zenwhat has Bad faith Asking => Zenwhat may or may not have bad faith

A duck is not a duck because you say it is. A duck is a duck because it is, in fact, a duck.

I asked about Feynman because based on your remarks, I strongly suspect you believe that the conceptual root of logic is entirely arbitrary which, if it is, is fairly inconsistent. The semantic theory of truth is quite beautiful and consistent within formal analysis, but utterly useless in the real world. I have this suspicion (which is not an assumption of bad faith -- just an assumption of absurd beliefs), because you have not observed the problems on Wikipedia, outlined above and elsewhere.

The idea of critical thinking is not a mathematical or formal logical concept and it cannot be proved formally, but it is clearly the epistemological foundation for logic and, ultimately, all human knowledge. You seem to think that it is not possible to think critically, but rather, reason is something that is arbitrarily created and destroyed by meaningless, aggregate physical forces, i.e. "The world has made you a logician. Therefore, you are logical. The world has made Zenwhat not a logician. Therefore, he is a fool."

A careful examination of this yields what absurdity it is (assuming my observations here are correct). Furthermore, in the absence of recognizing this, you're never going to come up with an original idea, like this or this, but will instead merely repeat, within the framework of your limited mind, what you have heard and synthesized from the various mathematical texts of the day, making you one of many countless mathematicians and philosophers who haven't made any particularly notable contributions to human knowledge.

Finally, "I have certainly not knowingly accused you of bad faith other than in my post to ANI" appears to be a red herring. Because my argument was, "You have accused me of bad faith," not, "You have accused me of bad faith everywhere except WP:ANI. When I said, "You've blatantly accused me of bad-faith," I was specifically talking about your remarks in WP:ANI. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"I noticed something which may explain…." It's very easy to respond to that, and mind you: The very fact that I am responding to you at all proves that I am still assuming good faith rather than intentional misrepresentation. I asked you, because I wasn't sure; 12 hours later, after you responded and blew your chance to learn from your mistake, I accused you.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:AGF is about. I told you about the problem before, in this thread. I am pointing you to an old version, but one that already contains comments by KieferSkunk and Seicer at the end; which I am certain you understood as validating your position in the dispute. To anyone who tried to see your side of the dispute it was so obvious that you would do that, that for some time the situation actullay confused me as well. In the end, Seicer (who had health problems at the time) admitted having used WP:SARCASM, and KieferSkunk (who was busy in real life and wasn't aware he was ambiguous) clarified his position later on my request. Search for my name on their talk pages to see the details.

In any case I will try to be much clearer this time. Ever since the beginnings of of Usenet it was clear that there is a problem with online communication because 1) people don't know it each other personally, and 2) an important part of our communication is just not there. For the second problem smileys and abbreviations like "ROFL" were invented, but they don't help much to prevent flame wars from breaking out. The fundamental problem is one that exists in real life as well:

To simplify, let's assume the problem is only "civility", and that "civility" is measurable: A communicative act has a "civility" somewhere between 0 % and 100 %. I know an extremely nice guy from Columbia, whose civility is always 100 %. I had never experienced this before I met him, and I can tell you it's very disconcerting when you are not used to it. For me, the civility in a normal conversation is 40-80 %, say. If it leaves that range I become uncomfortable and want to know what's going on. I would expect that for my South American colleague it's something like 70-100 %. For some people it's 30-50 %. They get furious when you are too polite to them.

In real life the problems of communication that result from this aren't as bad as on the internet: E.g. the fact that my South American colleague is always so impeccably dressed. Seeing this makes it much harder to suspect him of irony when he is 100 % polite. On the internet you can't see the clothes of the person you are conversing with, or that the person at the other end is an internet-addicted young mother who should really stop writing now because her 5-week-old baby is crying very loudly. She is still writing instead of feeding her child, but her civility is around 20% right now (usually it's closer to 40 %). We don't know all this, we have to go by what we see on the screen, and we get a wrong mental image of the person we are talking to.

Wikipedia's fundamental communication rules like WP:CIV and WP:AGF exist to address this problem. If you are following them in a way that does not address the problem, then you can just stop following them altogether. AGF means that you have a duty to behave in the same way that an average person behaves when in a good-faith conversation. On Wikipedia you are not communicating with your parents. You are communicating with thousands of strangers who have no interest whatsoever in your personality. (On the other hand, its perfectly consistent with AGF to privately suspect someone of being on Wikipedia for bad-faith reasons. You can make a private file on them and follow all their moves. It's OK so long as you keep it secret to all of Wikipedia and you behave as if you assumed good faith. That's because it's not disruptive. It's also not stalking if the person never suspects it.)

