User talk:Isacdaavid

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

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

GNU MediaGoblin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

tausif r (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for reviewing and accepting it. Since it's my first article I thought it would be better to ask for opinion.--Isacdaavid (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Linux article question[edit]

Hi, I'm Medende. As you have found out, there are a bunch of invasive people who are privately imposing the developments of the Linux article. They have being doing so for at least quite a few years now. I want to get rid of them, and let the Linux article be reshaped to reflect the real world. You are welcome to support my poll about the Linux-GNU/Linux controversy at the end of Medende (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metronome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audacity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm DragonLord. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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.

Your edit used the term "Digital Restrictions Management", replacing "rights" with "restrictions" in the original term "digital rights management". This replacement is common among anti-DRM advocates who want to emphasize that DRM restricts legal uses of copyrighted content. However, as much as we hate DRM, this phrasing is non-neutral because it favors this anti-DRM position. DragonLordtalk/contribs 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Church–Turing thesis[edit]

Please revisit your statement in the intro to the Church-Turing Thesis, as it is inaccurate as written and could potentially confuse some readers. The Church-Turing thesis is about the nature of computability: i.e., what it means to calculate something. It's a stretch to say that the thesis is about the ability of software to simulate hardware and vice versa. For example, Kurt Godel's work on general recursion is neither about hardware nor software. Instead, it defines a class of mathematical functions. Any function whose values can be calculated can be re-written as a generally recursive function. It's not just about computers -- it's about the deep connections between all these attempts to define what it means to compute something, be they mechanistic (Turing machine), algorithmic (lambda calculus), or mathematical (general recursion).

The ability of general purpose software systems to simulate general purpose computer hardware is a consequence of a related but independent idea: Turing completeness. Your statement is an informal way of thinking about Turning completeness.

@Ross Fraser: I am willing to improve the statement, but I'm afraid you have failed to present valid arguments against its current incarnation and its suitability as part of the introduction to the Church-Turing thesis. Firstly, you claim it may confuse readers because it goes beyond the academical scope of the thesis, however, my sentence is an attempt at presenting ordinary readers with the real world implications (factually true implications, I think) that arise from it. Wikipedia strives to make its content intriguing to and readable by non-experts, specially in the lead paragraph; so the validity of my statement should be disputed solely on its factual accuracy. You claimed (without further details) the sentence is inaccurate and then you wrote a quite nice brief about Church-Turing's thesis which I think makes nothing but reaffirm its accuracy. Here's why:
The Church-Turing thesis is about the nature of computability, what it means to carry out an effective method. Granted, but not only this. The Church-Turing thesis is also about the tested equivalence of all those models for computation you just mentioned (UTMs, recursive functions, lambda calculus) and the intuition that they must conform the true nature of computability. Of course involving actual hardware and actual software (computing devices) into the scene is a stretch, it doesn't make it inaccurate though. I would like to point out that no specific hardware or software implementations were advertised, just "hardware" and "software". I would also like to interject about the bad distinction you made when you classified the involved models: all lambda calculus, algorithms, recursive functions and Turing machines (just as finite state automata) are defined in mathematical terms; moreover, lambda calculus may be regarded as a notation for recursive functions and Turing machines aren't exempt of being abstract models having a set of rules or instructions that work just like specific functions that together are called the "transition function", not coincidently. In a nutshell, saying Gödel's general recursion is mathematical whereas lambda calculus and Turing machines aren't is nonsense.
In any case, to claim that Turing-complete hardware is capable of simulating Turing-complete-like or lesser software and the other way around is of great concern to the Church-Turing Thesis article. It's true that in the end computer programs are actually performed by hardware, nonetheless it wouldn't be different if one analytically carried out those algorithms using lambda calculus (which serves as model for many programming languages) or recursivity; because the Church-Turing thesis says those are equivalent and mutually imitable ways of computing. Note how functional programming languages are actually functional in the mathematical sense. Other interesting mathematical results like the Curry–Howard correspondence show software is a mathematical object, a formal logical proof to be precise. Did you notice I also added a link to Turing completeness? That wasn't a confusion but a genuine link that would help readers know why all forms of Turing-complete hardware are theoretically equivalent, just as Turing-complete machines, Post machines, general recursive functions, and lambda calculus are equivalent per Church-Turing's thesis.
Yes, my edit sounds terribly informal, that was on purpose. That's why I decided to append it to a paragraph that already talked about the informal meaning of the thesis and took care with the wording while also trying not to be too technical. Please feel free to write back if you can point me out specific inaccuracies. --isacdaavid 20:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DRM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility Toolkit[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to this article, but by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles like Accessibility Toolkit. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times there, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Factually wrong. "GNU/Linux" is a term promoted by the FSF and its supporters but not only the FSF and its supporters. I can give you over 50 prominent users of that term which aren't affiliated to the FSF, GNU or their sub-projects.
I'm well aware of the consensus and the talk pages you are pointing out, and I still disagree with the resolution (quite controversial to say the least) and will pretty much continue improving the English-language Wikipedia the way I deem intellectually correct unless a reasonable argument makes me change my mind.
Not only this consensus is misguided, but it also isn't properly observed by its promoters. You and MOS:LINUX say verbatim that:

operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux"

yet I don't see the Android (operating system) article being merged or renamed into Linux because it is exactly that: an operating system that uses the Linux kernel.
I am willing to defend my case at Talk:Linux, but I wouldn't wait until I'm given communal green light to fix this naming issue that can't be simply decided through a voting process; because in fact I have already appeared a few times at Talk:Linux, and I can tell that what you describe as soundly and conclusively opposed is a very hyperbolic claim to say the least, which simply neglects all the countless Wikipedians and reliable sources that want to use "GNU/Linux" for very good reasons. Meanwhile you can expect me to keep changing "Linux" to "GNU/Linux" when it is semantically appropriate to do so. I am sorry if this means doing more work for you and for me. --isacdaavid 05:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend that you pursue a new consensus, as intentionally editing against a long-standing consensus like this can be seen as intentional disruption and may result in a block. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added my comment. --isacdaavid 00:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)