User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Commons File licence

Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-19 12:02 (UTC)

Keep it up

Keep this kind of thing up and you won't be an administrator for much longer.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous...I see, so he'll be desysopped for not blocking you or issuing a topic ban?--MONGO 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I see is a mention by Malleus of some facetious yet irrelevant statement by an unidentified editor for which a diff isn't provided, followed by Malleus feigning "victim" by posturing in reaction to imagined insults, followed by Malleus's inflammatory remarks about an editor's character via self-diagnosis of that editor's conscience. Probably not last and certainly not least, one can see Malleus's provocative posturing and threats to an admin on the article talk and on the admin's personal talk. Not surprising for a 9/11 article. My condolences, Arthur! :) John Shandy` • talk 05:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about your comment in Tau_(2π) Discussion

You wrote:

(Number 8 in the present article.)

It was added by the author of the reference. We need to find others who use that term, or it should be excised except, potentially, as an example of usage.

Number 8 is referenced four places. What term did you mean? "Pizza-style slices"? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I should have said is that any statement sourced only to site should be excised, unless there are other references. "Terms" was incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interested in your comment at AN/I

I'd be very grateful if you can explain the logic of your comment here to me, as I do not understand it. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That was not directed at you, but at MF. IF AQFK thinks it should be directed at you, please ask him why. As far as I'm concerned, your proposals are against Wikipedia consensus, but are not intended to be against policy. MF acknowledges that his proposals are against Wikipedia policy, and thinks they should be made regardless. Whether or not they are the same proposals, the mens rea is different. (Sorry, I'm going to law school.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The extent of your misunderstanding is very impressive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Read your user talk page header. I don't see any interpretation, other than that you are working against Wikipedia policies. Now, that's fine, if you're working to change the policies, but civil disobedience, in the context of Wikipedia, is generally considered to be making a WP:POINT.

Your comments in the 9/11 area make it clear that you think that Wikipedia policies make it impossible to improve the article. That's a fine opinion, as far as it goes. But you should work to change the policies, or, at the very least, state (on the policy talk pages) how you think they should be changed. "Bitching" about the policies on article talk pages is counter-productive.

Now, I don't know your full history. Perhaps you've worked to change the policies you disagree with, or are still working to do so. It's still inappropriate to complain about the policy, or request changes contrary to the policy, on article talk pages, even if you were to do so civilly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just horse shit Arthur, and you ought to know it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Explain what other interpretation is reasonable, please. (Or, accurate, if you prefer.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any point? You have deliberately misrepresented the statement on my talk page. which makes no mention of policies, only Wikipedia's governance: "There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change". One example of that is the fact that there are still administrators like you around. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I couldn't see that it what you wrote, but it is a possible interpretation. Would you like me to withdraw some of my comments at Talk:911, and at ANI, to reflect that? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. People here seem to believe whatever they like anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I never thought or said that it was directed at me, Arthur, what a curious thing to say. Your note above that you may have misunderstood Malleus is a welcome one. The problem I am still having is the gulf between your AN/I complaint, specifically your point 2 which said "[2] (Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)". As we now know that Malleus was saying the exact opposite of what you were claiming, and we now also know that he was responding to this comment, where MONGO says "If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity", could you possibly go back, apologize to Malleus and censure MONGO? I invited you to do this here, but you may have missed it. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding came from, my first sentence is ambiguous. The "to me" was meant to ask you to explain your remark to me, not to imply that the remark was addressed to me. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think it would be great if you could offer a clarification of your apparent misunderstanding. --John (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I am still waiting for an answer to the above. Let's recap; you misunderstood a header on a user's talk page (one which has been there considerable time) and thought it meant he was against Wikipedia policies, so you escalated it to AN/I with a bunch of diffs that the consensus was weren't too bad. While there, it was also pointed out to you that you had completely misunderstood one of his edits, to the extent that you understood the opposite of what it meant. I just pointed you to a pretty egregious edit from MONGO which does in fact mean what you wrongly thought Malleus meant when you reported him. You've since posted against Malleus at an Arbcom enforcement, but you haven't yet clarified that you now acknowledge your misunderstanding, or explained why it wasn't really a misunderstanding, though you apologized above for misreading Malleus's criticism of Wikipedia's governance which was a nice start. A couple of days have passed and you haven't replied. If you need more time to come up with your answer, that's fine, but per WP:ADMIN you are required to explain your admin actions, as I am now asking you to do. "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Sorry to be a nuisance, but your mistakes could have serious consequences for another editor and it's important that you understand that. --John (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd thing that you think anyone should be censored for for incivility or bigoted claims when you yourself have stated repeatedly that the article is dominated by "nationalists" and you've referred to your opposition in some really saucy words as well...diffs are available here or at another venue should you choose to dance...I'll trade a topic ban for my being an SOB in dealing with POV pushing trolls such as you for a topic ban for your multi-year overt and radical POV pushing and CT promotions in 9/11 namespace.--MONGO 05:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood the header, but I brought him to ANI because of extreme incivility and personal attacks in Talk:September 11 attacks, the like of which I had not seen on that article (although, I admit, I hadn't been watching it for a while.) I still cannot see another possible interpretation of his talk page, but, under WP:AGF, I have to assume he meant what he said his interpretation was, as grammatically incorrect as it might be.

