User talk:CRGreathouse

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skewes number

I have a question. Is there any bound lower than : $10^{10^{10^{963}}}$ known without using computers? Thank you. Motomuku (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I don't share your irrational fear of computer-generated proofs. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fearing. I'd just like to make distinctions. Wouldn' you? Motomuku (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because reliable sources don't. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPN

Do you admit the correctness of this? (Let $p_{1}$ be the smallest all $p_{i}$ s.)

N is of the form

N=q^{\alpha }p_{1}^{2e_{1}}\cdots p_{k}^{2e_{k}},

where:

q, p₁, ..., p_k are distinct primes (Euler).
q ≡ α ≡ 1 (mod 4) (Euler).
Either N≡ 1(mod 12), or $N\equiv (3^{2e_{1}+3}-9)/2{\pmod {2(3^{2e_{1}+3}-9)}}$ (Roberts 2008).

Motomuku (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't considered its correctness, only that it's not stated in a WP:RS. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It is not stated this way, but it's reliable. Motomuku (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WT:MATH, then. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert's second

You wrote,

But none of this really matters, because Hilbert *wasn't* asking about real numbers. He was asking about rational numbers, which is clearly equivalent to asking about natural numbers or integers

Susumu Hayashi is a historian as well as a logician at Kyoto University. What Hayashi researched and found out was Hilbert was asking about real numbers. I'm sure you are aware of the result Hilbert proved that the consistency of Euclidean Geometry is equivalent to the consistency of reals. Hilbert's focus was on reals and Hayashi has deeply surveyed on that. But it's not only you. Hayashi admits many mathematicians are misunderstanding. Motomuku (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]