User talk:Daqu

Mobius strip

Per your (now deleted) comment on the talk page, there are indeed left and right handed Mobius strips. In fact, if you take the standard minimal crossing diagrams of the left and right handed trefoils, the checkerboard coloring gives the left and right handed Mobius strips. The rh and lh trefoils are different by a classical result of Dehn.

BTW, it's frowned upon by many people to remove your comment like that, even if you wish to retract them. You can either add another comment retracting it or use the strike tag ~~like this~~ to cross out your response. The reason is that the talk page is to encourage discussion and removing comments (even if they are mistaken) tends to stifle discussion. For example, consider that my first paragraph might be useful for future contributors reading the page.

Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! You may find these page useful: Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Mathematics and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Current_activity. Don't hesitate to ask me for help if you need it. --C S (Talk) 13:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and Buskin

See the revised article. - Nunh-huh 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Asimov

Hi, I reverted your edit to Isaac Asimov. If you feel /ˈæzɪˌmɔf/ is off the mark, please tell us why you think so, at Talk:Isaac Asimov#IPA. Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millihelen

It sounds plausible that Isaac Asimov coined "millihelen", but where is the evidence/documentation? Even finding an early use in his writing would be a good start. The earliest use in Google Books is 1970 (possibly; full text is not available); one book mentions Denis Norden as having coined it, but that book was published in 2003 and gives no source.... --Macrakis 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Jonathan Raban article

You mindless and needlessly deleted the entire article on the author, Jonathan Raban, without any proper explanation. Please can you explain the rationale for your actions? Ivankinsman 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numb3rs

I have no recollection of making the edit you described to me. I have looked at "my contributions" and the only edit I made was a small grammar update edit by changing "has been" to "was". Furthermore, by looking through the history of the page, if I compare the edits you made on May 5th, the change you claim I made was your own doing. --CmaccompH89 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I'm glad that the issue was resolved easily. Cheers. --CmaccompH89 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for your message on my talk page. Yes I have a few user boxes, but nowhere near as many as some folks do! As for the graphic on the punctuation box (the code for which, by the way is {{User british quotes}}), I guess it depends whether the quoted text is a question. Not quite sure though why the Olivia Judson article would lead you to my user page... – ukexpat (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK I see now. To be honest I don't even remember reverting that vandalism, I was patrolling recent changes with WP:Huggle and didn't pay attention to the article names. – ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rock-paper-scissors magmas?

Hello-

I noticed belatedly that you'd commented on this, and I wanted to bring your attention back to it, since you appear to know more about abstract algebra than me. At the talk page for Example of a commutative non-associative magma, I commented on my problem with what's there. What do you think? To me it looks bogus, in which case, I'll get rid of its reference in the RPS article. Thanks! Cretog8 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

four quantifiers

Hi, I just noticed your comment at the talk page of limit of a function concerning the difficulty of the definition. I think your point is well taken. Believe it or not, there is a radically simple solution to the problem; see non-standard calculus. Katzmik (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment at my talk page: there is a common misconception that non-standard analysis is based on a different system of axioms as compared to ordinary analysis. This is not the case. Namely, NSA is based on ZFC, just as ordinary standard analysis does (as opposed to the constructivist approach). To help understand NSA, some authors have developed systems of axioms for it. However, this took place after NSA was constructed within ZFC. I suggest you read the lead paragraph, recently added by Charles Matthews, at Criticism of non-standard analysis. Katzmik (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question about infimum of the empty set

Daqu: I removed your question from Katzmik and copied it to User talk:Katzmik, as I believe is the appropriate ettiquette. Also I gave an explanation and evidence to confirm that what Katzmik said is in fact a standard convention (although not defining the inf/sup of the empty set is also a standard convention). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plclark (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pupusa and Parantha

These Pupusa look just like stuffed Parantha, just that these pupusa are made from corn, rather than wheat flour. Any thoughts???? EyeMD ^T|C 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]