Although the ANI thread seems to have properly come to an end, the AE thread reflects new attacks after the AE/911 warning.

I don't think I have anything to apologize to, except on a minor point, to MF. You probably can still see his response. All I can say is that, if I run across MF again, and he acts as he has on 911, I'll probably report him to ANI again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. How much longer do you think you're likely to remain an administrator if you keep this up Arthur? Malleus Fatuorum 06:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably longer than you remain on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a hopeless dreamer. Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So, nothing at all learned from the AN/I report, Arthur? Nothing you would do differently? Nothing at all? You said you were going to law school and you shared the mens rea link with me; have you seen our article on vexatious litigation, it's a good one! Seriously, I am very disappointed that you can't see anything wrong in your conduct there. Maybe Malleus is right and we need to consider our options. Would you welcome a wider discussion on this? --John (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sick to death of kids like Arthur chucking their ignorant weight around. I for one would welcome a wider discussion of his behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sick of you throwing your ignorant weight around, and I now think Wikipedia would improved, overall, if you were blocked. But it's not going to happen unless you tick off Jimbo, you do something that would get the Foundation in trouble, or Wikipedia actually tries to enforce civility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was this a good example of the civility you say you wish to see enforced, Arthur? I'm not a great believer in running to mummy whenever I don't like how things are going, and I sense you are not going to change your mind on this, so I'm going to leave you alone for now. I am very clear though that you made a mistaken (let's be generous) report at AN/I and did not have the integrity or courage to amend or withdraw when your mistake was pointed out. Please be very clear that as well as being highly disappointed with you on a personal level, I do not regard this as admin-like behavior, and that I will escalate if I see you throwing your highly-educated weight around again in the future. Have a nice evening, --John (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur....neither Malleus or John have a leg to stand on here...John has shown repeated examples of loathsome behavior for an admin and I can easily demonstrate that with a plethora of diffs should the need arise. A topic ban is in order for both editors...and a outright civility parole is inevitable for Malleus at the very least.MONGO 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I hate to eavesdrop, but I tend to talk-stalk admins I've had good encounters with. While you've been accused of incivility, I see as clear as day on your talk page that editors have directly and overtly attempted to insult you, dismiss you as a kid (knowing full well that you are an adult), and attack your education, all of which are uncalled for no matter what mistakes or misinterpretations you may make. If these editors ever manage to gather enough children of the corn to call your administrative position into question, please notify me of the venue and I will gladly testify to the attacks insidiously launched at you in this talk page discussion. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO and John Shandy`. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Judmas

