User talk:JRSpriggs

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost
Pointers:
Category:Ordinal numbers, Category:Cardinal numbers, Category:Set theory, Category:Root-finding algorithms, Category:Proof theory, Category:Mathematical logic, Category:General relativity, Category:Hyperbolic geometry, Category:Go (game)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Relativity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

User_talk:Oleg Alexandrov, User_talk:Jitse Niesen, User_talk:Trovatore, User_talk:Arthur Rubin, User_talk:CBM, User_talk:Piandcompany

ordinal number, ordinal arithmetic, large countable ordinal, ordinal notation

Constructible universe, implicational propositional calculus, harmonic coordinate condition, Noether's theorem, Nightcore

User:JRSpriggs/Optimal monetary policy, User:JRSpriggs/Ordinal notation, User:JRSpriggs/Force in general relativity, User:JRSpriggs/Dirac particle in general relativity, User:JRSpriggs/Ani-Monday, User:JRSpriggs/Conventions for general relativity

Need work:
Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime, Electromagnetic stress-energy tensor

Resources:

Category:Wikipedia help, control-shift-R reloads, Wikipedia:Purge,
Help:Displaying a formula, Help:Special characters,
How to edit a page, Help pages, How to write a great article, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia,
Special:Uncategorizedpages, Wikipedia:Subpages#Listing_subpages, Special:Prefixindex/User:Example/
Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
edit summary, WP:LEAD, WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Introductory material, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, Template:Deletiontools, WP:LAYOUT,
Wikipedia:Missing science topics which may inspire you to create new articles
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics if you like to do clean up work.
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics#Logic, Category:Mathematical logic stubs
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
Python Wikipediabot Framework, Wikipedia:Creating a bot
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism,Template:TestTemplates, Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
random math page
NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions

Archives:

Derivatives of Inverse trigonometric functions

Hi! This is Wamiq again... I added the domains for the derivatives of the inverse trigonometric functions in the section, which you have recently removed (Sorry for bothering you ☹). Thanks for pointing out that those derivatives encompassed complex numbers as well, but would it not have been a good idea to keep the domains after modifying them by excluding the values at which the functions were undefined even in the complex plane? I think that their domains in the complex plane should be added into that section. What do you think? I hope you agree to putting up new domains... Regards,

— Syεd Шαмiq Aнмεd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually prefer to discuss things on the talk page of the article in question. So I will respond at Talk:Inverse trigonometric functions. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notation

Thanks a lot! That section looks better now ☺. Well, I see an issue with the notation used on Wikipedia for the inverse trigonometric functions, i.e., the convention here is to denote all functions with minuscule letters but to add the word arc with the inverse ones (sin x, arcsin x, etc...) but what we (along with our textbooks) do, is to denote regular functions with minuscule letters, e.g., sin x, cos x, etc., and the inverse functions with the first letter majuscule and a −1 superscript, e.g., Sin⁻¹ x, Cos⁻¹ x, etc., which causes no confusion between the inverse function (Sin⁻¹ x) and the multiplicative inverse (sin⁻¹ x). This notation is nowhere to be found here. I personally find the arc notation a bit odd. Do you find this (capital) notation at least worth mentioning in the article (if the arc notation is popular and cannot be removed)? Hoping to get a reply in the affirmative... Regards,

— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 06:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poincaré group

this goes immediately to WikiProject Mathematics. I hope to have not much future interaction with you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sticks and Stones (nursery rhyme), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sticks and Stones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Economic Map

You said: Even within the United States, there have been complaints that economic data are not defined consistently over time (from one administration to the next). How does one adjust GDP for differences in the prices of goods and services?: prices change over time, prices are different in different places, the quality of the goods or services may vary, which exchange rate should be used, surveying methods for gathering and aggregating data vary, etc.? How do you measure employment?: how many hours does a worker have to work to be considered employed, if he has multiple jobs do you count each one separately, what about the 'underground economy', how do you define the sectors (industries) of the economy for purposes of sorting workers, etc.? What about erroneous economic data due to either incompetence or politically motivated fraud (since politicians often pressure bureaucrats to change the results to create a more favorable appearance)? For more information, see shadow statistics. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes people should take the data with a grain of salt but it will be the most concise and edcuational economics project available to the public. Would you be willing to help out in this endeavor?Mcnabber091 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this when you posted it at User talk:Arthur Rubin. I am sorry, but I do not have the time to help you with your project. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom of global choice?

Hi! My name is Sergei Akbarov. I would like to invite you to the talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axiom_of_global_choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eozhik (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with complex numbers

Hi Spriggs! This is Wamiq again. I just had a small problem with complex numbers. Thought you might be of some help. Can you just point out the flaw here?

i={\sqrt {-1}}={{\sqrt {-1}} \over 1}={{\sqrt {-1}} \over {\sqrt {1}}}={\sqrt {-1 \over 1}}={\sqrt {1 \over -1}}={{\sqrt {1}} \over {\sqrt {-1}}}={1 \over {\sqrt {-1}}}={1 \over i}=-i\ \ ??

Both of my Maths and Physics teachers were unable to answer this. Hope you know the answer. I would be very grateful. Regards

— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк)

—Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Wamiq.

{\sqrt {1 \over -1}}\neq {{\sqrt {1}} \over {\sqrt {-1}}}\,.

More generally, although

{\sqrt {a\cdot b}}={\sqrt {a}}\cdot {\sqrt {b}}\,

holds for positive real numbers a and b, all one can conclude for complex numbers z and w is

{\sqrt {z\cdot w}}=\pm {\sqrt {z}}\cdot {\sqrt {w}}\,.

