User talk:Arthur Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2015 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status[edit]

I'm not spending as much time here as I would like, with taking care of my wife, four three cats, and looking for paying work. If I don't respond to a problem, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed it.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Deleted external link in article Doubling the cube[edit]

Hi Arthur,
is the construction too complicated or too extensive? The basic principle is relatively simple. Application from intercept theorem in combination with number line. [1] How should it be shown that it can at least be put into external links. In Wikibooks is a description unfortunately seen only in German. Please excuse my English. I hope you can understand me, my school is very far back. [2] Greeting --Petrus3743 (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Petrus3743: I'm sure your English is better than my German. However, the construction is trivial, in a sense. For both squaring the circle and duplicating the cube, you can approximate the constant \sqrt \pi or \sqrt[3]2 by a rational number, and use the intercept theorem to construct that rational number. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I obviously had the wrong opinion an approximate construction could be interesting, at which the accuracy can be determined in advance. --Petrus3743 (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Petrus3743: A note on approximate constructions probably should be in compass-and-straightedge constructions, and that image seems appropriate as an illustration for that section. Let me see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin:Thanks, I would be very pleased if it were possible.--Petrus3743 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Keep up the awesome work!!! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

can i[edit]

Dear Arthur, Can I contact you on linkedin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.206.104 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

From SergeyLiflandsky[edit]

I don't agree with you that the estimates on the matrix norms I added are "not useful" as you say. In many proofs it is convenient to use those estimates. If you think that the notations were not consistent with the rest of the articles you could fix the notations. Those estimates would be convenient and useful to most wikipedia users! You don't simply remove 1,200 lines of somebody's work. What you are doing is a brutal vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 17:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@SergeyLifiandsky:. The section you added to Matrix norm deserves a line to the effect that
\| A \| _2 \leq \| A \| _F. The proof adds nothing. General consensus, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs#Proofs within articles, is that proofs should not be in articles unless they (the proofs) are themselves an appropriate topic of interest, or contain an elegant proof method. Neither holds for any of your recent (past 3 months) additions of proofs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard of this consensus, and it makes no sense to me. When I look up anything related to mathematics I want to see the proof of it every time, even if it is not the shortest possible proof or the most elegant proof there is. A proof is better than no proof. The more material there is in wikipedia the better and more complete it is (as long as there is no wrong content). So unless there is some unlikely storage crisis on the server common sense suggest that more is better. As for you saying that I contributed no elegant or interesting proofs I suggest that you read the proof of Kummer's test I added. It is short beautiful , elegant , rarely taught at any of the standard courses in calculus, and implies easily many interesting results, such as , the Gauss convergence tests and Rabbe's test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 14:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Stop vandalising my work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 14:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Quit your VANDALISM! This proof is a generalization of other proofs if anything else, because this tests implies the other tests. Quit vandalising my work and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are treating wikipedia like some scientific journal that seeks innovation. Wikipedia is not about innovation, it is about making things that are already known quickly available for the masses. It is much easier to find a proof in Wikipedia than to look it up in some textbook. Despite all your awards as wikipedia editor, your are ruining wikipedia for most users and I'm certain that wikipedia will be better off without editors like you. You want to keep vandalising correct proofs I spent hours on writing go ahead. You will only deter people form contributing to wikipedia, or make them vandalise your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@SergeyLiflandsky: It seems you are ignoring WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Many of your proofs would be appropriate in a textbook (or an exercise in a textbook), but proofs similar to existing proofs are not appropriate in a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a new editor and to be honest I didn't spend hours reading all those detail guidelines and policies regarding proofs that you mentioned. I use common sense. According to you if someone adds to wikipedia more details about the intimate life of some pornstar, or more details on how the critics responded to some failed film it is good and interesting. But when someone adds a mathematical proof it is uninteresting and bad. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, and I chose to share my knowledge of the proof. When the proof is written the user can choose either to read or not to read it and thus obviously a written proof is better than no proof. What you do is exactly the opposite of what wikipedia intends, because you block people from accessing the knowledge I chose to share. If there were mistakes in the proof I would applause anyone who removes such a proof. However if it is the punctuation or the style that you don't like, then do something useful and improve it! Regarding the proof of the Weierstrass M-test. You claim that you have cleaned it up. In fact you made it far less readable. There is enough space on the servers of wikipedia to store those extra few words of clarification. You minimalist approach is detrimental. It seems to me you really want to know how it feels to be an editor of the Annals of Mathematics. But your are not an editor there , and wikipedia is not the Annals of Mathematics so please stop your vandalism. One more thing that you need to understand. If someone looks up for something in wikipedia it is most likely that he is a student and not a professor of mathematics from Harvard university. Therefore it is our goal to make wikipedia more useful to the majority of the users, and make it look more like a textbook rather than a brief summery of topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 07:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Uniform convergence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I may agree with you that the proof on uniform convergence is unnecessary but it is still written the unwritten. About Kummer's test I think we got some mutual understanding. Regarding the Weierstrass M-test in my opinion you did a horrible job. An article in wikipedia is not supposed to look like a competition in understanding long dull strings in the formal symbolic language of set theory. A proof should be readable. I think that you will agree with me that a professional mathematician will not be looking for a proof of the Weierstrass M-test. If anybody is looking for it it is most likely a student that struggles to understand the subject. Now thanks to instead of having a readable easy to understand proof he gets to read those dull strings in the formal language. Seriously wikipedia will be better off without editors like you. Now please get a life and either contribute a proof of your own or go sabotage someone else's work. I strongly recommend that you will start editing articles in wikipedia concerned with lives of pornstars and start deleting details about their lives which you find uninteresting, or even better try rewriting those details in the formal language of set theory. If you will succeed in this I will acknowledge your genius! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talkcontribs) 10:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Terradactyl (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nerdy Question[edit]

Why do you use quotes at the Earth system science page in referring to me as the "moderator"? Do you have an objection to my moderation, which I will consider, or are you just using philosopher's quotes, or what? Again, no offense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No offense intended, but I didn't think that "moderator" was the "official" term. Actually, I don't remember you using it. And, I was referring to the comment above on the talk page, and I'm my smartphone, making it difficult to check multiple windows. I (probably) won't do it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
We are cool. No problem. I am the volunteer moderator or mediator in the discussion, until I give up on it. Thank you for being reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Golden wedding[edit]

Hello, would you please create a disambiguation page for Golden Wedding? Currently this phrase redirects to Wedding anniversary. I am not sure how to do this. The new page should also list the tune The Golden Wedding and the play by Desfontaines-Lavallée ----Design (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Design: Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hexadecimal[edit]

In re this, what are the colors supposed to mean? --JBL (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis:
  • Green = factors of B
  • Blue = factors of B-1
  • Orange = factors of B+1
  • Red = other primes.
Green, Blue, and Red are mentioned (but not defined) in the table header.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones[edit]

Hey Arthur, re: this edit summary, I checked and the site/article displays a bit funny on my (android) phone, mainly because the actual list of people (and linked articles about each of them) don't display.

If your phone handles it the same way, that may explain why we disagree over what it verifies. Maybe load it up on a non-mobile browser when you get it a chance. We'll probably still disagree over how to use/interpret it - but it does sound like you might be missing some of the content. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating a DRAFT for the RfC mentioned on the recent DR/N case[edit]

I am creating a page on my userspace's sandbox to discuss the creation of an RfC and its wording to settle the dispute filed at the DR/N here, since there seemed to be 3 out 4 (5?) editors that agreed to using an RfC to settle the contested changes. The draft page can be found at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Draft_RfC_for_Earth_System_Science. Please do not comment on the RfC on this talkpage, comment on the Discussion section on the Sandbox page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center[edit]

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: 100.2.244.59[edit]

Arthur, can you follow-up on the warning you left at User talk:100.2.244.59? They have continued calling people out as transphobic and generally done nothing but stir the pot on the Caitlyn Jenner talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)