Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 11 November 2009

Arbitration for Quantum Mysticism

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbound (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"paragraph"

On User_talk:RobinK, you said, "But this is it. If CBM wants this included in the text, it would take only a paragraph to insert, and it would complete the proof of Godel's theorem." I would be very interested in seeing your hypothetical paragraph that fully justifies how the language of Peano arithmetic can be extended to include all the primitive recursive functions. Such a one-paragraph proof is not known in the literature, which is why people still rely on the lengthy proofs necessary to use Gödel's β function to show that it is possible to quantify over finite sequences in PA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"I was going to assume that the Godel beta-function is given, which means that you already know that the extraction of the prime exponent is allowed by first order logic and PA." This is exactly my point. An actual proof of the incompleteness theorem has to actually prove this, and that's where almost all of the work is. The actual diagonal lemma part is very short and easy, it's only the arithmetization that is difficult. But once one has established that the language includes all primitive recursive functions, the remainder of the arithmetization, such as assigning Gödel numbers to formulas and proofs, is trivial. Similarly for the second incompleteness theorem: almost all the work is in the formalization of the provability predicate within the theory at hand. Once this is done, the rest of the result is easy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Foundations of Mathematics

That interests me. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gödel

Likebox, I was wondering about Chaitin's work, also the popularizations of the proofs of Gödel's theorem by him. Can these be used as sources for the more easily accessible proofs? Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Likebox, if you have time could you give your opinion on the Scharnhorst effect as discussed on the talk page of speed of light. It may be that I'm wrong about how well established the Scharnhorst theoretically is. But I'm now dealing with an editor who is too lazy to read any articles who takes a contrarian POV based on basically nothing. I don't mind being proven wrong, but only after discussing some real physics. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The urgency has gone away as a compromize solution seems to have been found. But your opinion on the Scharnhorst effect would still be welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have raised the issue of your "modern proofs" here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You said, "But even doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore." I wish that you would avoid speaking for me. I posted this comment exactly to outline some problems with the text you added other than its originality.

The proof you added is not complete, as it does not prove the arithmetization results that you consider "easy to prove"; the proof you added is about as complete as the proof sketch already in the article. The text you added is not inaccurate in the sense of proving a false result, but it does use terminology in an inaccurate way. For example, as I said in the comment linked above, it is not at all obvious that a proof method known to Kleene in the 1950s is a "modern" proof.

Finally, your claim "all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems" is false, even if it is interpreted broadly to mean that the proof goes via the T predicate. For example, the proof in Hinman's Fundamentals of mathematical logic (2005) uses the approach via the diagonal lemma, as does Mendelson's Introduction to mathematical logic — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Berezin

Likebox, thank you for your message where you say, in particular: "Please be more specific when you say Candlin's theory is incomplete".

Actually, what I say is that there is *no theory* in Candlin's paper at all, just some insights, although very good ones.

Also, I think this must be symmetric. I will present a more complete analysis of Candlin's work when I have more time, but can *you* be specific in indicating which exactly fragments of Candlin's work might prove your opinion? See also the discussion page of "Berezin integral" for my analysis of Khalatnikov's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paloff (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Probation

Per this discussion at WP:ANI, you've been placed on probation.

If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

If you have any questions about edits that might be problematic, feel free to ask for input from other editors, from any administrator or from me. The goal here is to get you out of trouble so that you can continue helping to build Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposition on Misplaced Pages

Moved from ANI by Jehochman

Since wikipedia is a consensus-driven entity, it is important that some protection for the opposition. The position of those that oppose the consensus view should be allowed on the talk page, and their voices must continue to be heard, so that consensus can shift in the future. The goal of my edits on Godel's theorem and History Wars is to point out problems that I believe are very serious.

1. On history wars, revisionism is presented as history. The opinions of the recent revisionist Windschuttle are presented as if they were uncontested majority opinions, instead of right wing denialist propaganda (which is the position of most genocide scholars and historians).

2. On Godel's theorem, there is no decent proof. This is hard to fix, because the textbooks purposefully choose to use obscure language, for no good reason. The same proofs can be written in English, and there is no reason we should not do so.

These are two separate conflicts, which have on thing in common: I am editing against a certain consensus. This is essential to continue moving the encyclopedia forward after the initial building stage. This type of debate needs to be encouraged, not sanctioned.Likebox (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome to disagree with consensus, but you must at some point drop the matter rather than engaging in argumentum ad nauseum. Misplaced Pages is not a chatroom. Discussion on article talk pages needs to lead to a result. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree with others, and move on. You can always circle back later and re-raise the issue, especially if you have new sources to support your view. It takes judgment to know how often you can do that without upsetting others and disrupting their work. This is a collaborative project. Jehochman 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. If you've put forward all your arguments and the consensus for changing an article in the direction you want still isn't there, then it's best to let the matter rest for a while. What you could try to do with your proof of Gödel is to create a new article, but only if you have sufficient approval of the editors at Wiki Project Math. The advantage then is that the level of support you need is a lot less than the support you need to include your proof in the existing article. The article has to be able to survive AFD. There are probably people who are against including your proof in the existing article but who don't think your proof is wrong (just that it is not an advantage to include it) and they could vote to keep such an article. To delete the article there has to be a consensus against keeping it. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Count. Don't encourage editors to create POV forks. As I and AGK have requested, would you please recuse yourself from this matter. You're giving out bad advice. Though this may not be your intention, you're actively hampering our efforts to teach editors better ways to handle their content disputes. Jehochman 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating a FORK is allowed, a POV FORK is, of course, not allowed. Didn't I just write that Likebox needs to have some level of support before creating such an article or not? Didn't I write something about it needing to be able to survive an AFD (during which the issue of it being a content fork can be raised) or not?

Note that I've interacted with Brews Ohare and with Likebox for quite some time. It is then not ok. for you or AGK to tell me not to talk to these persons just because everything is now part of some dispute and you two have just stepped in to police the dispute. You come here and interpret things from the perspective of the dispute while my perspective may be a bit different. It is then understandable that your advice will be more negative (don't do this, don't do that, to keep out of trouble), my advice may be more positive (you can do X, provided you take into account Y and Z).

The whole idea of "teaching" Likebox or Brews by simply telling telling them not do something is just nonsensical. They are grown up people (and a bit older than me, I think). I think we can explain some processes here at Misplaced Pages and explain how and why things work the way they work. If Likebox in fact has no support to create the article on Wiki project math, then what I wrote amounts to saying "do not create the article". It only says: "create the article", if he does have some level of support. If you do not want to see that article created, then simply saying "don't do that", will have less impact, as you're then treating Likebox like a 4 year old (he'll think, who are you to tell me that, why shouldn't I?). Count Iblis (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Count, you're feeding the flames of disputes wherever you go. This is not helpful. Please stop. Likebox can speak for themselves, and it is their talk page. If they want to tell me to go to hell, they are welcome to do so. Jehochman 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area Last: 09/13/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library and Misplaced Pages Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Misplaced Pages articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)