Hi Arthur. I am glad to see that you are still editing Wikipedia. You probably do not remember me; I tried to help User:Ludvikus when he was improving the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Someone has created an article on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please could you keep an eye on it.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense

http://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&source=bl&ots=L48Vqu_hm5&sig=2nbZ-rg-pD62fx8QNTEj1QTZgaU&hl=en&ei=4RB-TvmaL5TViALXy_y5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&source=bl&ots=tfbhUZyou8&sig=a92O0L8snMy26tvah4dEQ7FT4LQ&hl=en&ei=4RB-TvmaL5TViALXy_y5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LiwjVsNBw-cC&pg=PA13&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&hl=en&ei=lRF-TtToJ87OiALh0aW6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8tX17AXujekC&pg=PA43&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&hl=en&ei=lRF-TtToJ87OiALh0aW6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

"Conspiracy accounts" is common and easily understandable English, but your new version is fine as well. Mystylplx (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

99999

This deletion might be controversial, so send it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mersenne prime merger

Regarding the merger of 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime I think you can go ahead with that per WP:MERGE Proposing a merger IV. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm...

I'm sorry, but what type of vandalism I did? I am not a mean user, I am nice. Pikachu4170 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism was in your edit summary. The edit was merely extremely against Wikipedia guidelines; but test4 redirects to vand4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So that means i am fine or not? Because I don't want to be banned. If I do get banned, I have to leave Wikipedia and NEVER use it. Pikachu4170 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not likely to get banned, yet. Although you have carefully erased your warnings, that was only your first "final warning", so you would normally only be blocked for a repeat violation, and (if you hadn't erased your warnings), only for a short period of time. As it stands, the blocking admin might not check your precise warning structure, and give you a longer block. Still, you're unlikely to be banned, or even to have an indefinite block. Please stop what you're doing when warned, though, or at least ask (usually on the article talk page) whether your edit should be made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Updates to Hulda Clark information

I posted the following validated information which was promptly deleted.

___________

• Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies. Clark said this device kills viruses, bacteria and parasites. In this respect, there are several videos on the Internet showing the zapper works in vitro, killing bacteria and protozoa. The concern is that while a device may work in vitro does not mean that it works in vivo. There are also some questions of safety. In one case, a patient with a cardiac pacemaker suffered arrhythmias because of interference from the "Zapper." This was an older type of pacemaker and the same kind of interference can be expected from most any electrical device that is attached to the body, such as a TENS unit. Anyone wearing a pacemaker should be warned about the possibility of electrical interference. Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer.

___________

If the FDA, NIH, and PubMed can not be cited, what relevance does the article have. It is only a censored part truth with an agenda. All of these sites are available to be freely linked to. The information is entirely relevant.

If the link to the video is an issue, it, along with others is available on youtube.com .

1. That's not what you added.
2. "A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.
3. The videos are clearly not reliable.
4. "Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.

No, that would be complete WP:SYNTHESIS to the extend reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hulda Clark

You Wrote: :#That's not what you added.

The information above was cut from my computer and pasted into the page. I can not see how you claim that it is not what I added.

You Wrote: A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.

No, you are apparantly not aware that Hulda Clark was not the first or only one to promote the use of pulses. Even the FDA promotes the use of pulses to kill microbes such are bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and virus in milk, juices, and water.

You Wrote: :#The videos are clearly not reliable.

The videos are easily reproduced using only a source of pulsed electricity and a video microscope. They are made by amateurs and professionals alike. It is not a parlor trick, it is real.

You Wrote: :#"Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.

The basis of all of this is the generation of resonant frequencies. Everything has some sort of resonance. I would submit that if you are not studied in this then you are not the person who should be rejecting the entries of those who are familiar.

On top of that, I see you frequently hiding behind the mask of neutrality, yet in this case, you are obviously taking a side with an agenda. The entire page is strictly one-sided and these are not the first facts that have been unreasonably rejected. The net result, Mr. Orwell is that WikiPedia ( the source of reliable information ) is becoming Wiki-Ganda ( a source of propaganda ).

Perhaps you should start by reading "Body Electric" by Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. It is an outstanding source of information on the influences of electricity on life and visa versa. Then study the Medical Electric Battery, Rife, Beck, and many others.

Regardless, seeing that actions that have occurred here explains to me why the WikiPedia is not considered to be a credible source of information. It only tells the half of the story that the controllers want the public to hear.

How many of Dr. Clark's books have you read completely and thoroughly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CPUDave (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 

Sorry for forgetting to sign.

CPUDave (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional information Re: Hulda Clark

Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies.

The very fact that the zapper does actually produce pulses across and through the body can be observed and documented using an oscilloscope. This has been done and images are available at paradevices.com . Even WikiPedia shows that validity of Bio-electric stimulation which is the same thing, just a different term. The point here is that denying public access to this information when there is nothing to refute it is nothing more than blatant censorship.

As for the efficacy of the zapper, this too, has been established in at least one study. This study shows that the "total with any improvement was 97.9%" ( for those who used the zapper ) and "In the control group, the average control also had 1.1 chronic infections; ... total with any improvement was 61.3%. In the group that used the zapper "48.2% reported substantial symptomatic improvement" where in the control group, only "12.9% reported significant improvement" This clearly shows that the zapper had a positive effect in a study with a control group. There has never been any study to refute this in any way. Disallowing this information, again is censorship.

I believe that I read somewhere that you are studying law. I would hope that your pursuit of this is in the interest of fairness and justice and not for the purposes of oppression which is what is happening here. Readers of the WikiPedia should have a RIGHT to hear both sides of the story in an unbiased manner.

CPUDave (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that information be supported by reliable sources. Clearly, most of your sources are not reliable. Hulda's writings are not exactly reliable. Paradevices.com does not (at first glance) appear reliable. Bio-electric stimulation therapy may have its own problems, but if the sources there support the statements you make here, it could be listed.

I assure you that I've fought to retain information that I believe to be false, because it appears it appears in reliable sources. Here, I see a number of "sources" which are not reliable, and none which are clearly reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: The left of production rule cannot be null

The left of a production rule in a grammar can be null. Here is the proof:

Imagine there is a rule in the grammar that says:

λ -> a B C | A B c | ...

And there are other rules such as:

A b C -> X y Z w

I can construct a grammar from this grammar that doesn't have null on the left of production rule and produces EXACTLY what this grammar produces:

Let's introduce a new nonterminal called L (named after lambda)

First rule is:

L -> λ

Then, all the rules are present, except between every two elements (terminal or nonterminal), there is an L. Therefore you get:

L -> L a L B L C L | L A L B L c L | ...

That was for the rule where it said λ -> ...

And for the rest of the grammar:

L A L b L C L -> L X L y L Z L w L

This new grammar produces the same words as the first grammar. In the first grammar, you could put an expression anywhere "out of the blue" because there is a λ between any element and it could produce an expression (because of the rule λ -> ...). In the second case, this role is played by L where, whatever you produce has L's between any non-L element. L can produce the expressions λ could produce in the first grammar and is itself reduce-able to λ.

This was a question in the book "An introduction to formal languages and automata" by Peter Linz which asked what are the implications of having λ on the left of a production rule. I came with this proof that in fact the restriction is not necessary. After no one believing me in the university (like you here), I emailed Peter Linz himself and he said that in fact that restriction is just for simplicity and in Turing's thesis is also not mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have that email anymore to show you.

I couldn't find on the internet the original "paper" that defined unrestricted grammars, but I came across this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_grammar that also states that there are no restrictions on either side of the production rule.