If you say something that is not true, and if you should have known this, then it does not matter that everybody knows you are a lazy bastard who keeps misinterpreting what he reads and keeps jumping to conclusions all the time and who should never be taken seriously. Or whatever. With your mother this excuse may work three times a day. On Wikipedia it works three times per user account.

On the internet, everything that passes the Turing test for ducks is a duck. Everything else would be too complicated. If you don't want to be called a duck, don't behave like a duck. On the internet the signs "No ducks please" apply to everything that quacks and waddles, not just to ducks.

To your final remark: I was sincerely surprised. I thought you would have understood by now that your behaviour in the ANI thread was completely unacceptable, and therefore I thought you must be talking about something else. Yes, it was a red herring. But not as a rhetorical device. Stressing it as much as you did was a red herring and shows you were not assuming good faith. You see why this way of arguing is disruptive?

I don't even understand your Feynman/logic arguments. You seem to be thinking on a philosophical level that is very strange to me; this might be the root of our communication problems. If that is so, you might want to ask someone you trust and who is not afraid of being critical with either of us: Let them have a look at our conversation and comment on it. How about Kim Bruning, for example? In any case this is just a suggestion, and you can just ignore it. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

You have apparently accused me of something illegal in our discussion. Could you please clarify (and I assume that wasn't exactly what you intended). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarified. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL.

By "he knows it's illegal" I mean "he can be expected to know it's illegal because he has been told so several times by several people", and by "illegal" I mean "against the express wording of WP:USER".

If-by-whiskey. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's way too late for me to read your reply to the other thing now. So I will only respond to this: I don't get it. BQZip01 was apparently concerned that I had publicly accused him of having broken the law. I am no expert on these matters, but he is in the US military and a lot of his colleagues seem to be here as well. So I am not even sure it was necessarily pure paranoia on his side to ask for a clarification. So I have clarified that I was not talking about US (or wherever) laws but about Wikipedia rules; and since he had asked nicely I also clarified that I don't think he knew about the rule when he created the page. In fact, I am assuming good faith here (really, not just for show): I think he still doesn't understand the rule, although we are allowed, more or less, to act as if he did, because he really should.

Ah, perhaps I got it now. Do you mean that by toning it down formally, I made it stronger rhetorically? That wasn't what I intended, although it seems to have had that effect. In any case, BQZip01 seemed satisfied, so I think I addressed his real concern. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• X = If-by-whiskey
• Y = Something else (say bananas)

When I say X, I mean Y. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for the email, feel free to email me anytime. I understand your point, but it's still not really a reason to delete anything. I'm not a hardcore inclusionist, but this is so minor I can't fathom why people crusade to deleted it - except of course this whole thing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like real work. There is a lot of stupid hate in that region, and many people have been killed by their neighbours. We seem to have some genetic programming for that kind of thing. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know genetics, so I tend to blame the TV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think in the US and large parts of Europe that's generally a good idea, but in that part of the Mediterranean I would doubt it. But I suppose it doesn't matter which programming is to blame, so long as we can pretend to separate it from human nature. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As it happens...

I actually knew the German, we're doing the Brahms German Requiem this term, in German. Pure coincidence! Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it announced on your home wiki, and so I guessed you were singing it. This is just about the only piece of German romantic music that I like — because the combination of language and music in this piece is extremely effective. I hope that performing it can help you, I am sure that's why it was composed. The choice of bible passages is truly remarkable (and I am saying this as an atheist). --Hans Adler (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rub it in

Hans, My apologies, I did not intent to 'rub it in'. I am hoping that my edit will bring closure to the chaos. 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"profess to be defending science?" & "militancy?"

I don't think you could back either of those phrases that you've applied to me [4], nor do I think it helpful for characterizing me as such. While I admire your attempts to help PeterStJohn, I don't think false, and potentially negative, characterizations of others is an appropriate way to do so. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My post was written past midnight of my local time. I hereby apologise that my characterisation of your behaviour wasn't clear enough, nor worded with sufficient care, and didn't even come with enough defensive modifiers. I was talking about my impression. My impression is that you are one of the editors here who are very hard to get along with for people like Peter and me (who seem to be quite similar in some respects). Here is an example for the kind of action that can make me furious if I suspect it was done with conviction. And I do, because of the statements on your user page. I am sure I would have no problems justifying my use of the word "militancy". Unless I get the nuances of the word completely wrong, it can be used to describe people who see fights everywhere, find it hard to say something conciliatory to an opponent, and generally tend to escalate conflicts. Whereas I see misunderstandings everywhere and generally try to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt longer than I feel is warranted, to make up for my errors in judgement. It's not my natural behaviour; I have to force myself to do it, and that makes it all the harder to tolerate people in whose behaviour I can discern no such efforts.

