- 1 Warning Templates
- 2 Re: Kepler Fraud
- 3 WP-Disruption, Functions and Mbachtold
- 4 Edit-war
- 5 "arctan" vs. "Arctan"
- 6 Ellipse revert
- 7 List of numbers and 22.214.171.124
- 8 Inverse proportion square root seems new to you?
- 9 Conchoid of Dürer
- 10 Nonagon
- 11 Lead
- 12 Primary reference on Foata's transition lemma
- 13 Brocard's problem.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fibonacci number: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.
Re: Kepler Fraud
Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion
WP-Disruption, Functions and Mbachtold
Currently I am in a somewhat excited mood about -as it appears to me- WP-customary behaviour against editors, not only in the usual realm of those who taste like newbies or not-full-blown professionals, who dare to oppose to reverting their attempts, where Mbachtold belongs to, but mostly because of the deleting and closing of matters belonging to Michael Hardy. I consider it to be beyond me to discuss this matter, I just remark that I already "know" Izno, and that I have seen Admins at work, and -predominantly- that I rather would retain MH in exchange for some of these admins.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't bother you, if it were not for
Your comments are laced with personal attacks, typically a sign of immature frustration, and that puts so many editors off that you are not likely to make any converts.
stated in your "delayed reply" at Talk:function. Disregarding any context I agree to the first part, consider the second to be speculative and needlessly offensive, and bemoan the last part -especially in its setting of newbie vs. editors in good standing- as illustrating a blockheadedness within established editors.
Since I involved myself I report my view. Considering "f is a function of x" as improvable is not a bad thing, reverting Mbachtold for involving "f(x)" neither. Starting to go at war with DeaconVorbis is not an advisable move, but here you can find already at least a relative maximum of drive-away reasons, but similarly, D.Lazard is likely to have a threatening eye (3RR) on the status quo. Reversion of my effort by D. Eppstein may be debatable, too, but I honestly still estimate my suggestion to be a viable compromise, but I am not sufficiently interested in running against walls. By requesting a citation for the longstanding and questionable formulation, Mbachtold is, of course, sort of against divine right, and this almost demands for calling him Randy (linking there is imho a still more subtle offense by an ADMIN - quod licet iovi, ...).
Is it allowed to call this a crossing of Rubicon? The debate about the placement of a citation not backing a statement is just a bitter cherry on this sh*t-cake about a not fully consistent, but widespread formulation, where WP feels no responsibility to right this small wrong. Who "makes converts", and who "drives away" whom?
From my (short) involvement (visit Mbachtold's TP, in case you're interested) I can report that Mbachtold is personally -above low level- interested (call it OR) in this question, so his sources are not really off track, and, imho, he has a point, he did not start "personal attacks", but rather his legitimate aspects were disrupted with WP-routine, and I consider your delayed verdict as part of this disruption, belonging to the same stinky routine that also works against MH.
I regret that this grew so long. In case of courtesy pings being de rigeur above (I'm not sufficiently versed), please, let me know, or provide them in your scope. Purgy (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Purgy. Sorry that you feel that way, but I think that you are simultaneously reading too much and yet not enough into what I had to say. I applaud that you stick up for the newbie versus what you see as a hostile establishment, but your anti-establishment viewpoint is well known and this does not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed your comments over the years. At times it takes some work to get past that and see the value of what you have to say. All in all, I think it is worth the effort. As to my comments to Mbachtold, they were meant to be helpful to a new editor, although harsh. I had read everything he wrote, including the external links, and it was clear to me that he was pushing his own agenda and was going about it in a way that was surely going to create enemies. It was this that evoked David's RANDY remark, and as unfortunate as I think that remark was, it did not come out of the blue. What got me to write my comments had nothing to do with the minor issue of citation (which, as I explained, I actually agree with him) but rather the personal attacks against me and others, and especially Prof. Lazard. I decided to "fight fire with fire", and my comments were deliberately offensive. If he is going to spew this garbage then he needs to experience it on the receiving end. And, by the way, I, like you, support MH and think that there was some shoddy business in that affair. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Turn (geometry). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"arctan" vs. "Arctan"
Don't worry, I primarily just came here to say thanks for your support in this capital matter. However, because you mentioned to have a faint(?) memory of a source, substantiating my unsourced habit of capitalizing principal values, I want to deposit the result of some quick and dirty look-up.
- Table of Arctan X (Natural Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series 26) (bolding mine): I do not assume that a printed table is not confined to principal values.
- Precalculus Mathematics employs my habit not only for the inverse trigs, but also for the trigs with respectively truncated domains (Sin, Cos, Tan, ...) and their inverse functions (Arcsin, Arccos, Arctan, ...). Not bad, just who needs bijective trigs ... p.226:
Since Sine, Cosine and Tangent are one-to-one functions, their inverse functions exist and are defined as ... Arcsine, ...
- Wolfram.mathworld destroys any hope for consistency by stating
Such principal values are sometimes denoted with a capital letter, but also
... notations are sometimes reversed, ... (Spanier and Oldham 1987, p. 333).Under the header "Wolfram Language" the capitalized names are used in a table to refer to the principal branch.
Regarding the complex logarithm, there seems to be a broad agreement on using exactly "Log" for its principal branch. (Who needs this?)
I'm thinking about an authentic language, or wait for some prescribed terminology. Even when I consider the discrimination by capitalizing as really useful, I won't fight against some paper shufflers. Thanks for all your efforts, and have a fine holiday. Purgy (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Glad to help out. I've been using that convention in my lower level classes for years, so it must have been popular in Precalculus and Calculus texts, as I am sure that I did not make it up. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you kindly and responsibly explain before you revert?
- I have responded to this on the appropriate talk page.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
List of numbers and 126.96.36.199
- Quite right. I was getting a little fatigued of reverting this so often and slipped up my edit summary. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Inverse proportion square root seems new to you?
Let's discuss Archimedes square root of 3 that was modified to improve the upper and lower limits of pi, once limited to 22/7. Kevin Brown's math pages cites the issue as an unsolved problem, yet he includes the correct approach along with many dead ends.
Fibonacci and Galileo make explicit Archimedes method with respect to the square root of ten , began with (3 + 1/6) square = 10 1/36, and other examples. Improvements to initial guess errors were divided by twice The initial guess, namely
1/36 was divided by 2(3 + 1/6) by inverting and multiplying...Based on the middle term of the binomial theorem, such that, in modern Vulgar fractions
1/36 x 6/38 = 1/228 which meant a second guess
(3 + 1/6 - 1/228) squared was accurate to the square of 1/228
As the 800 bce sulba-sutra estimated the square root of 2 by beginning with
(1 + 5/12) squared = (17/12)(17/12) = 289/144 = 2 + 1/144
Error 1/144 also divided by twice The initial guess, and inverted and multiplied such that
1/144 x 12/34 = 1/408 which meant a second guess
(1 + 1/3 + 1/12 - 1/408) squared was accurate to 1/408 squared
A third guess divided 1/408 by 2 (17/12 - 1/408) was accurate to 11 decimal places 800 years before Heron created a geometric version off this very old unit fraction method to calculate this class of irrational numbers
Milogardner (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- The reason for my revert was that the article was about the sulba sutras and not about improvements to the mathematics that is contained in them. You made no attempt to tie this in to the subject of the article so I considered it to be superfluous. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bill, hope all's well. I had a question about the figure you added in this edit: according to the text, the distance b should be the sum of the lengths of the two legs of the right triangle, but in the figure it is the hypotenuse. Which description is in error? (As is probably obvious, I haven't taken the time to think through the content of the article at all yet.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I must have been half asleep yesterday, yes you are right, my labeling is incorrect. I also messed up the file names in the gallery, and I'm not sure about the first one (it might just be that the scale is not the same as the others). I will fix these problems either later today or tomorrow. Thanks for the extra pair of eyes on this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- While changes in my personal circumstances made my retirement necessary, in an alternate universe I'd still be teaching—until grading did me in. I've fixed the major error, but introduced a minor one (I've labeled distances with numbers that could be negative). I could redo the whole thing to avoid that appearance, but I'd rather chalk it up to artistic license and leave it alone. If you think I really ought to fix it I will. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. You reverted my changes at nonagon, and obviously that's fine. WP:BRD But I didn't see anything on the talk page from you. I re-segregated the approximations and called out their (internally consistant) accuracies without putting in any of the other stuff. Could you have a look and let me know if this works for you?
- Riventree (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing terribly wrong with the lead of that article, but the flow could be improved. I'll make the changes, but feel free to reject them. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Primary reference on Foata's transition lemma
You have reverted an addition that I made to the Foata's transition lemma entry in the article on permutations, stating that "secondary ref. in English is better than primary ref. in French." Well, maybe I agree, but here is my rationale: (i) it's an entry called "Foata's transition lemma," and I believe that it should point to the place where the correspondence was established; (ii) the article on permutations is already full of references to technical papers and advanced books; (iii) the world is a multilingual place, as you might know.
So, as a compromise, I suggest that a reference be given to some textbook (in whatever language) together with the reference to the original derivation, that I located precisely and may be useful to readers of the Wikipedia article. B.t.w., the book by Bóna is not the best place to point a curious reader; i.m.h.o., the presentation of the usefulness of Foata's correspondence at an elementary level is much better in the "baby" R. Sedgewick & P. Flajolet, "An Intro. to the Analysis of Algorithms", 2nd ed., Chap. 7.
- I certainly have no objection to having better references (and if not available in English, I don't object to them being in other languages). Please note that I did not revert your citation, I just moved it into the further reading section. My main concern was the issue of primary versus secondary sources. This is a major difference between writing a math paper, where primary sources are the standard, and writing an encyclopedia such as this, where we are reporting on what is in the secondary literature. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I saw the reversion you made on the content I added.
What should I do to get some attention to the global equality of a^b=c!+1 and a^b=c!-1?
I believe both are interesting and relevant in number theory.
Anyway I'm a student so I understand that my work is not professional and my poor formation.
But I had some ideas about different subjects that were "stolen" from me by others so they could put their names on it. So I tried to be more active this this time.
Anyway, sorry if I resulted bothering.
Álex Gómez 1813 (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Álex. My revert had nothing to do with the value of your contribution, only with Wikipedia policy regarding what is published. Wikipedia does not publish original work such as you have submitted, only material that has already appeared in reliable secondary sources. What you need to do is to get your ideas published elsewhere and then they can be referenced here. It is typical for a student to get some help in doing this from their professors, but it sounds like you have had some difficulty in doing this. If that is the case, try other professors, maybe even from different schools. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)