P.S. If you are interested in an example of such a grammar, imagine this

λ -> ()

This grammar produces nested parentheses. Without using λ, you had to write it like this:

S -> (S) | SS | λ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you can emulate a language in which the left side of the production rule empty by one which doesn't have such, but that doesn't mean that you should change the definition to allow such rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the benefit of changing

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

aka

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\backslash \Sigma ^{*}$

by

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\cup N^{0}$

aka

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\backslash \Sigma ^{+}$

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, that is NOT the definition. The definition is that there are not any restrictions (hence the unrestricted grammar). YOU are adding a restriction added for convenience in the definition and you are telling ME that I'm changing the definition? Besides, I merely put one sentence saying that restriction is not necessary. Is that something that should be hidden from readers of wikipedia? Was what I wrote wrong?

Second, you are making it complex. I'm not changing

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

to

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\cup N^{0}$

but in fact I am changing it to

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

So the definition is NOT the more complicated

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\rightarrow (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

but the simpler

• $(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\rightarrow (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

Just for the sake of those out there that actually wonder why that restriction exists, please let them know that it is not a must, but merely a convenience.

If you want further proof I could try to find a paper or some source as reference.

And my question is, what makes your knowledge superior than mine that you decide to revert my change before studying it? Isn't wikipedia about collaborating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the definition of formal grammar includes that there must be a not-terminal. Although any unrestricted grammar can be checked by a non-deterministic Turing machine, and the possible states of a non-deterministic Turing machine can be checked by a formal grammar, there are still reasons why the formalism of the formal grammar should be distringuished from the unrestricted grammar. The mere addition of the empty string, although easy to confirm as inessential (as both of us have), is pointless.

A similar argument could be used to the one above (not going through non-deterministic Turing machines) to allow any non-empty transformation string would be to add a nonterminal $c'$ for each terminal c; in the rules for non-empty strings, replace all terminals $c$ by the corresponding $c'$ on both sides of the rule, and add closing rules $c'\rightarrow c$ for each terminal c. This clearly shows the languages accepted by an unrestricted grammar and a formal grammar are the same. It still doesn't support your additions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that unrestricted grammars are NOT part of formal grammars? Because if they are, that immediately means the restriction of having one nonterminal on the left would be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics and the year zero

Hi Arthur,

I provided information of interest to the subject matter about our not having a year zero and you deleted it. The reason you are stating is that the information is not subject related. However, if there are no mathematical systems in which zero is absent, then this helps readers understand that our having a calendar without a zero is a man-made accomplishment (similar to art, and not nature). There is no reason to ridicule the man-made result, but it is good for the wiki-readers to know the difference why the calendar arrived without a zero. Here is the information one more time, and I hope you will revert your deletion, since wiki is about information on the subject matters, and the artful aspect of it should not be left out of the picture.

If you (or others) can write a better introduction, then I appreciate that. From a mathematical perspective, systems always come with a zero (i.e., a blank spot).

Mathematics

Whether systems do indeed exist without a zero is a question that can be answered by mathematics. Please note that systems are based on the people adhering to them, such as historians who never use a year zero. This segment on Mathematics does not undermine the calendar as currently used, because its use is not based on mathematics.

When investigating the natural numbers, a pattern can be distinguished among these numbers that leads to the forced use of zero. From this, the conclusion is justified that all numerical systems automatically come with a zero.

Source: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

Greetings,

Fredrick FredrickS (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Penta Publishing is not an inherently reliable source, and the author ( Fredrick Schermer) doesn't appear to be a known expert in anything. We can't use it. Perhaps Wikibooks or Wikiversity could use your material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

2305843009213693951

I closed the discussion and merged 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The David Ray Griffin Page

Dear Mr. Rubin:

I see that it is not possible to edit the introduction at the top of the Griffin page.

There is a link to your name there.

Are these two things connected?

The page fails to mention that Dr. Griffin was professor of philosophy of religion and theology, from 1973 to 2004, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University.

