Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 28 November 2006

Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. I'll respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.

Pre-admin archives:

• /Archive1 - July - October 05
• /Archive2 - October - December 05

Post-admin archives:

• /Archive3 - December 05
• /Archive4 - December 05 - March 06
• /Archive5 - April 06 - May 06

Werdnabot archives:

• /Archive6 - June 06
• /Archive7 - June 06 - August 06

Image:IMG 1510.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 1510.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Complaint

My article was deleted! Please put the Wicky Woo article back up! It is provable information, just go to www.freearcade.com. I am boycotting this service unless you put the article back up immediately.

Non-postulated relativity

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you for advice. I am not going to start a new article about Lev Lomize, because this is about a scientific issue, not about a person. But making an alternative paper about SR would probably lead to a dispute (would it?), which I also do not want, especially since I work in a different scientific field. Still, this does not feel right. Just to summarize. A book was published in Russia and sold in 70,000 copies. But the editors are saying that this is not a reliable source, because its English translation has not been peer reviewed. Do you think this is right? Why they simply did not say that this book is not good enough to be included in their SR article? I would understand that. I am asking you simply because I am a new user here and want to understand better Misplaced Pages policies.

Thank you.

Biophys

Non-postulated relativity

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, any article on a subject like "Theory of relativity based on physical reality" (title of Janossy book) must be based on verifiable sources. Right now, I have ~30 references, more than a half of them are journal publications. But I also would like to make a reference on this book by Lev Lomize. It is written in Misplaced Pages instructions that a published book is an acceptable source, except self-publishing. An internet reference to the russian version of this book can be found here .

Now, there is a question. I was told that Dr. Ginzburg will probably do whatever is neccessary and reasonable to help me out. So, what do you think should be done to improve the verifiability of the source and the article in general? Should Dr. Ginzburg explain in a letter that this book has indeed been peer reviewed, indicate the names of reviewers (if he knows them) and tell what he thinks about the book and its content? Should this letter be placed by him on the Internet, and where? What else should or can be done?

Thank you very much for help!

Biophys

Non-postulated relativity

I just would like to make a comment about reliable sources. Yes, one must make references to original papers in journals if he is talking about new experimental results or new theories described in such papers. Most books however do not introduce new data or theories. They often provide only new explanations or interpretations of the previously published experiments and theories, for example to make some complicated subjects more understandable for students. Most scientific journals would not accept a paper that only describes new explanations with regard to alredy published theories and data, expecially if such explanations are written at the level understandable by undegraduate students. This is the case of the book "Non-postulated relativity". It does not introduce any new theories or data. It only explains the already existing and widely accepted theories (such as SR) in a novel way. This is a textbook for students, not a new original research. I am sure that Russian version satisfy completely Misplaced Pages requirements, and the English translation satisfies the requirements of Misplaced Pages for translation, because it was done by a professional interpreter.

Sincerely,

Biophys

From SCZenz: If it's simply a new way of teaching SR, then there are two ways it could be included in Misplaced Pages: 1. It was a notable minority viewpoint among teachers of SR. 2. Our editors thought the pedagogical approach would be useful for our readers, and found it not to have any major philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching. Is either of these things true?

I agree, this is simply a new way of teaching SR.

I think 1. is true.

As about 2., this approach is certainly pedagogically useful. But most people would probably think (and I think) that there are signicant philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching, although this is something that could be discussed. So, I am not sure about incorporating this approach into the existing SR article, although it could be briefly mentioned there. Probably, it would be better to make a separate article on this subject and follow NPOV.

Biophys

0.999...

Please read the article on the limit of a sequence if you want details; that's why I'm linking it. Have you ever known JL to actually thoroughly pay attention to any source, be it article, webpage, book, post or person? He doesn't have the attention span to comprehend the article — again, I'm not sure if he's stubborn or "intellectually challenged" — and he's attacked both of us, accusing us of doing things we didn't do. Why keep responding if it's only going in circles? After untold words in the past few weeks, what is there left to say? Calbaer 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to respond when JL has made an obvious error and I think he might actually understand it. There's no real purpose to it, I suppose, except that other people who are curious about the arguments will see that we actually do know how to answer his objections. His ranting about how I'm evil bothers me very little; my wiki-fu is strong, and I know exactly how far his accusations will get him. I guess in the end I'm just amusing myself, and not accomplishing much else. You may have a point that we should all, collectively, stop answering him... I'm not sure. -- SCZenz 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. He drives down the signal-to-noise ratio. I mean, he didn't even bother to look up the meaning of the word "bound"! He ignores the more mathematically interesting/involved posts. And his name-calling, while silly, allows us to suspend our assumption of good faith. Hanlon's razor prohibits me from judging him a troll. But, as is said on Misplaced Pages talk:Assume good faith, "Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated crank doesn't understand they're a crank." Calbaer 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

His recent responses to you indicate that he is still not, in fact, reading sources pointed out to him. Next time you're tempted to respond to him, you might want to read Crank (person) and see how startlingly familiar it seems, from the very definition, to details like the facts that cranks "tend to be very, very bad listeners" and "ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief." The essential defining characteristic of a crank is, "No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief." This is exemplified by JL's declaration that he never said 0.999...=1 in the reals, in spite of indications to the contrary that seemingly functioned just to keep us paying attention. And his false information ("made up ideas") is stated with such confidence that it might confuse those coming to the arguments page for help on understanding mathematics. Just my two cents.... Calbaer 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian Questionanwserers

Just to cheer you up a little. I agree with your deletion of this thread! At least our senses are common on that one. 8-)--Light current 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, wow. I didn't even notice that was the same guy whose thread I removed until much later. -- SCZenz 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

The Chuck Norris reference wasn't me, it was a seperate person that occasionally uses my ip but now has his own account, just letting you know. :) Temp 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear it. -- SCZenz 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed!

Yeah, I agree. I'll bring this up. Thanks! DoomsDay349 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for editting the closed discussion. When I began editting, it was still open, and I spent some time choosing my words. --BostonMA 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Esperanza MfD

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. I replied there, but in case you weren't watching, I did have a comment I'd like you to see:

Well, maybe I missed it, but why couldn't what you just told me here have been included in the closing comments? Especially the part about (and identificaion of) the three admins, since that had been discussed on the talk page already. It certainly would have been appropriate.

Anyway, this isn't meant as a complaint, but as a suggestion for next time. —Doug Bell  01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

You did say to ask if I had a question... ;)

Hi there, thanks again for clearing things up for me in the 0.999... = 1 argument page, so following on from that I have a quick question which I'd love to know if you can clear up. Although it's related to the 0.999 discussion, it's not directly about it. so figured your discussion page was probably a more appropriate place for it...

Ok so I accept now that ${\displaystyle 0.{\overline {9}}=1}$

What I'm interested in knowing is that if the above is true, would it also be true that ${\displaystyle {\overline {9}}}$ is not infinite but may as well be considered infinite? (It diverges to infinity?)

I have another question, but it kind of relies upon the answer to that one, so I'll wait to see if you have the time to answer first, I'll check back on my discussion page regularly :)

Many thanks again Archgimp 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what I'm understanding by your answer to that question is that integers are divergant. The more you add to them the closer they get to infinity. So - using the formula ${\displaystyle f(n)={\frac {n}{{10}^{\left\lfloor \log _{10}n\right\rfloor }}}}$ I can take ANY integer you throw at me and map it to a rational between 1 and 10. Doesn't matter what the integer is. That's a 1 to 1 bijection from integers to rationals right? All I've done is shown that theres an equivalency between divergence and convergance I think. Now, that being the case, if I were to invert that formula, am I not right in thinking i would run out of integers before I ran out of rationals? After all, rational 10 would map to infinity, and rational 10.1 would be a number greater than infinity, which would be a contradiction. So if that's the case, how can rationals and integers have the same carinality? Sorry if it's a stupid question, it's just that the relevant wiki pages tell me (and in a most convincing way) that they are of the same cardinality... I'm clearly missing something, I just wonder if you could tell me what it is? Archgimp 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good spot there, and stupid of me not to see that before =( however, I can finx that I think. All I have to do is completely invert my numbers first, so 98765 becomes 5.6789 and 10 becomes 0.1 100 becomes 0.01. Not sure how I'd do that mathematically, but it must be possible. In that instance, we take all integers, and put them between 0 and 10 (which may well be an onto). That being the case, we will have a unique rational for every unique integer and *still* have an infinite number of rationals remaining. Surely this would prove that contrary to the diagonal method, you *cant* count all the rationals using integers, ergo their cardinality if different... I've a feeling this is where my understanding of infinities will become my hamstring, but let's see where it takes me first... Anyway - thank you for the pointers so far, as you can tell, I'm starting out on this from the basics. Just for reference, I didn't spot that flaw in the function before because I was using it to look at the distribution of primes whilst 'removing' them rom a picture based upon the base of numbers which obviously don't include any composites like 10 etc.

I just noticed that *all* bases are base 10, no matter *what* number base we use incedentally: 'Base 10' = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - 'Base 3' = 0,1,2,10 - 'Base 15' = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,10, but I digress).

I shall show you the new function when I've done it - thanks again for the tips so far. Archgimp 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was anything incredible about the base always being 10 idea. It's just something I'd not noticed before. Remember, I'm coming at this from an angle of almost complete ignorance, so I'm 'rediscovering' for myself what you might learn as part of any good further math course. Very much like Godel, who went back to the very roots of numbers themselves to re-evaluate what is actually proven and what has been taken as self-evident. I figure if I'm to stand any hope of learning anything new about numbers, I'm going to have to start with no preconceptions and re-prove everything without shortcuts. Perhaps a mammoth task, but still, for me, an exciting and rewarding one.

2) Your function does create a subset, not a bijection, as it can't deal with the infinately repeating number 9. Therefore there will be at leat 1 integer which can not be represented in your subset. The whole point of the excercise I'm understaking is to prove to myself that, like cantor told us, the rationals are countable. With cantor's proof as described on his wiki page, we get a set of pairs: (1,1/1) (2, 1/2) (3, 2/2) etc etc. Now a fundamental part of having 2 pairs is that the proposed list means if you have any natural n you can say 'the nth rational on my list is r by finding the set with the natural part n. Furthermore, you could also say for any r I know that r is the nth rational by finding the set with the rational part r and reading the coresponding n. So a bijection is, AFAIK, a way of proving that 2 sets have equal cardinality by the fact there is no n and no r that does not exist somewhere in one of the infinite number of pairs. Ok, so far this all makes sense. So for me to disprove this I have to show a way of taking all unique ns and pairing them up with corresponding unique rs so that there does not exist an n without an r, and finally showing that there does exist an r without an n. The function I am working on is just another way of ordering the rs. After all, it shouldn't matter what the order of the set is, only that there is a unique pair for every unique n - right? Archgimp 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so here's a question regarding infinite sets. Let's say I want to make hypothetical sets of all the multiples of the primes. would I be right in thinking that ${\displaystyle {\big \{}a:\mathbb {P} _{x}*1,\mathbb {P} _{x}*2\;\ldots \;\mathbb {P} _{x}*n{\big \}}>{\big \{}b:\mathbb {P} _{x+1}*1,\mathbb {P} _{x+1}*2\;\ldots \;\mathbb {P} _{x+1}*n{\big \}}}$ In english (because I'm learning theory faster than notation), the set containg all the multiples of any given prime will always contain fewer elements that the set created the same way from the next prime. This being because prime 2 represents 1/2 of all possible following numbers, 3 represents 1/3 of all following numbers etc... Probably wrong, but I can't find a wiki page that explicitly tells me so... Thanks for the time my friend. Archgimp 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Already have

I already had before you messaged me. Isn't it pretty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

scarlet.

I would argue that Scarlet is not a stub. It contains all known information on the magazine and is long enbough to stand as an article itself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. What I've done is put a categories needed tag on it and a message not to tag it as a stub. I'm sure that will deal with it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Entropia Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/Entropia_universe

I propose we remove the entire player resource section. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide, and it's clearly being used to advertize individual stores and forums and so on. -- SCZenz 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I check this page on occasion because I've been playing this game for 4 years. You guys removed community linked web sites for obvious reasons. Now I'm seeing users adding and removing other related community sites. If all are not allow, then none should be allowed. I use wikipedia for many things and I do not like seeing it abused.

Thank You for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.28.56 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

About your comment

Alright. I just believe that speeding things up will get us closer than endless debates. WikieZach| talk 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand. WikieZach| talk 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tags

speedy deletion is not a tool for borderline cases

Of course -- except that these aren't borderline, unless there's some strange new meanings of "empty" or "borderline "I was previously unaware of. Perhaps you should bring up your new definitions with the admin who had already deleted the so-called articles before they were recreated. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi SCZenz, thanks for dealing with this. I've listed it at DRV () Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Free speech

The policy you cited is against anarchy, which goes far beyond free speech. A countervailing pronciple is that Misplaced Pages is not censored. I believe there is a happy middle ground for NPOV views which differ. Regards! Edison 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that editors and admins should assume good faith when someone posts and not be quick to delete good-faith posts on a talk page. I agree that some posts should be removed, such as a diatribe about the subject of the article on a talk page where the discussion should be about how to improve the article, or comments which are completely off topic. I have had problems with seeing such diatribes and feeling limited in the wisdom of removing them myself because it has the effect of being a self-serving edit, which removes comments I disagree with. Are you willing to serve as an impartial judge when I find such instances in the future in articles I may be editing? Thanks. Edison 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion from Miscellaneous RD

Can you explain why you deleted the following response from the "Stephen Hawking's Religion" thread on the Miscellaneous RD ?

The above comment is absolutely illogical. No human being is above god. Nor can a human take the place of god. One can only be a spiritual adviser at the most or a messenger of god.

- The existence of faith cant be outrightly rejected. Science and education only rationalises an individual and avoids excessive dependence on religion. Science is the path to progress and when one loses out to competition one needs faith. Hawkings filed a suit for divorce on grounds of being abused by his wife. That abuse cant be covered under irreconciliable differences.

- Faith is essential 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)~~

It is a rather dogmatic response, but I don't see why it needed to be deleted. Gandalf61 11:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You say you deleted the response because it was opinion/argument. But there are whole threads in the RDs that contain little else but opinion/argument. See "Evolutionary reasons for plant-based medicines?" on the Science RD for an example - hardly a single link or reference in the entire thread. How do you decide which "opinion" responses you will delete and which ones you will leave alone ? Gandalf61 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

RD Misc. Its not vandalism so you are breaking 3RR 8-(--Light current 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(See replied on LC's talk page. -- SCZenz 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC))