User talk:CES1596

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding the Information page[edit]

You made an edit to the Information page that was wrong. A wave is not information it is a medium for information transfer. Your contribution is good, but it would work better in a different place in the Information article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I used the term in mathematical sense. Probably a signal is a better definition in this context. CES1596 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert that change, but I still do not think you have strengthened the description. A sign is a type of symbol, and a signal is the carrier not information in the strictest sense. The sentence you modified is meant to define information in the strictest sense. These additions really belong in a different place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change my opinion. A sign is not a type of symbol according the the pages linked here. A symbol is a unit of information (by agreed convention), and a sign is a unit of meaning (again by convention). Information is much more finely grained than meaning (in the most technical sense). Therefore, I would like to recommend that the association of signs with information be moved out of the "most technical sense" sentence (which is an information technology definition) and either added to the "as a concept" sentence or separated into a different sentence. It is good to cross link the sign page early in this article, but it is breaking the stronger and more standard definition of information in the lead paragraph of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly modified the technical definition. I think it is consistent with the contents, especially with the description on the property in physics. CES1596 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this really recovers the elementary definition. In information processing, the information is the central theme and the processing techniques are pretty well analyzed. The objective is to transform the content in the information from one format into another format. The medium is often insignificant. The meaning is usually preserved, but often the order and/or importance of different aspects of the meaning get reorganized. But the actual information is always recognized as the sequence of symbols. The symbols get changed and the order gets changed because that is all that information processing does. If you redefine "the most technical sense" to be the medium or the meaning or the general message encoded in the information, you have lost the technical definition of information. The previous definition was concise and precise. I am going to make a small modification which restores the technical definition and incorporates your point. Please check it and see if your content is fairly represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean characters by symbols, but a sequence of symbols, or a word, is also a medium to convey an image or a sound. That is why I define information as a wave. We cannot define information as a sequence of symbols, while we define a symbol as a piece of information. CES1596 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. A symbol is a member of an alphabet that caries the information by agreed convention (whether the alphabet comprises just two symbols or a large set of characters). For example in Morse code there are 5 symbols: a short on, a long on, a short off (within a character), a long off (between words) and an extended long off (the no information pause). So, the origin of the information is in the convention.

Having complementary definitions is never a problem when the terms being defined are common. They all acquire their meaning from agreed convention. Look at any published dictionary and you will quickly find groups of synonyms that are all mutually defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of rationalism to the formal sciences[edit]

I'd like to draw your attention to a question I posed on the talk page of Formal science.  --Lambiam 05:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HITACHI SR2201[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HITACHI SR2201, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.netlib.org/utk/papers/advanced-computers.0/sr2201.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Hitachi SR2201[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hitachi SR2201, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.netlib.org/utk/papers/advanced-computers.0/sr2201.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Hitachi SR2201 saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not a word-for-word copy, the article remains largely a close paraphrase and needs verifiable permission from the copyright holder or rewritten in your own words. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote another version. It contains some phrases from the original papers, but I think it is reasonable. CES1596 (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for K computer[edit]

Hi. I've nominated K computer, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bruce1eetalk 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for K computer[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

For your wide range of edits across Wikipedia I give you this cookie. Yum :) Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supercomputer WP:BRD[edit]

I have had to revert you per WP:BRD on Supercomputer. Please discuss on talk before further reverts and justify the addition of duplicate items. Please avoid an edit war on this. Per WP:BRD no further reverts should take place by you now. Not a big issue, just a question of duplication. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The history ariticle only mentions the TOP500 list since 1993. The list includes the supercomputers manufactured before 1993. CES1596 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But don't you think that those would better belong on that article instead? It's pretty bulky to be on the main article. Also, you're right at 3RR rule right now, FYI.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD and Edit war warning[edit]

CES1596, please consider this a warning regarding your recent edits. This is really not a huge issue and your sudden edits with no discussion run against Wiki-protocol. Should you continue your Wiki-access may be blocked. As is you are a minority opinion, in that I agree with Jasper Deng. Please handle this ina civil manner without knee-jerk reverts and respect Wiki protocols. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should explain why you changed the title and the description of the table. Was it by mistake or by some intention? Currently the data before 1993 are lost. They should be restored to somewhere. CES1596 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Mfield (Oi!) 05:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one[edit]

This one might (finally) stick :-)

But please considider providing an edit summary with your edits? Thanks and keep up the good work. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Also section of Earthquake article[edit]

Hi CES1596, I reverted your addition of gravity anomaly to the 'see also' section of the earthquake article, because I don't see anything other than the most indirect of links between the contents of the two articles. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I attached a figure from Gravity of Earth instead, which seems to suggest the mechanism. Heavy objects sink and light objects float. Sinking crust is compressed by gravity, and melts to become magma with nuclear reaction. CES1596 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've removed that image as well. To be in the article it has to be relevant and that image doesn't appear to be even vaguely relevant. Plate tectonics is accepted as the main driver for earthquakes, either directly or indirectly, and that explains the figures already in the article - we don't need anything here that addresses the underlying mechanism for plate motion, although I don't think that the image adds to that either. Also note that partial melting involves nothing nuclear. Mikenorton (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gravity anomaly can explain the orientation of the plate motion. It is a question of vital importance to some countries. Nuclear reaction explains the distribution of volcanoes and natural resources like helium in volcanic gas. CES1596 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know of any countries that think that gravity anomalies are of 'vital importance' to understanding earthquakes. As to Helium, it is a result of radioactive decay, which is also one of the main heat sources in the earth's interior. However, that's not related to the formation of magma, which is normally the result of either higher than normal concentrations of water (as above a subducting slab) or a reduction in pressure that leads to decompression melting such as is found during rifting. Mikenorton (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plate techtonics assumes heat is the driving force of plate motion. But we can also assume the amplification of density imblance is the driving force. It also explains the movement of hotspots. CES1596 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slab pull is thought to be the dominant driving force for plate motion and you're right, that is the result of a density imbalance. That still doesn't explain why a gravity anomaly map is appropriate, as we can't see the highly dense slabs using gravity data, although we can see them using seismic tomography. Mikenorton (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dense slabs eventually sink with the subducting slabs. The slab pull theory considers the vertical gravity, but we also have to consider the horizontal gravity. CES1596 (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

Hello CES1596, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 15:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. I will take care. --CES1596 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical sciences has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Mathematical sciences, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, CES1596. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, CES1596. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CES1596&oldid=1065964305"