This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xenophrenic (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 10 April 2013 (+cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:56, 10 April 2013 by Xenophrenic (talk | contribs) (+cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.
|
|
Status
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages because of hostile editing environment.
TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013 15:19, 29 January 2013
KC
FYI, KC is a "she". little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've been told that (above). <redacted> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Np, just reading the circus now. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)- I was going to make some comment related to the common epithet for a female dog, but decided to redact it. Perhaps it will make it easier to remember her gender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good call; I hardly think personal attacks on me via vulgar language will encourage me to believe your apology is anything but self-serving. I will note you have company; Ed Poor also thought that would be amusing, but he actually did it, on his user page no less. I am pleased to see you have good enough judgment to refrain from actually doing this, although disappointed you didn't refrain from commenting that you'd considered it. Seems like a stealth method of calling me the name, without being guilty of actually doing so - it is basically "I thought about calling her a bitch, but I decided not to" which is less than stellar civility. I am very sorry if you feel my evidence on the RFAR case is in any way personal; I feel you've shown appallingly bad judgment and that your calling for sanctions with zero diffs and then refusing to respond to requests for said diffs is poor behavior for an admin. You know better, Arthur, you really do. KillerChihuahua 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was going to make some comment related to the common epithet for a female dog, but decided to redact it. Perhaps it will make it easier to remember her gender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Np, just reading the circus now. little green rosetta(talk)
Talkback
Message added 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tofutwitch11 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback from A Quest For Knowledge
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
my picture
Please don't remove my picture. I am posting it for two reasons. Two show my photography work, and also because I like the fact he was showing the bumper sticker with the state's slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalindgren1 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
McMartin preschool trial
Thanks for the edit - I like your word choice of 'alleged'. (oops - please consider this a 'Barnstar') Jmg38 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Institute for Cultural Diplomacy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
- Best regards, SkaraB 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
AFD - Legal abuse
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Block evasion?
Just noticed that you blocked a user at the IP 99.112.212.104 and removed what seemed a good faith comment the editor had left on the talk page of David Shambaugh. Just curious what the rationale here was, as it's not immediately evident what the user did to merit a block, and there's nothing on their talk page. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the IPs; the 99.112 faction is still under a block. "Good faith" is not plausible, nor in issue. He's a blocked editor, and his comments should be summarily reverted. At times, I've reverted all of his edits, but a few are actually helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the clarification. It's a shame that the editor doesn't choose to be more constructive. Homunculus (duihua) 23:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hoping you can help
Arthur, it's a while since we communicated (several years ago, actually, on Recovered Memory Therapy). I'm having quite a bit of trouble at the article on the Indian guru Kalki Bhagavan. It is, admittedly, not a very active page and was recently AfD (keep). However, I think there are some serious underlying issues, which I have outlined recently on the article's talk page. One editor in particular seems to be preventing anything being published that varies from the line being pushed by the guru's organisation. I believe it is getting to the stage where intervention from Administrator may be called for. Hoping you can help by taking a look? Or if you're not able to get involved, perhaps you can suggest someone else who might be able to review the article. Cheers, Matt. M Stone (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
re: functional boolean algebra enumeration
1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation
primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions for correspondence with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing
elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight
no more edits percieved other than to repost
any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent use should not be posted?
if not where should it be posted?
further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents
the table submitted enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important
several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid
- there does not seem to be such a table in wikipedia elsewhere - such tables are a regularly used resource handout for several courses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).
- See the talk page. A correct location is already posted in Talk:Boolean algebra; see Truth function#Table of binary truth functions, among other places.
- And "BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))" just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq
extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f
why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"
editorial resposibility is to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I was wrong that it's "wrong". Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression
a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))
the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}
the range is {0,1,2,4,8}
instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation
(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
for p in {0,1}
for q in {0,1}
print f && (2^(2*p+q))
and the output is
0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248
or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted
0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248
the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:
print " p F F T T" + nl
print " q F T F T"
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
begin
print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)",
"well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"] +"\t"
for p in {0,1}
for q in {0,1}
print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F"
end
and the output is:
p F F T T
q F T F T
False F F F F
NOR T F F F
~(q=>p) F T F F
~p T T F F
~(p=>q) F F T F
T F T F
well F T T F
you T T T F
get F F F T
the T F F T
idea F T F T
T T F T
p F F T T
q=>p T F T T
OR F T T T
true T T T T
Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:
javascript:
x = " p F F T T\n";
x+= " q F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ",
"well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"] +"\t";
for (p in ) /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */
for (q in ) /* told ya so */
x += (f & ) ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or more sensibly
javascript:
x = " p F F T T\n";
x+= " q F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ",
"well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"] +"\t";
for (p=0;p<2;p++)
for (q=0;q<2;q++)
x += (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);
If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:
EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...
The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function can expedite this profoundly. Freshmen do the coding above and later, implement the PLA hardware. Matriculating sophmores are expected to understand the theory behind it all.
The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevent when doing a hardware implentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.
Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)
(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
- Something like that might be appropriate in a different "Boolean algebra" article; I would suggest Boolean algebras canonically defined, except it's already there at Boolean algebras canonically defined#Truth tables, except for the confusing explicit form . Furthermore, it has nothing to do with recursive function theory, whichever definition of "recursive function" you care to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with
Ah ... there's the rub! is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunble (oops a Freudian! bumble or bundle!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering
head is swimming with where to start
The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. )
This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).
First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):
The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)
informally ...
x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn
selector function on pq
((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)(
f3 x (n-2)x(n-1)xn /( 1x 2x 3) +
f2 x(n-3) x(n-1)xn /(-1x 1x 2) +
f1 x(n-3)x(n-2) xn /(-2x-1x 1) +
f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1) /(-3x-2x-1) ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0)
ffo: find first one
po2: power of 2 (though a crowd is better)
aside 15 - n + 1 will if xor'd
formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial
GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fi ∏j=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)
BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1}
BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q)
G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1),
GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1),
GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1),
GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1))
(in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet)
- the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments
- ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher
- the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined
using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language
- bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if
modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning
and use for congruency
but this is "cooler":
BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false}
- this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated
functions themselves
- this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated
as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program
- at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions
- so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system
- the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model
to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be
changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds
- to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS
viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware)
- the BA function is shy of the mark yet
- the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the
p and q can be perceived as functions
- the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful
- the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine
(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )
gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)
Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.
(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)
personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long lost treatises, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives
TBC - same channel not necessarily same time
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming (216.191.39.102 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
ditto 1st (99.249.36.41 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!
ditto ditto (99.249.36.41 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
re: functional boolean algebra enumeration
1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation
primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions to correspond with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing
elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight
no more edits percieved other than to repost
any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent USE should not be posted?
if not where should it be posted?
further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents
the submitted table enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important
several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid
- there does not seem to be such an explicit, succint table in wikipedia - such tables are used regularly (there are several variations thoughout wiki's pages BUT none emphaze the isomorphism of the true false bit battern with the enueration of the boolean operators using that same bit pattern)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).
- See the talk page. A correct location is already posted in Talk:Boolean algebra; see Truth function#Table of binary truth functions, among other places.
- And "BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))" just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq
extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f
why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"
is editorial resposibility to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I was wrong that it's "wrong". Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression
a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))
the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}
the range is {0,1,2,4,8}
instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation
(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
for p in {0,1}
for q in {0,1}
print f && (2^(2*p+q))
and the output is
0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248
or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted
0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248
the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:
print " p F F T T" + nl
print " q F T F T"
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
begin
print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)",
"well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"] +"\t"
for p in {0,1}
for q in {0,1}
print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F"
end
and the output is:
p F F T T
q F T F T
False F F F F
NOR T F F F
~(q=>p) F T F F
~p T T F F
~(p=>q) F F T F
T F T F
well F T T F
you T T T F
get F F F T
the T F F T
idea F T F T
T T F T
p F F T T
q=>p T F T T
OR F T T T
true T T T T
Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:
javascript:
x = " p F F T T\n";
x+= " q F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ",
"well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"] +"\t";
for (p in ) /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */
for (q in ) /* told ya so */
x += (f & ) ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or more sensibly
javascript:
x = " p F F T T\n";
x+= " q F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ",
"well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"] +"\t";
for (p=0;p<2;p++)
for (q=0;q<2;q++)
x += (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);
If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:
EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...
The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function enumeration concept can expedite this profoundly.
The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevant when doing a hardware implimentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.
Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)
(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
- Something like that might be appropriate in a different "Boolean algebra" article; I would suggest Boolean algebras canonically defined, except it's already there at Boolean algebras canonically defined#Truth tables, except for the confusing explicit form . Furthermore, it has nothing to do with recursive function theory, whichever definition of "recursive function" you care to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah ... there's the rub! is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunbled (oops a Freudian! bumbled or bundled!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering
head is swimming with where to start
The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. )
This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).
First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):
The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)
informally ...
x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn
selector function on pq
((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)(
f3 x (n-2)x(n-1)xn /( 1x 2x 3) +
f2 x(n-3) x(n-1)xn /(-1x 1x 2) +
f1 x(n-3)x(n-2) xn /(-2x-1x 1) +
f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1) /(-3x-2x-1) ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0)
ffo: find first one
po2: power of 2 (though a crowd is better)
aside 31 - n + 1 will if xor'd
formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial
GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fi ∏j=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)
BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1}
BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q)
G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1),
GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1),
GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1),
GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1))
(in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet)
- the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments
- ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher
- the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined
using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language
- bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if
modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning
and use for congruency
but this is "cooler":
BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false}
- this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated
functions themselves
- this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated
as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program
- at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions
- so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system
- the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model
to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be
changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds
- to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS
viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware)
- the BA function is shy of the mark yet
- the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the
p and q can be perceived as functions
- the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful
- the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine
(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )
gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)
Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.
(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)
personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long ago practise and theory, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives
TBC - same channel not necessarily same time
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming (216.191.39.102 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
ditto 1st (99.249.36.41 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!
Rexamining BA(f,p,q) in this context the target is something like BAx?(BAx?,...) there is a bit (well more like a KB or maybe a GB) to go yet.
(out of curiosity searching wikipedia for info on CPU chip design and construction - early hit on "machine architecture" & "computer architecture" was to ARM architecture which is the chip for the controller mentioned above for firmware programming - now there's a blast from the past Altair 8000, Z80, Acorn BBC, ... did not know A in ARM was for Acorn)
searching wiki pages to see if this topic of machine abstraction to concrete construction is explicitly documented - no luck yet (there are of course many models that will suffice)
- Turing machines etc. ATM, DTM, NDTM, ... - Turing_tarpit - Stack_machine - Pushdown_automaton th original PDA! & its non-deterministic counterpart - Register_machine - Context-free_grammar - ] - Finite_automaton - Automata-based_programming - Abstract_state_machines <= this may be "closest" to the "target" - notes predate circa references by a decade (mid 70's) and taught the transformation into hardware via Boolean Algebra - UML_state_machine#UML_extensions_to_the_traditional_FSM_formalism <= warm too - Systolic array (trellis automata) - Sequential_logic - Combinational_logic - ASIC & ASIP - FPGA & FPGA#FPGA_design_and_programming - RISC - Complex instruction set computing - One_instruction_set_computer - Zero_instruction_set_computer - Programmable Logic Array - Formal_semantics_of_programming_languages but applied to hardware! via Denotational_semantics & Operational_semantics - Algebraic_semantics_(computer_science) <= ??? am curious about this - CPU Sim - Millicode - Microcode - JHDL - P-code_machine - Java virtual machine - Tiny_Internet_Interface Tini! - 1-bit_architecture - ] - ] - ]
ditto ditto (99.249.36.41 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
TBC, same channel, ... signature ditto recursed
(209.112.38.254 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)).
- This is somewhat interesting, but not possibly of relevance to any Misplaced Pages article. And I've asked the anon not to reply further on this talk page, because he/she has damaged others' comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The Argument Sketch
Appears to be the model for Talk:Fascism#Lead_post-RFC, alas. Is it proper for editors to snark about an IP as though he were an editor they proudly drove away? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Good fix
For fixing substandard minus signs in WP:MOSMATH. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Trimming rhetoric
I recently put a little note here but it got trimmed ]. Hoping it was a mistake? M Stone (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't me, and I think I fixed it. I've asked the editor in question to stay off my talk page, because what he wants to add to Boolean algebra is clearly original research, even if it were accurate and relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was not remotely related to things Boolean (as far as I know). M Stone (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "85 (number)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 23:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
User talk:141.218.36.46
Arthur, could you please look at the block of the above user and make sure I did the right thing? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think so. He exhibits a willingness to talk, which is unusual for that person, but not unheard of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- The only times he's ever "talked" these last 12 months it has been to draw the foil by playing dumb, and once to scold me to "think larger". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Inline math equations
I'm not trying to start an argument, and I recognize your valued contributions to WP (which are more knowledgeable than mine), but my edits to Algebraic number are no different than many other edits I and other editors have made to make inline mathematical equations and the like within articles more readable. Perhaps it's a matter of taste on my part, but I find it more difficult and distracting to read inline LaTEX text than its HTML equivalent. Note that I'm not questioning the misuse of {{frac}} in math articles, as I was not aware of the policy until now. I am, however, at a loss to understand why my particular changes are not acceptable, whereas the same type of changes made on many other pages by many other editors are. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not you, in particular. I'm not "stalking" you, but I generally prefer LaTEX to (complex) HTML as being easier to maintain and to understand while editing, even if sometimes not as "pretty". MOS:MATH is silent on the issue of when you should use HTML v. LaTEX whether the difference between HTML and LaTEX should be handled similarly to WP:ENGVAR, or whether it's open season on changes, or some other guideline is in effect. I would like to add that, regardless of whether you prefer HTML or LaTEX display, mixing them in inline expressions looks really bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: "Anti-immigration"
Arthur, I respectfully request that you change your "vote" in the survey. After reading your remarks, I think perhaps I didn't make my proposal clear. Per WP:WEIGHT, "TPm is anti-immigration" is a minority opinion. Putting it in the "agenda" section at the start of the article, particularly when using Misplaced Pages's voice to state it as a fact, gives it far too much weight. This pretends that it's the majority opinion.
In the course of the discussion, I've been proposing that it should be mentioned nearer the end of the article, in the section discussing allegations of racism. I would also carefully attribute this claim to the handful of persons who are making it, such as Matt Barreto, rather than using Misplaced Pages's voice to state it as a fact. I think this is also consistent with what you're saying, although from your "vote" you seem to want to keep it right where it was in the "agenda" section, stating it as a fact. If you agree that it should be moved farther down in the article, under the conditions I've described, please change your vote to Oppose, indicating that you oppose use of the term "anti-immigration" in the "agenda" section. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- ...and if you'd like to contribute to the development of WP:CONSENSUS, you should also supply clear reasoning for your position, as well as proper substantiation. Otherwise, it's just another word in bold print equating to "me too", and doesn't serve any purpose. That's why many of us presently in the discussion don't even bother with inserting a meaningless "support" or "oppose" word in a list; it's the reasoned discussion and addressing of concerns that determines consensus. Which brings me to a point of contention: P&W, could you explain to everyone what you base your assertion that "TPm is anti-immigration is a minority opinion" on? Did you read that in reliable sources somewhere? Did you just make it up? Did you mean it's an opinion that only "minorities" hold? Did you base it on doing Google searches on words or phrases, then compare numeric counts? It would be great to know what prompts you to make such a statement, as it seems to be the foundation of many of your arguments. If you have an answer, could you post it on the article Talk page, for all to see? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- However, certain tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing my !vote, so I have to rewrite it to something they might not be able to misconstrue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed that comment of yours. Would you mind pointing out that unacceptable behavior? I'd like to look into it and see if I can convince them to knock it off. We don't need another ArbCom mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again, Arthur. I have just edited a comment of yours to remove a personal attack. You accused me of TE behavior and "intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments" without clearly showing where. I've examined the whole page, twice, and see nothing close to what you have described. I'll assume it was another mistake. You can, of course, revert my edit if you feel it is necessary, and I'll pursue the matter in a more formal venue. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- It should be obvious to all that Malke (1) originally had a "thinko" where she wrote "anti-immigration" and meant anti-illegal-immigration, someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter), and you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change and (2) It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration", and feels the latter is misleading (although only P&W thinks that it means "racist" and a WP:BLP violation). You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading. If you were to recognize that it can be misleading, we could have a reasonable discussion as to whether it is misleading; but you do not do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur, Xenophrenic's talk page behavior needs to be brought up on the ArbCom talk page. Newyorkbrad said if we had other workshop type comments to post them on the talk page. The redaction/reverting of editors' comments, the never ending tendentious arguments, and the incivility needs to be addressed. I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't been able to find (although, I admit, I hadn't looked that hard, also being involved in searching for employment) evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked that hard either. But I will say the vigor he currently displays in pursuing his quest for anti-immigration/nativism, and the incivility, all apparently without regard to consequences, needs to be addressed. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think North mentioned TE. Maybe he knows where examples might be found. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur, under the circumstances, if you think action is appropriate regarding the conduct of a particular editor, may I suggest the motions process? An arbitrator may propose a motion for an immediate vote by all arbitrators, "if the case is straightforward enough." Present your evidence to SilkTork, since he has taken an interest in the case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- X is not named as a party in the RfAr, and fairness would suggest that if he were added there at this late date, he should be able to submit evidence before sanctions are imposed. Of course, if the RfAr results in conditions applicable to all editors, those conditions would, of course, apply to X. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur, under the circumstances, if you think action is appropriate regarding the conduct of a particular editor, may I suggest the motions process? An arbitrator may propose a motion for an immediate vote by all arbitrators, "if the case is straightforward enough." Present your evidence to SilkTork, since he has taken an interest in the case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think North mentioned TE. Maybe he knows where examples might be found. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked that hard either. But I will say the vigor he currently displays in pursuing his quest for anti-immigration/nativism, and the incivility, all apparently without regard to consequences, needs to be addressed. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't been able to find (although, I admit, I hadn't looked that hard, also being involved in searching for employment) evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur, Xenophrenic's talk page behavior needs to be brought up on the ArbCom talk page. Newyorkbrad said if we had other workshop type comments to post them on the talk page. The redaction/reverting of editors' comments, the never ending tendentious arguments, and the incivility needs to be addressed. I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- It should be obvious to all that Malke (1) originally had a "thinko" where she wrote "anti-immigration" and meant anti-illegal-immigration, someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter), and you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change and (2) It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration", and feels the latter is misleading (although only P&W thinks that it means "racist" and a WP:BLP violation). You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading. If you were to recognize that it can be misleading, we could have a reasonable discussion as to whether it is misleading; but you do not do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I see several problems with what you have stated above. I'll be frank and simply tell you straight away that I don't believe for a moment that you are simply mistaken or misunderstanding at this point. You have exhausted what little remaining good faith I maintained in you, and now I'm fairly certain that you are willfully misrepresenting the situation, and intentionally distorting the truth. Others may not readily see it, so I'll provide the following clarifications:
- It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration"...
That would be a reasonable assumption under any other circumstance than this one. Had you been following the beginning of that discussion, however, you would have noticed that Malke had asked, "Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the 'tea party.'" That's right, Arthur, while everyone else on the page was debating whether or not the TP movement was anti-immigration, Malke was arguing that the TP movement wasn't anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Surely Malke must have "had a thinko" (new term for me, forgive me if I'm not using it right) and really meant to say "anti-immigration", right? No. She was demanding that I source the fact that TPers protest against illegal immigration. Even Arzel expressed confusion over Malke's stance, until I assured him she really did ask me for sources showing protests against "illegal" immigration. Arzel's response. Even North8000 was confused over Malke's use of the "anti-illegal-immigration" phrase, saying, "The above seems to keep jumping off on tangents. People keep discussing TPM actions against illegal immigration...". I set him straight, saying, "No, North, you heard her right. It's not a tangent, and there's been no false inference; it's a completely separate argument going on here." Malke confirmed that she was indeed intentionally talking about illegal immigration, not anti-immigration, saying, "I'm not saying you can't mention anti-illegal immigration. I'm challenging the RS that you presented earlier. And I've made very clear what problems I saw with each one of those sources." So Arthur, when everyone was arguing over the "anti-immigration" phrase, Malke was arguing over "anti-ILLEGAL-immigration", and insisting that I provide better sources to prove that TPers protested, marched and rallied against it. It was confusing to me, and to Arzel, and to North8000 that she was arguing over one term rather than the other, but I learned not to question her. When she later in that same discussion thread said "anti-immigration" when she really meant "anti-illegal-immigration", you claim it should have been "obvious to anyone reading" what she meant? Oh, hell no -- don't even try to pull that, Arthur. Apparently Malke talks about what she talks about, and assuming it's "obvious to all" when she makes a mistatement, well, nothing could be further from the truth.
- someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter)
No, Arthur. No one reverted her correction. I've checked every singe edit, twice. That's more bullshit, and I'm fairly certain you knew it was bullshit when you spouted it. I find that's pretty much true of most of the comments you make that are not accompanied by diffs. But your plan worked, Malke took your bait and chimed in with "I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too." Well done.
- you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change
More bullshit. Have you even looked at the exchange? Oh wait ... that's right, you've been too busy to bother to look at that upon which you comment. I knew Malke had simply made a mistake, or a "thinko" as you say, and I even stated so: "You've mixed the terms up again." But she denied getting the terms mixed up, saying, "No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration." And sure enough, there were her words: "anti-illegal-immigration" ... so I must have misread them the first time, I figured. But then I checked her edit. She had slipped in the word "illegal", without updating the time stamp, without noting that she had edited a comment to which I had already replied, and she denied she had made a mixup.
- You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading.
More bullshit. Since you don't have the time to actually read the discussions, and therefore have no real clue about my positions regarding anti-immigration and anti-illegal-immigration, allow me to quote from some of my own statements from the Talk page:
- The difference? "legal immigration" is the process of becoming a legally recognized and lawfully recorded resident, whereas "anti-immigration" is opposition sentiment toward aspects of the movement of non-native people into a country. I have not referred to anti-immigration as being anti-legal-immigration; you are mistaken. I have noted, however, that opposition to legal immigration and opposition to illegal immigration are both under the umbrella of "anti-immigration". re: Britannica; of course it's not the only source. There are several more with it at the end of that sentence, and many more have been raised here on this Talk page during this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I know very well the difference between "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and your assertion to the contrary is designed to intentionally mislead. I have never said they are the same. As for the latter being "misleading", where have I commented on that at all? (oh yeah, you don't do diffs, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery.) You are the only person to assert that it is misleading. Anything is open for discussion, Arthur, and for you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
- I hadn't been able to find ... evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now.
And yet you still are unable to provide diffs. That is very telling. You haven't indicated tendentious editing in your comment above. I pointed out that Malke had mixed up her terminology, and she publicly denied it, but knowing that she actually had, she corrected her mixup by editing an old comment without indicating her change. I civilly asked her to refrain from doing that, and cited the relevant policy. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's routine discourse between editors. I've expressed disagreement with certain opinions, and you misrepresent that as failing to "acknowledge" or "recognize" something -- again without evidence. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's you manufacturing baseless personal attacks upon an editor with whom you disagree, rather than discussing and working through your disagreements.
What does it say about you and your motivations when you have to actually "search" for evidence of tendentious editing, or ask other editors like North hoping that maybe they can provide you with something to manufacture a case against someone? Think about it. When KillerChihuahua fell ill and was hospitalized, I started compiling evidence for ArbCom in case she wasn't able to handle the matter, but fortunately she was back online very quickly. Yet, in that short time, I was able to compile 11.5 typed pages of diffs of egregeous behavior -- serious stuff warranting sanctions, not hand-wavey vague accusations that don't amount to much -- without even trying. I didn't have to struggle to find something, anything, to try to build a case ... it all jumped out at me, and I could barely type it up fast enough. There's a clue there. But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. It's why I don't rush to the boards when I see editors flagrantly breaking rules (like Arzel reverting the word "generally" out of the article twice in 13 hours - a slam dunk block). Unfortunately, since I see you have left your unsubstantiated personal attack on the article Talk page, I'm forced to take this to an administrator's board. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- You left a personal attack on the article Talk page, without substantiation. I've asked you to retract it. It's still there. I've expressed my concerns at ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Xenophrenic,you say you compiled 11.5 pages of diffs that show 'egregeous' behavior? Where is it? Why not post it on the ArbCom workshop talk page? Not all 11.5 pages, of course, just the really 'egregeous' stuff. And feel free to post egregious stuff, too, if you have it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll repeat what I said above. You apparent missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Incorrect, Malke. I'm mentioned there on all of the case pages, and the associated Talk pages. At least 62 times. You apparently are unfamiliar with ArbCom; they are indeed looking at me. I explained above why I am not actively participating, apparently you missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Xen, one more thing. Your version of the exchange regarding anti-immigration/illegal immigration. That doesn't really match up with the comments you made afterwards. Arthur is correct. Your new version is not. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Arthur's assessment is incorrect. I note that you, like Arthur, do not accompany your faulty assertions with diffs. Is there a reason for that, outside of the obvious one? Arthur calls the phrase "anti-immigration" deceptive. P&W and North call it "misleading". You haven't used either of those terms, but I assume you feel likewise. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators
|
Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |