User talk:Paul August/Archive21

Distracting animation at Euclid algorithm

I was VERY bold (as much to make a point and get some dialog going) and pasted in some still drawings in the lead. I hate to muck with a FA, but I'm sorry, IMHO that animation is worse than useless, it's so distracting I don't want to read the lead, plus it delivers no information (and apparently the information is wrong, or misleading per dialog just above my posting on the talk page. Anyway I saw you felt the same way back in 2009, just wanted to let you know I support your opinion. There's some really interesting math going on once a person realizes how the proof works, but you can't find it from that animation. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It got reverted quickly, which was no surprise. I put it back, but I'm sure it will be gone in an hour. BillWvbailey (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a comment on the talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Algebra Article

Hi Paul, you reverted my Linear Algebra edit. I respect your opinion but I spent some time rewording the introduction and I would appreciate some feedback where you thought my editing was not clear. Personally I think the article could use a lot of improvement, and I've made a post on the talk page about this. Loadedsalt (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll respond on the talk page, when I get a chance (I'm traveling all day today). Paul August ☎ 10:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and the welcome!

Since most of what I do here is copy editing, I'm particularly pleased to be directed to the style manual.

Surely I've mentioned to you that I was surprised to learn that I know two categorical topologists. Unless, of course, another of those cognitive lapses has occurred.

Best, M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Michael Massing (talk • contribs) 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Glancing over some recent items here, I found myself asking: If Jesus was Jewish, does it follow that he is a figure in Jewish mythology? ;^) Michael (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing two categorical topologists is surprising, who is the other? You probably told me, but if so I've forgotten. Paul August ☎ 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Farris is completing a PhD at Berkeley, if memory serves. He is also a student of Urdu and an aficionado of Bollywood film and the culture(s) related to both. He has a presence amongst my friends at Facebook, where I understand you do not tread, on Live Journal, and perhaps other places. Ah, of course there's his page at Berkeley. I'd forgotten he'd been mayor of Cambridge. ;^) Please excuse me if I've got his field wrong. Remember, my class is the one that never quite made it to calculus. Best, Michael (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He looks a bit different than the Anthony Galluccio (good guy bad driver) I know.

I am astonished at lack of an entry for diseasome.

I am astonished at lack of an entry for diseasome. Best, Michael (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT ;-) Paul August ☎ 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Phooey! I thought you might be inspired. Alas, I can only write for money these days. I'm sure someone will fill the gap. Best, Michael (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone

I see that this article, which is currently being radically restructured, is on your Watchlist. I shall remove it from mine, as vetting the diffs wears my patience and I trust your judgment that nothing of value is being lost or blurred.--Wetman (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on my watchlist for the same reason that I slow down when passing a car wreck. It used to be a fairly sweet and neo-something kind of article that one might hope to plump up with some scholarship one day. It's now become a pathless wilderness (all trees, no forest). Not to mention the breathless syntax of the first paragraph. And the strange relation of spacing (or the lack thereof) to punctuation. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax man to the rescue! Well, the first paragraph is readable now. The second looks like it could use some pruning, but that's probably a question beyond my expertise. Best to all, Michael (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, learning that we have a Syntax Man has begun my day with a smile. I'm picturing the cloak and mask. And thanks, more readable now. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you all to have a conversation on my page while I was away ...

Wetman, unfortunately that would be a misplaced "trust". Paul August ☎ 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about all the empty pizza boxes around the place. And the broken lamp. You really should get a lock for that liquor cabinet. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC

Oh well, mei domus est tui domus. Paul August ☎ 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the cat's away, the mice will play. Am I to assume your tongue is planted firmly in cheek in not writing "domus mea est domus tua"? Michael (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's form is the genitive pronoun; both versions are technically correct, but your personal adjectives are less likely in a sentence with the main verb est, where I'd probably use a so-called 'dative of possession' and no verb for aphoristic effect: domus mihi, domus tibi. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(On second thought I like pork better than squab.) I chose Latin (albeit pidgin) as a nod to Cynwolfe, perhaps I should have instead written ymay ousehay isway ouryay ousehay. Paul August ☎ 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Technically correct, I meant to say. Correct, they were both correct. Didn't have my contacts in this morning, geez, ended up sounding like a scold instead of playing along. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So my Latin wasn't so squab like after all? And meanwhile poor Persephone ... and now Lamia as well ... Paul August ☎ 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just an eejit. Or rather, it's as if some mutant neural pathway has formed in my brain, and I'm constantly inserting negatives where they don't go. (Some might consider this righteous retribution for my overly critical nature.) This is especially embarrassing in emails to my dearest family members and friends, where I'm likely to say things like "of course I don't love you." Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Paul August ☎ 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, Cynwolfe! Yes, neither Paul's version nor mine sounded especially idiomatic; thanks for giving the thing the proper swing. Alas, I never developed a sense of style, ending my studies stumbling through Gaius Julius Junior's impedimenta in Gaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Michael Massing (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much ended my studies with Maria habuit parvum agnum. Paul August ☎ 13:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I pick your brain?

Hello Paul and sorry for bothering you, but would you please chip in here, if you can? It's a point of procedure regarding Implementation notes on Noleander's arbcom case. Again, sorry for the intrusion and thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Hydaspes

Hi. Please see Cleanup necessary?. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double votes

Right; I started, but had to leave before I could finish. Cool Hand Luke 09:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now I see. Paul August ☎ 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First choice, second choice

This whole thing always drives me insane. Could you please check my implementation notes for the AE case, especially for R1 to R3.1? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid

If you have the time, could you keep a watchful eye on Euclid? I just deleted renewed speculation, inserted as fact, that Euclid was of Egyptian origin. I've had very little time for Wikipedia in recent months. This is the first time I looked in on this article since December, so today's was just a lucky catch. Thank you.—Finell 23:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in template

Hello.

Can you do something about the bug described at Template talk:SmithDGRA? Michael Hardy (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I'll take a look when I get a chance. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I've (finally) taken a look at the comment you left on Template talk:SmithDGRA, and replied there. Paul August ☎ 12:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on totally bounded spaces

Would you be able to provide a reference or proof of your claim that "a metric space is separable if and only if it is homeomorphic to a totally bounded metric space?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.28.144 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: Willard, Stephen (2004). General Topology. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-43479-6., p. 182. Paul August ☎ 16:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul

	Hi Paul
	I saw that you deleted my edits to the 'derivative' page, saying that 'these edits are incorrect'. I'm confused, what parts were incorrect? Evan2718281828 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, this is how to write a message.

So I made edits to the intro to the derivatives page and tried to make it much clearer for people just learning without removing any info. But you deleted the edits and said that they were incorrect, so I wanted to know why; I of course didn't see any flaws in my edits, and I certainly need to know if I have the concept of a derivative all wrong! haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan2718281828 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Evan. This is not Paul; but I was going to write you a note about your edits and I saw that you had posted here asking for clarification.

You wrote that "a derivative can be thought of as the rate of change in slope." This is not true. If you use the function to draw a graph, then the derivative is the closest thing there is to the slope of the graph at a point. The rate of change of the slope would be the second derivative. Furthermore, the interpretation as a slope is only one of many. If you interpret f as a function that takes time as an input and gives position as an output, then the derivative represents velocity (the idea of "slope of position with respect to time" doesn't make sense).

Two other things. First, we don't usually use asterisks for footnotes here on Wikipedia. The software has a built-in mechanism using <ref> tags. You can look at WP:NOTES if you're interested. Second, you referred to the increment h as a "random variable". But random variable has a jargon meaning in probability, so that's not a good word for h.

I hope you're not too disappointed about having your first edits reverted. I appreciate your eagerness to participate. It's always good to have new editors around! You might want to join the mathematics Wikiproject. We're based at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Most project discussion and organization happens at that page's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I hope you'll consider joining! Ozob (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ozob for your reply to Evan. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evan. I reverted your edits for all of the reasons Ozob gives above. A good idea is to discuss proposed changes first on the given article's talk page, for the Derivative article that, would be at Talk:Derivative. Best wishes, Paul August ☎ 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on Arbcom candidates

Hi Paul - as you may be aware, there is currently an RFC related to the next Arbitration Committee election. A suggestion has been raised with respect to statistical information about arbitrators seeking re-election here. As I know you have been quite industrious in collecting this sort of information, perhaps you could comment? Risker (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see. Paul August ☎ 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium

How do I go about getting Otium reassessed to possible B-Class and getting a higher assessment of "importance"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doug, but I don't participate in, or know much about article assessment, nor do I happen to know much about the article's topic either, so I'm afraid I am not going to be much help here. But goof luck and keep up the good work. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mithraic mysteries

Yes it was inadvertent. since I was manually reverting anyway I wouldn't have got a prompt.©Geni 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]