User talk:Planemo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:14, 20 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Planemo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Additionally, the sandbox is available if you wish to test your editing skills.

All in all, good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Cathedral Mosque and Moscow Choral Synagogue

Regarding your creation of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque and Moscow Choral Synagogue articles, you accidentally added the "{{Categorize}}" template to them, despite having categorized them according to the WP guidelines. This isn't really necessary, and creates an artificial additional backlog in the Category needed category, which is backed up as it is. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I've categorized them properly.--Planemo 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did narrow down the category on one of the articles from Category:Mosques to Category:Mosques in Russia, but the Categorize template is designated for articles that have no categories at all. Once you've added an article to a category, it's accessible to people who've edited Wikipedia longer, or know that specific subject better, and they can sometimes provide a more accurate categorization. When in doubt, it's better to include an article in a wider category, rather than adding it to the back-logged uncategorized queue. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chain rule

I reverted your change to the chain rule. It made it harder to apply that formula below in the article, I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's it be the both formulae.--Planemo 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athenian Curvature

I've read your edits in Affine curvature about Athenian curvature... I must confess, this not something I've come across in my studies, nor Athenian transformations. as I can't find anythign about it on the net, could you possibly provide a reference? Cheers :-) Tompw (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo :-) --Planemo 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Russia/New article announcements

Please don't forget to announce your new articles there! We other Russian editors want to know and appreciate your work. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse function

Hi. I reverted your changes to Inverse function for two reasons. One, you switched to a new "inv" notation in the middle of the article which was not defined. That can be confusing. Second, the formula you put there, for the derivative of the inverse, is not really appropriate, since all that article deals with general functions between sets, and the formula for the inverse of the derivative holds only for differentiable functions of a real variable (the way you wrote it at least).

In short, your changes while correct, were not in the right context, I think. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks.

And by the way, could you please use an edit summary when you contribute? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the description--Planemo 16:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with adding a new "inv" notation. One should be consistent throughout the article, and there is really no need for a new notation I think, it just confuses things. I put back the more accepted "^-1" notation. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with this but your notation may be confusing with power indicator.--Planemo 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my notation. That is the standard notation used in all math textbooks. And it is not similar at all to the indicator notation, which is as far as I know

1_{X}.

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant indicator of power показатель степени. Вашу нотацию легко спутать с показателем минус первой степени.--Planemo 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Это не моя нотация. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rigor needed

Regarding your addition of "Series form" to inverse function, it is not clear

What kind of function f is (linear, nonlinear, differentiable, analytic)
analytic.
What kind of variable x is (real, complex, $\mathbb {R} ^{n}$ , Banach space)
where do you see x there? The function is supposed to be f(t)
What kind of convergence you are talking about (pointwise, uniform, what norm)
In the point t. Given t and f it gives inv f(t)
Where is the variable t?
t is the argument of the both f and inv f. It can be interpreped as тождественная функция, то есть, функция, от применения которой аргумент не меняется ( $t\circ f=f,f\circ t=f$ ). It is simple: you have f(t) and you get inv f(t). When the argument is simply t, it is generally ommitted: instead of f(t) write simply f.

I understand your intention, but that text is poorly written. Can you also provide a reference for that formula (a book?)

This formula is easily derived.--Planemo 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you use more care when contributing. Let us do math at a serious level. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see, if you don't clarify all this in the article, your addition has no value. If you leave it that way, I will remove that section. Не хальђурь. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What clarification is needed? It is common practice to ommit arguments when left and right parts use the same. Don't you agree? If you dont like using "t" variable, it can be easily changed to "x". Or might I did not understand something...--Planemo 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:34, 20 December 2006 edit Oleg Alexandrov (talk \| contribs) Administrators 47,240 edits →‎Rigor needed: note ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:14, 20 December 2006 edit undo Planemo (talk \| contribs) 757 edits →‎Rigor needed Next edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:

	: You see, if you don't clarify all this in the article, your addition has no value. If you leave it that way, I will remove that section. Не хальђурь. :) [[User:Oleg Alexandrov\|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov\|talk]]) 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)		: You see, if you don't clarify all this in the article, your addition has no value. If you leave it that way, I will remove that section. Не хальђурь. :) [[User:Oleg Alexandrov\|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov\|talk]]) 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
			::Hmmm. What clarification is needed? It is common practice to ommit arguments when left and right parts use the same. Don't you agree? If you dont like using "t" variable, it can be easily changed to "x". Or might I did not understand something...--[[User:Planemo\|Planemo]] 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)