Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:48, 24 December 2018

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Warning Templates

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fibonacci number: you may already know about them, but you might find Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.

Re: Kepler Fraud

Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

Ellipse revert

Would you kindly and responsibly explain before you revert?

I have responded to this on the appropriate talk page.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

List of numbers and 50.247.108.35

That wasn't trivia, it was vandalism. Mario was added as 4 different numbers.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite right. I was getting a little fatigued of reverting this so often and slipped up my edit summary. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Inverse proportion square root seems new to you?

Let's discuss Archimedes square root of 3 that was modified to improve the upper and lower limits of pi, once limited to 22/7. Kevin Brown's math pages cites the issue as an unsolved problem, yet he includes the correct approach along with many dead ends.

Fibonacci and Galileo make explicit Archimedes method with respect to the square root of ten , began with (3 + 1/6) square = 10 1/36, and other examples. Improvements to initial guess errors were divided by twice The initial guess, namely

1/36 was divided by 2(3 + 1/6) by inverting and multiplying...Based on the middle term of the binomial theorem, such that, in modern Vulgar fractions

1/36 x 6/38 = 1/228 which meant a second guess

(3 + 1/6 - 1/228) squared was accurate to the square of 1/228

As the 800 bce sulba-sutra estimated the square root of 2 by beginning with

(1 + 5/12) squared = (17/12)(17/12) = 289/144 = 2 + 1/144

Error 1/144 also divided by twice The initial guess, and inverted and multiplied such that

1/144 x 12/34 = 1/408 which meant a second guess

(1 + 1/3 + 1/12 - 1/408) squared was accurate to 1/408 squared

A third guess divided 1/408 by 2 (17/12 - 1/408) was accurate to 11 decimal places 800 years before Heron created a geometric version off this very old unit fraction method to calculate this class of irrational numbers

Milo

Milogardner (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason for my revert was that the article was about the sulba sutras and not about improvements to the mathematics that is contained in them. You made no attempt to tie this in to the subject of the article so I considered it to be superfluous. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Conchoid of Dürer

Hi Bill, hope all's well. I had a question about the figure you added in this edit: according to the text, the distance b should be the sum of the lengths of the two legs of the right triangle, but in the figure it is the hypotenuse. Which description is in error? (As is probably obvious, I haven't taken the time to think through the content of the article at all yet.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I must have been half asleep yesterday, yes you are right, my labeling is incorrect. I also messed up the file names in the gallery, and I'm not sure about the first one (it might just be that the scale is not the same as the others). I will fix these problems either later today or tomorrow. Thanks for the extra pair of eyes on this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing -- anything's better than grading ;). At some point I hope to take an hour and actually read through the thing properly. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

While changes in my personal circumstances made my retirement necessary, in an alternate universe I'd still be teaching—until grading did me in. I've fixed the major error, but introduced a minor one (I've labeled distances with numbers that could be negative). I could redo the whole thing to avoid that appearance, but I'd rather chalk it up to artistic license and leave it alone. If you think I really ought to fix it I will. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the issue you mention is worth fiddling about. (In the diagram in question, both numbers are positive.) --JBL (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonagon

Hey there. You reverted my changes at nonagon, and obviously that's fine. WP:BRD But I didn't see anything on the talk page from you. I re-segregated the approximations and called out their (internally consistant) accuracies without putting in any of the other stuff. Could you have a look and let me know if this works for you?

Riventree (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have responded on the Talk:Nonagon page. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Hello, sorry if I bother you, but could you please check if the intro of this page sounds natural and fluid? If you're willing to, I thank you very much. Drow (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing terribly wrong with the lead of that article, but the flow could be improved. I'll make the changes, but feel free to reject them. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Drow (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Primary reference on Foata's transition lemma

You have reverted an addition that I made to the Foata's transition lemma entry in the article on permutations, stating that "secondary ref. in English is better than primary ref. in French." Well, maybe I agree, but here is my rationale: (i) it's an entry called "Foata's transition lemma," and I believe that it should point to the place where the correspondence was established; (ii) the article on permutations is already full of references to technical papers and advanced books; (iii) the world is a multilingual place, as you might know.

So, as a compromise, I suggest that a reference be given to some textbook (in whatever language) together with the reference to the original derivation, that I located precisely and may be useful to readers of the Misplaced Pages article. B.t.w., the book by Bóna is not the best place to point a curious reader; i.m.h.o., the presentation of the usefulness of Foata's correspondence at an elementary level is much better in the "baby" R. Sedgewick & P. Flajolet, "An Intro. to the Analysis of Algorithms", 2nd ed., Chap. 7.

Best regards,

jrgmendonca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgmendonca (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to having better references (and if not available in English, I don't object to them being in other languages). Please note that I did not revert your citation, I just moved it into the further reading section. My main concern was the issue of primary versus secondary sources. This is a major difference between writing a math paper, where primary sources are the standard, and writing an encyclopedia such as this, where we are reporting on what is in the secondary literature. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Brocard's problem.

Hello. I saw the reversion you made on the content I added.

What should I do to get some attention to the global equality of a^b=c!+1 and a^b=c!-1?

I believe both are interesting and relevant in number theory.

Anyway I'm a student so I understand that my work is not professional and my poor formation.

But I had some ideas about different subjects that were "stolen" from me by others so they could put their names on it. So I tried to be more active this this time.

Anyway, sorry if I resulted bothering.

Álex Gómez 1813 (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Álex. My revert had nothing to do with the value of your contribution, only with Misplaced Pages policy regarding what is published. Misplaced Pages does not publish original work such as you have submitted, only material that has already appeared in reliable secondary sources. What you need to do is to get your ideas published elsewhere and then they can be referenced here. It is typical for a student to get some help in doing this from their professors, but it sounds like you have had some difficulty in doing this. If that is the case, try other professors, maybe even from different schools. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wcherowi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wheat and chessboard problem

Why did you remove the link to "wheat" in this page? —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As is pointed out in Misplaced Pages:SKYISBLUE it is not necessary to link to every word in an article. Good links help readers fill in the background to make the current article more understandable. Bad links are those that send a reader off on a wild goose chase trying to find a connection with the current article. In my opinion, this link to Wheat was a bad link since the problem (story?) has nothing to do with wheat. In fact, many versions use rice grains instead of wheat. The nature of the substances used on the chess board is really unrelated to the counting problem. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a better place to look at is MOS:OVERLINK, where my point is more clearly made.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for your explanation. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ISBNs

Please click the wiki markup on the ISBN changes I made. I think you will see they are all valid. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your changes removed the separators in the parts of the isbn numbers. I assume it was the bot you are using. This does not give an incorrect isbn, it just gives a poorer version of the isbn. With the separators I can read off the language, region of publication and publisher, but since these fields do not have the same lengths, this can not be determined without the separators. Some simply use the isbn as a single number identifier, but this is just needlessly throwing away information. I wish you would stop doing this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)