This is because the square-root function has a branch point at zero. There are two sheets (branches) corresponding to the two roots of r²=z. If you circle around the origin (zero) once, then you end up on the other sheet. Thus when you define the square-root, it is necessary to cut the two sheets apart. Traditionally, the cut (for square-root specifically) is placed along the negative real axis. See Methods of computing square roots#Negative or complex square. If z and w both have positive imaginary parts (or are negative real) and z·w has a negative imaginary part (or is positive real), then

{\sqrt {z\cdot w}}=-{\sqrt {z}}\cdot {\sqrt {w}}\,.

Similarly, if z and w both have negative imaginary parts (or are positive real) and z·w has a positive imaginary part (or is negative real).

Otherwise, you get the plus sign. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I’ve got it now. So, my derivation should be something like this:

i={\sqrt {-1}}={{\sqrt {-1}} \over 1}={{\sqrt {-1}} \over {\sqrt {1}}}={\sqrt {-1 \over 1}}={\sqrt {1 \over -1}}={-{\sqrt {1}} \over {\sqrt {-1}}}={-1 \over {\sqrt {-1}}}={-1 \over i}=i

Thanks once again for telling me this. I am highly obliged by you. Regards...

— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк)

A cookie and thank you for fixing my mistake.

.

You reverted an edit I made to Colony collapse disorder that changed the name of a wiki link. I definitely made a mistake. I must have confused which editor had actually shortened the name and this resulted in me reverting a person who fixed the problem. I was getting tired at the time and probably should have quite sooner. I am usually more careful. Thank you for fixing the mistake so promptly. It was certainly embarrassing. When I came here to leave you this message, I looked at your user page. I really like what you have written. I strongly agree with almost all of your ideas. No immigration policies is an idea that will need some thought from me. I guess, if too many people move into certain countries, the ones they leave will be forced to change to prevent continued loss of their citizens. Maybe things would eventually balance but in the meantime it could get messy. I would like to hear your thoughts about this if you are willing. I think one of the worst problems we face is too many unknowledgable voters. If we could remedy this situation, many others could be fixed. I have enjoyed "meeting" you. Probing Mind (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have made the same kind of mistake a few times, so I know how embarrassing it can be.

Thank you for your support for my user page. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of restrictions on immigration, the argument for restrictions is given by Thomas Sowell at [1] and continued at [2].

The argument against restrictions is given by Harry Binswanger at [3].

I agree with the Objectivist (and Libertarian) position as expressed by Harry Binswanger. (Warning: although many people regard Objectivists as a species of Libertarian, the Objectivists themselves violently disagree and regard Libertarians as one of their main enemies). JRSpriggs (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. A very interesting article. I think changes to welfare laws, federal and state, are a key component of making this idea work. Dealing with those who break the law also. I would be interested in anything else you run across related to the ideas on your page, if you have time and don't mind passing me a link. I'll be doing some research of my own in my spare time, short as it is. My email link should be enabled if you'd rather use email for this type of topic. A last thought, if everybody has equal access, we won't be overrun with one type of immigrant who happens to be in a position to circumvent the laws. I'd like to see us keep our melting pot mix of people. Probing Mind (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Tests of general relativity

Hi! You reverted my edit at Tests of general relativity. I was in a bit of a hurry and probably explained myself badly: what I meant with "Not a primary source" was that the article referenced simply cites another paper that states the value in question, so in that sense it is not the "primary source" for that value. Besides, I also removed the citation because there's a long history of cross-wiki spamming for papers from that author, and the value is already referenced anyway from another source. If you're OK with this explanation I will restore my edit. Thanks, --Snow Blizzard 18:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Freedom of speech

Well, if you feel an article is relevant to the topic of Freedom of speech, you can add it to this WikiProject by adding {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}} to its article talk page. — Cirt (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi JRSpriggs, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Mathematics and Physics talk page that you are an active member of both projects. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're too fast!

I went back to undo my wrong "correction," but you had beat me to it. :-P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcooljoe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others have made this same mistake before, so I did not have to think about it too much before reverting. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac equation

I have noticed that you have changed typography of the "E" at the above page in to an inelegant form. I have undone it. Please do not deface the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimension10 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Dirac equation, and I have no idea what you mean. I merely reverted your reversion of Maschen's correction. The "E" near the beginning of the section Dirac equation#Hole theory (if that is what you mean) in Maschen's version is clearly more compatible with the type face of the text than the one in your version. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of God and religion

I have learned for myself that your beliefs are false. You have a grave misunderstanding of God and religion; my life has changed immensely for the better as I am a convert to Christianity. Do you believe I'm an idiot? 70.102.89.181 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that all Christians are idiots. Some have been quite intelligent.

Do I know you? I do not recognize you from your IP address.

What evidence led you to your belief in Jesus? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in Axiom of regularity

You are right in that the empty set is not a special case, somehow my circuitry shortcut badly for a moment.

Thank you!

Jose Brox (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent question about the Obamacare article

A blog entry that is critical of Obamacare contains more than 100 reliable sources that could be used to improve wikipedia's Obamacare article. The blog was written by wikipedia User:Grundle2600, who was banned from wikipedia by Obama supporters who wanted all the Obama articles at wikipedia to be censored of any and all reliably sourced criticism.

To find the blog entry, do a google search for "141 reasons why it's OK to laugh at anyone who thought Obamacare was a good idea"

The link can't be posted here because it is blocked.

Good question 32 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]