Thank you,

PureLogic PureLogic (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in the lede, isn't it? To clarify, are we talking about the page David Ray Griffin, or some other page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To Arthur Rubin: To clarify, yes, the title of my post to you was the David Ray Griffin page. There is no edit capability there. How do I edit that? PureLogic (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be protected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

35

you obviously do not now anything about my country, and I am so sorry about that. Wikipedia is obviously not free and it does not share knowlege..it is a faschistic place for the privileged molesters. The fact that I posted is true. Live long and prosper my mathematician friend. 35! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.60.137 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope I haven't upset you too much

I've tried to preserve as much information as possible in the merge but there has been a significant amount of data loss due to my inability to locate proper sources. I want you to know that I'm still searching for good sources for the missing information and when I find them it is going back in. Serendi^podous 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, btw I'm talking about Timeline of the far future Serendi^podous 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured that one out.... Some of the really distant times might be taken from The Five Ages of the Universe (which I reviewed on Epinions, once.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Page move

List of 'Occupy' protest locations. Another clueless admin who makes changes without discussion. I have been editing the page. Have you? My page name change is uncontroversial. If you had read the discussion and followed the links you would have seen that the discussion was not about whether single or double quotes were used. Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving the page from List of "Occupy" protest locations to List of 'Occupy' protest locations while discussion of a move to List of Occupy protest locations is in process is improper, breaking the automatated links to the correct discussion, which I'll have to restore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had already fixed most of the links, and the bot had fixed the others already. By the way your edit comment about "correct grammar" is actually incorrect. I hate it when admins make up stuff as they go along. News media are using single quotes not double quotes. And double quotes in URLs are problematic when sharing URLs. Single quotes in URLs are not a problem. By the way I am an admin on Wikia, and I know the admin game. I try not to sound more authoritative and knowledgeable than I am. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Single quotes in URLs are problematic, as well, for different reasons. And moving articles while a move request is in progress is still disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit you are wrong. The disruption is on your end. Keep making up stuff. The discussion was basically concluded. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, whether or not your moves would be correct, it is improper to move A to B while a discussion of a move from A to C is in progress, no matter how slight the differences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only improper in your opinion. Next time try thinking more instead of blindly following rules, and jumping in. It is not a math equation. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." --Timeshifter (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But you broke it. Some of the pointers were adjusted, but the move section itself was misleading, at best. You should make your arguments for the move in the appropriate forum, namely Talk:"Occupy" protests#Requested move. I see you haven't done that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep digging yourself in deeper. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia". You know, I am not a big contributor, but when I corrected something many many people think wrong (including this admin here), he just reverts the change and doesn't listen to reason (As he left my talk with him here unanswered too). Yeah, you know what? I won't give a damn about Wikipedia anymore. And because of what you did, I won't be able to trust what I read in Wikipedia anymore unless I cross check it with some other sources (because I know even if some people want to fix the errors of Wikipedia, certain admins don't allow it) Shahbaz Youssefi (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What you "corrected" was not wrong. The fact that "formal grammars" (as we, and the reliable sources, define them) and "unrestricted grammars" recognize the same languages, does not necessarily make them the same subject. I think they might be, but none of the reliable sources so far have commented on that. Regardless, changing the subject of the article formal grammar to that of unrestricted grammar is inappropriate, unless the reliable sources do so. The sources in my possession distinguish the concepts. If you had proposed changing the subject, we could have discussed that, and the articles might have been merged. But changing the definition to something not used in the real world is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Purpose

I made a new proposition on the article's talk page. Could you kindly comment? Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 08:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuum hypothesis

The point of my proof is that CH is independent of ZF but.... It is not independent of ZFC and Induction. So you need to assume two things... and then you prove something you knew... and something you didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but what do you mean by "Induction"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Learn what a trichotomy is, and what strong induction is, then you should be able to understand why I am right even though Cantor was also correct.

Don't worry, you'll be able to understand it when I explain it to CMI and get my million. Thanks for looking though, I appreciate people asking questions so that I can show there's nothing wrong with it.

WhatisFGH (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that what you mean by Induction may be the V=L. Either that, or it's inconsistent with ZF. I can't tell which, at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

hey

you suck