User talk:Wcherowi

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Warning Templates

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fibonacci number: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.

Re: Kepler Fraud

Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

on Prototypehumanoid's edits

I put notes on NeilN's and Meters' talk pages to inform them about the recent Calculus edits, since both already warned him. Regards, Purgy (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graph Theory

Hi, I've added links to open source, academic (all MIT or BSD licensed) software stacks that help one to simulate graph theory in practice. Current article is all talk, no action. They are removed with the reason "link farm". I'm confused. Github, the platform that hosts these software free and show no ads, is no more for-profit than Wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esokullu (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the practice here (as opposed to other places on the web) to put new remarks at the bottom of a talk page, so I have taken the liberty of moving yours here. As to your issue–there is nothing wrong with the links that you have tried to add to this Wikipedia page. The reason that they have been removed (twice now) has to do with the nature of Wikipedia. There are several things that Wikipedia is not (see Wikipedia:Not) and one of these is that WP is not a collection of links (a linkfarm) to other sites on the web. When links are made, they have to provide information about the subject of the article that is not adequately presented in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a nexus for activities surrounding an article's topic. There are plenty of places on the web that one can go to for such activities, but to try to maintain some semblance of integrity and purpose, WP is not one of them. This is a shared belief in the Wikipedia community and many editors will remove such links when they see them. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a response to your recent undo of my changes to "vacuous truth" article. I think your undo was a bad decision.

I added a section to the vacuous truth article's talk page (link), entitled "Article quality has become poor. Has inconsistencies and also needs explanation of why vacuous truth exists.".

It seems to me that if this is how the editing culture is on Wikipedia then I should probably spend my time elsewhere, somewhere with a more reasonable culture. My time is valuable, and I shouldn't have to argue over even the most basic and obviously useful changes.

--MagneticInk (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Dear Wcherowi

I learned several materials related and know follow things.

1 Avoid linking to Arxiv. That's not allowed by them.

2 There is risk about conflict of interest with journal to which my paper will submit.

3 Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. I post it on talk page and want to ask other people to give me their opinions about it then I can improve my work. It’s difficult for me to discuss my work with people. I’m an engineer and don’t work in a university. However contents in my post are enough simple to be understand. I want to know if my statement is clear enough and how difficult for it to be accepted by people. I participated ICM 2010 in Hederabad. Woodschain175 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogonal lines

Hi ! I wrote a new version of orthogonal trajectory. An essential statement there is: two lines $y=m_{1}x+b_{1},y=m_{2}x+b_{2}$ intersect perpendicular, if $m_{1}\cdot m_{2}=-1$ . My question: Where (in en.wp) is this simple statement hidden ?. I would like to insert a link to this statement.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it at Perpendicular#Graph of functions, but this is well hidden for such a basic result.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You ! --Ag2gaeh (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axioms

No indeed axioms are not proven(notice causality direction). Rather it is "a thing is a proof(proven), and THEN" that is an axiom, so yes: proof --> axiom; and: no(i.e. false) axiom--->proof. Yes, yes. Perhaps you may see this then make that change yourself. Sinsearach (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your statement above makes no sense in English–which I am assuming is not your native language. You may try to express yourself more naturally in your own language and then get it translated. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh wow am I _RED_ I... I just dont know, I see that I was tired and rushed but this is very much my fist language. Wow.... Wowowowowowow. Just wow. Lets try again. An axiom is not proven, it *CAN* be something that *HAS* been proven. I.e. proof comes first, then a given thing can be an axiom, not the other way around. Sinsearach (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that is now clear (sorry about my false assumption), however it is not correct as stated. In order to make this a true statement you would need to be talking about a subject that has more than one set of defining axioms, say some theory X is given by axiom system A and also by a different axiom system B. It is possible that an axiom in system A can be proved from the axioms of system B, and so, would be a theorem of X and vice versa, however, within a fixed axiom system an axiom is a statement which is and can not be proved from the other axioms. What may be confusing you is the regrettable tendency of some modern textbook authors of calling any result that they do not wish to prove at a particular time in the narrative an axiom. This is particularly true in modern geometry texts, where early results are hard to establish, so they are brushed over by being called axioms and are then proved later when more tools are available. In a properly developed axiom system, each axiom is shown to be independent of the other axioms (meaning it can not be proved from them).--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

basic proportionality theorem

Concerning the revert [1], I agree with the revert because the information made little at that location. However the IP was not completely wrong either the "basic proportionality theorem" is another name for the intercept theorem, which is also called Thales' theorem, but the article already links to that with a had note anyhow. It seems "basic proportionality theorem" is particularly common with Indian authors and (English) math education in India (judging by Google). --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I must plead American myopticism (wd?). While I do know that you use "intercept theorem" as the name of ~~this result~~ Thales theorem, it is rare to find a name attached to the right angle result in American English elementary geometry texts, and when one does appear "Thales theorem" seems to dominate. I think that this might reflect the fact that these other names do not provide the visual sound bite of right angles in circles. Granted, Thales theorem doesn't either, but it is at least neutral in this regard. When I see the term "Thales theorem", I do not associate it with the intercept theorem, so I wasn't thinking about alternative names. Thanks for pointing out my blindfolds; I'll try to be more careful next time. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please inform me why did you revert my edits on Wikipedia page titled Infinity.

Regards, Wilkn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:C401:190:0:0:0:2 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We typically place new comments at the end of a talk page (unlike other places on the web), so I have taken the liberty of moving yours to the end.

As to why I reverted your addition to the infinity article, you should know that this had nothing to do with the content that you added, I am taking no position on that. Statements and claims of the type that you wanted to add have to be supported by citations to Wikipedia:Reliable secondary sources. This is not an option, it is a fundamental cornerstone of WP. Editors do not add their own opinions and beliefs to the encyclopedia, rather, they report what is found in the reliable literature. At the top of the editing page there is a disclaimer that says that any unsupported additions may be removed at any time. If I hadn't done this, some other editor would have. What you need to do is to find some reliable sources that support your claims in order to add them back with references. Note that "reliable" here means that the credibility of the source will be judged by various editors, so some effort is needed to make sure that the sources are good ones. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bill:

Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. Coming specifically to my edit, I did give citations from Wikipedia page itself. Please let me know what/where else would you (or any other editor) need so that the useful information may be added to the immense repertoire of Wikipedia knowledge. I am pasting my edit below for ease of reference.

The concept of infinity first originated in the Indian civilization as one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

which means. [If] That is complete (infinite), this is complete (infinite), from completeness comes completeness (infinite = infinite) Complete (infinite) minus complete (infinite), infinite remains. (infinite - infinite = infinite)

My apologies for not adding my comment at the bottom. As you may have guessed, I was not aware of the norm.

Regards, Wilkn