Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 24 February 2017

Archives

2003-2005 Jan-July 2006 Jan-June 2007 Jan-June 2008 Jan-June 2009 Jan-June 2010 Jan-June 2011 2012 2014 Aug-Dec 2006 July-Dec 2007 July-Dec 2008 July-Dec 2009 July-Dec 2010 July-Dec 2011 2013

Fractran

I must ask you to immediately stop revert my edits on the Fractran article and start discussion this subject instead. Please explain why you think that your version is correct and not mine. TraxPlayer (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked for comments on your edits so please have a look at this edit:

I have just discovered that the ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{7}}}$ fraction was missing. Why did you comment that you reverted back to Conway version ? I strongly believe based that Conway version included the important ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{7}}}$.

TraxPlayer (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, the sequence of 14 fractions given in Conway & Guy The Book of Numbers and in Havil Nonplussed does not include 1/7. We can't just change stuff because we think it is wrong - we have to stick to cited sources. I have removed 1/7 from the sequence in the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the version given in Project Euler Problem 308 is different from the Conway & Guy and Havil version because it ends in 13/11, 15/2, 1/7, 55/1 instead of 13/11, 15/14, 15/2, 55/1. Probably achieves the same result, but the article should stick to cited sources, and published sources are more reliable than a web page. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I found a primary source on the fractran program. Written solely by Conway. And it contains the 1/7 version.

Please see this page from the book Problems in Communication and Computation. This book is from 1987 and contains the original paper by Conway. That must the best primary source. The Book of Numbers can't be primary source. I believe that Guy wrote most of the book including the Fractran part. What is your opinion on the picture from page 116 from Mrs. Roberts book? TraxPlayer (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And here the first page on the original Conway paper -

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraxPlayer (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Erdős number information

Hi! Thank you for all of your contributions!  :) I noticed that some guy has been going around Misplaced Pages deleting Erdős number information, which I think is unjustifiable. I just reverted one such deletion, explaining why. Your point of view on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Spigot algorithm

Thank you, your example about log 2 is great! 185.19.20.240 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gandalf61. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gandalf61. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect

His closure of the Q was uncalled for, and especially his removal of your link to the guidelines saying a discussion should be left open for at least a week, where his edit comment said he was reverting you as a banned user (you aren't, are you ?). He also reverted my comment agreeing with you. If you would like to submit a complaint on him, I will support you. He also threatened to block anyone who reopens the discussion. This type of behavior, using Admin powers and threats, to get his way, is unacceptable. See this edit and the previous one: . StuRat (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not a banned user :) I assume FPaS was referring to 82.47.242.185 (talk · contribs) who restored my post before FPaS deleted it again. As regards FPaS's behavior, I pretty much agree with you, but I see no point in complaining at ANI or anywhere else. Admins always close ranks and support each other, and the response would simply be "maybe he was a bit naughty but he's a good lad really and he meant well ...". But thank you for your offer of support anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's like the police policing themselves, there's a huge conflict of interest there. Behavior which would get a user banned is completely ignored when it comes from an Admin. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion was trolled by so-called "regulars". The Ref Desk is a complete joke, there are some users who are there simply to give their "opinion" on things, and seldom provide any kind of link or reference for their "opinions". Funnily enough, one of them is here in this thread. Until such scandalous and unencyclopedic behaviour is stopped, these kind of threads will be closed, removed, etc on sight because they do nothing for Misplaced Pages or its readers. The sooner you both get that idea sorted out in your heads, the better. Stop allowing the Ref Desks to be an alt-Facebook, and start using them to provide our readers with the service they deserve and expect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)