"Profess to be defending science" is more problematic, I admit. I have spent a little time looking at your recent edits, and I found nothing to justify this characterisation. My impression may or may not be the result of my failure to distinguish your behaviour from that of someone else. Unfortunately I don't have the time now to do further research and convince myself completely that it is wrong. I have toned down the statement, and I have no intention of repeating it or characterising you in any way in the near future.

Please take my answer as a chance to learn something about the way some other people perceive you. I am not interested in a conflict with you, and even if I were, this would not be the right time, as I will be very busy in real life for the next 4 weeks or so.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Thanks for toning down the statement.

You characterize as "militancy" the use of level 1 user talk page spam notice (uw-s1) to new editors whose sole edits have been to add the same single link to two articles. If that's "militancy", then I'm afraid you're in conflict with all the editors who use this template. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

By "militancy" I wasn't referring to that. But if you want to talk about this example: What I see is User:Alter.lego obtaining an account and making a single test edit in the sandbox, which involves this external link. Two months later User:80.35.158.73 turns "FRIDE" and "Diego Hidalgo" from text into wiki links (the only contributions from that IP). Four minutes after that User:Alter.lego turns the redlink into an external link. If I make an effort, I can see how this is consistent with a relatively sophisticated attempt at sneaky linkspamming. If you make an effort, you may be able to see how this is also consistent with a new user related to a website (presumably of a somewhat notable organisation) who doesn't yet fully understand all our rules and style guides. That a redlink is considered better than an external link is a peculiarity of Wiki culture, after all. If I haven't overlooked anything (such as persistent spamming of that particular link), please have a look at the second item under WP:VAND#NOT, and at the last sentence of that section. The vandalism templates are carefully phrased so as to be on the safe side (civilitywise) in clear cases of vandalism. But the mere fact that everybody can recognise them as templates makes them unsuitable for ambiguous cases like this one. Their language is also not appropriate in such a situation, because a good faith newbie who is greeted in this way will discern the reproachful undertone. I am not surprised that the user hasn't edited under this account since then. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree and I think I have consensus on my side. The uw-s1 template assumes good faith. I assumed good faith. Please take the time to consider if you're doing the same. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"I am not surprised that the user hasn't edited under this account since then." Now we're in conflict. Please chill. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand Peter. Please chill. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(refactored a bit above)

You understand Peter? Great! Now both of you stop harassing me. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I give you the chance to retract the insinuation that I am harassing you. You probably didn't mean it. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"I assumed good faith. Please take the time to consider if you're doing the same." --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi, Hans. Thanks for your message. I guess the Internet is truly a small world. There are many familiar "faces" at Wikipedia. [smile] --Orlady (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Patience

Hi, user:Hans Adler! You are correct, I find it most difficult to discern much meaning in the posts of User:Zenwhat, particularly now that the argument for some reason has diverted to vegetarianism, or something. I am trying to WP:AGF towards that user, since I just about do understand that the USER sincerely thinks they are trying to help WIKIPEDIA.

Unfortunately, User:Zenwhat also sincerely believes (!) that User:Zenwhat is, the one and the only TRUTH!!!

That is, is it not, incompatible with any worthwhile or meaningful participation, at this time, in articles, or talkspaces, especially combined with such an abrasive manner.

I expect the AN/I threads you and I contributed to will be archived soon, and no remedies will be obtained against User:Zenwhat. I have not asked for ZW to be blocked. I asked only for User:Zenwhat to agree to abide by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I think. As to AGF, my desire is for something (?) to happen which brings ZW to a better space, and become, at some time, a useful contributor to Wikipedia. Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 15:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We probably agree on most points in this matter. I would guess that in the MBTI classification he is an exceptionally strong ENTJ type, which is quite rare. But I also think I am observing psychological projection in almost everything he says (and that I am allowed to say so because he routinely accuses others of cognitive biases). The chaos he has been bringing into Wikipedia may actually have its purpose, but if he were to continue like last week for months, then we would have a serious problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was a word on the tip of my tongue, just couldn't recall! Yes, I am sorry to say that such rampant psychological projection cannot remain unremarked, (accusing others of faults, and accusing oneself pathologically of faults, it all comes out). I don't recall much offhand about the MBTI stuff, I would have to go to the library, but thanks for reminding me of a word I had been searching for.

Some activity, quite likely positive has been stirred up on some pages by ZW, but months of this would be excrutiating for all concerned. That is, it is not necessarily a question of "content", but of the civility of the user, who has never acknowledged, nor apologised, for the gross insults and slanders dished out regularly by the user. If it were a "workplace", it might well be considered an OH&S problem, though I will not press that metaphor. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Another model theorist

Hi Hans. You put this message on my talk page a long time ago now. Sorry for the slow reply, but I have been really busy and not been on Wikiedia for a while. I am also not sure if we have met. It is good to have people working on the model theory articles. I will help when I can, but I tend to edit in bursts - when I have time on my hands. Nice to hear from you. --Thehalfone (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Iterations ad nauseam

I created a WQA regarding Ronz here. Ironically, it reflects Ronz's complaint against me; I moved it there from my Talk where Ronz is not welcome to post (but of course I have to answer good questions, even from bad people).Pete St.John (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now promoted to this AN/I Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards

Hello Hans, you are right I haven't been around here for long, actually almost all my life. So, I'm grateful for any reasonable advice, especially, for writing short comments. Besides, I will move Peter's comments back.

With respect, Multipundit (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Axiomatizable class

Would you have any objections if I redirect axiomatizable class to elementary class? Is there a distinction between these that I'm not familiar with? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two ways in which the terms differ: 1. Historically and in finite model theory, elementary classes are those defined by a single formula, while there is no such confusion for axiomatisable classes. 2. "Elementary" can only be used for the first order case, while "axiomatisable" only has a strong bias that way.

I remember thinking about this before, and I think the reason I didn't do anything was that I was undecided about the direction of the redirect. "Axiomatisable" / "finitely axiomatisable" are self-explanatory terms with no ambiguities except the usual first order bias. "Elementary" is a bit problematic, but it harmonises with "pseudoelementary". If there was a notion such as "pseudoaxiomatisable" I would prefer "axiomatisable class". In any case I am happy with the redirect as you propose it. We can still change it later if there is any need. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DNFTT

You're right, of course. But sometimes it is so hard to resist! thanks for the reminder. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Goals of discussions

Hello Hans, It's good that you try to figure out what is the goal of the discussion related to super-recursive algorithms. I don't think that we can prove or disprove the CTT. This has to be done by computer scientists and mathematicians. But what we really can do is to analyze those arguments that proponents and opponents of this controversial refutation suggest. To achieve this goal, we have to use logic (please don’t confuse logic with sophistry.) and knowledge that has been accumulated in mathematics and computer science. In my long contribution, I tried to analyze your arguments. In my short contributions, I tried to analyze arguments of Pratt, who was invited by Pete St.John as an expert. We must analyze assertions of all peole who express their opinions related to our topic independently of their titles, money or position. Only in this case, we’ll be able to find the truth. In any case, thank you for your advice. I would also appreciate if you write exactly what words were misspelled. With respect, Multipundit (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me

Dear Hans,
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected.

Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:-

STUDIES OF THE ACTIVITY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES

ORIGINAL/TRANSLATED TITLE	AUTHOR(S)	PUBLICATION	ACTIVITY	STUDY
Inhibition of lymphoblast transformation test (LTT) in phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) with Phytolacca americana in homeopathic dilution	Colas H., Aubin M., Picard P., Lebecq J.C.	Ann. Homéopat. Fr., 1975, 6: 1-11.	Inhibitory	Lymphoblast transformation
Inquiry into the limits of biological effects of chemical compounds in tissue culture. I. Low dose effects of mercure chloride	Mansvelt J.D., van Amons E.	Z. Naturtorschung, 1975, 30: 643-649.	Inhibitory	Lymphocyte growth
The effects of Belladonna and Ferrum phosphoricum on the chemoluminescence of human poly-morphonuclear neutrophils	Poitevin B., Aubin M., Royer J.F.	Ann. Homéop. Fr., 1983, 3: 5-12.	Inhibitory	Radical release
Effect of aconitum and veratrum on the isolated perfused heart of the common eel (Anguilla anguilla)	Pennec J.P., Aubin M.	Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 1984, 776: 367-369.	Protective	Aconitine toxicity
Elements of homeopathic pharmacology	Aubin M.	Homéopathie Franç., 1984, 72: 231- 235	Protective	Aconitine toxicity
The effect of homeopathic preparations on the phagocyte activity of granulocytes. In vitro tests and double-blind controlled trials	Wagner H., Jurcic K., Doenicke A., Rosenhuber E., Behrens N.	Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1986, 36: 1424-1425.	Stimulant	Phagocytosis
Approach to quantitative analysis of the effect of Apis mellifica on the degranulation of human basophils cultivated in vitro	Poitevin B., Aubin M., Benveniste J.	Innov. Tech. Biol. Med., 1986, 7: 64-68.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
In vitro stimulation of human granulocytes and lymphocytes by pico- and femtogram quantities of cytostatic agents	Wagner H., Kreher B., Jurcic K.	Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1988, 38: 273-275.	Stimulant	Lymphocyte growth
Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE	Davenas E., Beauvais F., Amara J., Robinson M., Miadonna A., Tedeschi A., Pomeranz B., Fortner P., Belon P., Sainte-Laudy J., Poitevin B., Benveniste J.	Nature, 1988, 333: 816-818.	Stimulant	Basophils
In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica	Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J.	Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
Cytotoxic agents as immunomodulators	Wagner H., Kreher B.	Proc. of the 3rd GIRI meeting, Paris, 1989, 31- 46.	Stimulant	Lymphocyte growth
Contributions of fundamental research in homeopathy	Boiron J., Belon P.	Berl. J. Res. Hom., 1990, 1: 34-35.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
Synergism of action between indoleacetic acid (IAA) and highly diluted solutions of CaCO3 on the growth of oat coleoptiles	Bornoroni C.	Berl. J. Res. Hom., 1991, 1 (4/5): 275-278.	Stimulant	Growth of plant cells
Study of the action of Hahnemannian dilutions of mercury chloride on the mitotic index in animal cell cultures.	Boiron J., Abecassis J., Cotte J., Bernard A.M.	Ann. Homéop. Fr., 1991, 23: 43-49.	Protective	Hg toxicity
Dual effects of formylpeptides on the adhesion of endotoxin-primed human neutrophils	Bellavite P., Chirumbolo S., Lippi G., Andrioli G., Bonazzi L., Ferro I.	Cell. Biochem. Funct., 1993, 11: 231-239.	Inhibitory	Cell adhesion (bact. pept. 10-8-10-9)
Effects of homeopathic preparations of organic acids and of minerals on the oxidative metabolism of human neutrophils	Chirumbolo S., Signorini A., Bianchi I., Lippi G., Bellavite P.	Br. Hom. J., 1993, 82: 227-244.	Inhibitory	Leucocyte activation (metabolism)
Platelets/endothelial cells interactions in presence of acetylsalicylic acid at ultra low dose	Doutremepuich C., Lalanne M.C., Ramboer I., Sertillanges M.N., De Seze O.	Omeomed 92 (C. Bornoroni, ed.), 1993, Editrice Compositori, Bologna: 109-115.	Inhibitory	Prostacyclin release
Effect of high dilutions of epidermal growth factor (EGF) on in vitro proliferation of keratinocyte and fibroblast cell lines	Fougeray S., Moubry K., Vallot N., Bastide M.	Br. Hom. J., 1993, 82: 124-125.	Inhibitory	Growth of keratinocytes
Effects of different homeopathic potencies of Lachesis on lymphocyte cultures obtained from rabbit blood	Enbergs H., Arndt G.	Biol. Tier., 1993, 4.	Stimulant	Mitotic and immunostimulating activity (bact. pept 10-5-10-6)
The effect of homeopathic potencies of housedust mite on the migration of house-dust sensitive human leukocytes	Gibson S.L., Gibson R.G.	Complement. Ther. Med., 1996, 4: 169-171.	Stimulant	Leucocyte chemotaxis
The effects of Nux vomica Homaccord and Atropinum comp. on intestinal activity in vitro	Kanui T.I., Enbergs H.	Biol. Tier., 1996/1, 43-47.	Stimulant	Contraction of intestinal muscles
Application of flow cytometry to the analysis of the immunosuppressive effect of histamine dilutions on human basophil action: effect of cimetidine	Sainte-Laudy J., Belon P.	Inflamm. Res., 1997, 46: S27-S28.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
Effects of Podophillum pellatum compounds in various preparations and dilutions on human neutrophil functions in vitro	Chirumbolo S., Conforti A., Lussignoli S., Metelmann H. et Al.	Br. Hom. J., 1997; 86-16.	Inhibitory	Release of superoxides
In vivo and in vitro studies on the efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized substances	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BT, 1997, 2; 40-46.	Difference between potentised and non-potentised substances	In vivo and in vitro study; basic research
Experiments with the effects of Ubichinon-Injeel and strong Ubichinon-Injeel on an acellular system	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1997, 3; 99-104.	Different effects of associations of various potencies and individual potencies	In vitro study; basic research
Efficacy of the homeopathic drugs Suis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on lymphocyte and phagocyte activity	Enbergs H.	BM, 1998, 1; 3-11.	Effect of organotherapeutics and Arnica comp. - Heel® on immune system cells	In vitro study; basic research
Influence of dilutions and potencies of cAMP on different enzymatic systems	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1998, 2; 55-62.	Effects of dilutions and potencies of cAMP on some enzymatic activities	In vitro study; basic research
Studies of the principles of homeopathy; the changeover from in vivo to in vitro experimental research	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1998, 3; 98-103.	Potentised and non-potentised dilutions are equally effective, but have different actions	Basic research
Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase with cAMP at various potencies	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1999, 1; 4-8.	Different effects on enzymatic activity	In vitro study; basic research
Contribution to study of the efficacy of homeopathic potencies of phosphorus	Gomez J.C.	BT, 1999, 2; 53-57.	Effect of different potencies of phosphorus	Tests on guinea pigs
Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase in the presence of Ubichinon comp.	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1999, 4; 188-194.	Effect of enzymatic activity of homeopathic medicine	Basic research
Biochemical efficacy of homeopathic and electronic preparations of D8 potassium cyanate	Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G.	FKM, 1999, 6; 15-18.	Homeopathic potentisation is more effective than electronic potentisation	Basic research
Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibiaderived osteoblasts is promoted by the homeopathic preparation, FMS Calciumfluor	Palermo C., Filanti C., Poggi S., Manduca P.	Cell Biol Int, 1999, 23(1): 31-40.	Stimulant	Osteogenesis (trial with compound drug)
Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) of homeopathic active constituents	Schmolz M.	BM, 1999, 5; 248-250.	Constituents of Arnica comp.- Heel® ointment: electrophoresis accelerates their skin penetration.	Basic research
			Effect of homeopathic constituents on enzymatic activity.	Basic research
Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice	Datta S., Mallick P., Bukhsh A.R.	Complement Ther Med, 1999 Jan; 7 (8): 62-75 (a).	Protective	Arsenic trioxide toxicity
Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice	Datta S., Mallick P., Bukhsh A.R.	Complement Ther Med, 1999 Sep; 7 (3): 156-63 (b).	Protective	Arsenic trioxide toxicity
Non-cytotoxic antiviral action of a homeopathic drug	Heine H.	Ärzteitschrift für Neturheilverfahre, 2000; 41: 542-7.	Stimulant	ã interferon synthesis
Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice	Kundu S.N., Mitra K., Khuda Bukhsh A.R.	Complement Ther Med , 2000 Sep; 1 (3): 157-65.	Protective	Arsenic trioxide toxicity
Stimulatory effect of some plant extracts used in homeopathy on the phagocytosis induced chemiluminescence of polymorphonuclear leukocytes	Crocnan D., Greabu M., Olinescu R.	Rocz Akad Med Biochemist, 2000; 45: 246-254.	Stimulant	Phagocytosis
Difference between the efficacy of single potencies and chords	Dittmann J., Harisch G.	BM, 2000, 1; 18-23.	Potency chords are more effective than single potencies	Basic research
Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of uricase, acid phosphatase and the cytosol glutathion-S-transferase	Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G.	BM, 2000, 3; 125-131	Effect of D8 potencies on three different enzymatic systems	Basic research
Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases	Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G.	BM, 2000, 6; 289-296.	Effect of different potencies of 5 substances on enzymatic activity	Basic research
Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate	Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F.	Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9.	Protective	Glutamate toxicity

 

KEY: BT = Biomedical Therapy

BM = Biologische Medizin

FKM = Forschung Komplementär Medizin

Ramaanand (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé