User talk:Beoknoc

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


Hello, Beoknoc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

the text[edit]

Here's what this user added:

A simple way to calculate the LCM:
We will use 12 and 5 for out examples.
To fine the LCM of two numbers, put the larger of the two over the smaller in a fration (larger=numerator, smaller=denominator
Then you simplify the numbers (if they can't be simplified, as in this case, put the same improper fraction next to the original), and put the simplified version next to the unsilmplified version.
12/5 12/5
Then you cross multiply.
12 x 5, 12x 5. (numerator of original times denominator of simplified version)
In this case, the answer is 60.
Developed by Ben Cook (Aged 12 at the time) with help from Rob Cook (Also see Renderman computer graphics program, developed in part by Rob Cook).

I'm guessing "simplify" means reduce to lowest terms. But I should not have to guess. It would be better to use as an example a fraction that is not already in lowest terms, so that this step would not be vacuous. Thus, starting with 12/8, we get:


Then it says "cross-multiply". In this case, that would seem to mean multiply the numerator of either fraction by the denominator of the other:

3\times 8 = 24,\ \ 2\times 12= 24.

My main objection to the proposal that this is a new method is that it is not appreciably different from the method already given in the article. It does appear to take into account very well the fact that one should cancel before multiplying. That simple point is frustratingly difficult to get through the heads of many otherwise sensible people. The method could perhaps be called notationally different from the one already present in the article, in a way that has the meritorious psychological effect of forcing the mathematically naive user to remember this often forgotten trivial point. So if some version of this is to be added to the article, that should probably be the central point. As a matter of mathematics, rather than of this psychological point, there's no real novelty.

I'll return to this tomorrow...

All the misspellings and sloppy formatting and less-than-clear writing and so on don't make a good impression. If one tries to ignore all that, then the above appears to me to set this thing in the best possible light.

I'll sleep on this and come back tomorrow... Michael Hardy 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your message. I agree with you completly. Please change the article to use the examples you used (12+8). Also, please fix the "sloppy formatting" and the misspellings. I would appriciate it, however, if you did not delete the article.

Thanks, beoknoc 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of battles in the middle ages.[edit]

I am working on an article on the battle formations/strategys of the middle ages. if anyone has any info on this, please do tell. beoknoc 04:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Branson School[edit]

Hi there, I deleted the article because it was a copyright violation. i.e. it was composed entirly of copyrighted material. If you want to recreate the article in your own words please feel free to do so. Thank you--DO11.10 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)