User talk:99.249.36.41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Dawnseeker2000. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Blue Screen of Death ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Boolean algebra, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You still haven't explained why the table is relevant to that article, and your comment on "recursive functions" is just nonsense. Please see my PhD thesis to see that I am an expert in that field. See the talk page and make your explanation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 99.249.36.41. You have new messages at Arthur Rubin's talk page.
Message added 20:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent editing history at Boolean algebra shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop[[edit]

Because you have damaged others' comments on my talk page, please do not write further on my talk page. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way your comments are appropriate for any article on Wikipedia; as they are your own research, try Wikibooks or Wikiversity.

Even if your work had been published, much of what you've written is just wrong. I've pointed you to two articles which already have what parts of your essay make sense, except for the specific Godelization, which should be written in binary notation rather than as . Many of your comments (specifically, the ones relating to an even number of 1's) are irrelevant; it is true that each of the truth functions on two variables with an odd number of ones, together with negation, form a complete system, and the ones with an even number of ones, together with negation, do not. But that has nothing to do with any of the Boolean algebra articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


My sincere apologies for my wiki screw up - details at the end.

This particular abstraction is in the middle of the post:

or

GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fij=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)

with specific parameterized function calls does define a Boolean Algebra and is easily implemented.

This has everything to with the andragogical and pedagogical exposition of the subject in a succint, highly symmetric AND comprehensively complete form so this same material can effectively be used to construct working computers: Karnaugh maps, normal forms - conjuctive or disjunctive, adders, program counters, ... There is nothing original in the subject matter - it has all been published in one form or another (much of it over 30 years ago). Wikipeadia has much of the material but not all of it.

The allusion to the limitations of soft tissue computing was not accidental which is why the unequivOcal use of not just an abstract machine paradigm was used, but actual programming to show that there is "meaning" in what was, and was to be, presented.

Please stop[ ... oakely doakely ... though wikipedia does not have it, the science still exists. Many of Kee Duedney's books such as "The Tinkertoy Computer and Other Machinations" deal with this issue.

ref: The Tinkertoy Computer

in passing - deleting "'equal equal' Please stop[ 'equal equal'" will regretably cause havoc - presumably verbatim quoting of the same will likely also cause havoc - also both [[1]] and [[2]] are both authored by myself - this wiki problem might be resolved with the use of cookies or not, or by registering as an author - the anonymous wiki authorship identification makes new entries when different services are used to host the connection, with the unfortunate consequence different source IP addresses manifest as different posts of the original - the content of the first post, now irrelevent, was deleted in its entirety, 'equal equal' line included, and replaced with a redirection reference to the second posting with the unfortunate consequence the redirect became appended to the post preceeding the irrelevent one and when trying to fix it, well ...

Sorry, it was not intentional, I did not discover this wikipeadia fault intolerance until damage was done. Such are the limitations of soft tissue computing.

99.249.36.41 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but destroying others' comments is one of the more serious forms of destructive behavior on Wikipedia, only exceeded by modifying others' comments. Still, I'm sure none of this is relevant in Boolean algebra, and little is at all relevant anywhere on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to

18 re: functional boolean algebra enumeration and 19 re: functional boolean algebra enumeration

these were both authored by myself (I can return to the IP 209.112.38.~254 to edit this commentary) as stated "... also both 1 and 2 are both authored by myself ..." (interesting Freudian emphasis on both).

As for modifying [17 Hoping you can help] as stated above I did not know that, when modifying a comment, if the 'equal equal' top line is deleted then the content becomes appended to the previous comment. It was not intentional and I've apologized also to the author of that compromised comment.

So the problem is redundant redundancy from the existence of 18 and 19 that could have been easily rectified if all but the top 'equal equal' line in 18 were modified to reference the new content in 19. (Especially rectified if the 19 clone did not exist in the first place.)

Why the wiki environs made the #19 clone I have no idea. Why the wiki commenting environ is so sensitive to this editing error I have no idea. Given the sensitivity, the 'equal equal' line should be isolated on a separate edit field above the main content editing area to avoid this unintentional editing error. (I have since found other anecdotal information regarding this issue on wikipedia with similar suggestions, pro and con.)

It was an accident with no vandalistic, destructive or malicious intent. I am too busy assisting and encouraging others in their endeavours and efforts to be subversive.


Forgot to sign above again (from 99.249.36.41). Couldn't remoniker to 209.112.38.~254 (service saturation) A correction or two from -

209.112.39.230 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)