Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rschwieb (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 30 October 2012 (→Algebraic structure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hippocampus

Hi Eric; I'm not so keen on your edit to hippocampus. I won't change it, because your facts are correct, but in my opinion the "electrical circuit model of the hippocampus" is basically cargo cult science: it crudely duplicates the form of the structure, but has zero chance of duplicating the computational functions. I believe that most hippocampal researchers feel the same way I do -- we've avoided expressing this in public because that sort of thing leads to flame wars that end up making everybody look bad. So basically I think talking about this stuff unbalances the article, but since I can't really support that by appealing to the literature, I think it would be best for me to leave it up to you to decide if you want to do anything about it. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fustat

Hiya, I have reverted your edit to Fustat, because there are sources which contradict your change. If you have different sources, I encourage you to add them, and/or bring things up at the talkpage. --Elonka 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to check your references, but they were not online references. Can you quote exactly what they say about this? Because it is well known that Misr is an ancient Semitic root for Egypt. In the Bible it's call'd Mitsrayim, which is a dual (as opposed to singular or plural). The article on Egypt also points this out. I don't have my Arabic dictionary with me to see what meaning the root might have in Arabic, but according to the Egypt article it means "metropolis", "civilization", "country", or "frontier-land". It is certainly not the normal word for "town", and it certainly had the meaning of "Egypt" long before the time of Amr ibn al-'As.

Abbas Ibn Firnas

Hello Eric. By looking at the messages above, It seems you have a background in science and some knowledge of arabic language or their culture; I wonder f you'd be willing to plsease take look at the Abbas Ibn Firnas article and see if in particular, if you can spot an obvious error on the crystal making/cutting aspect being discussed by some effusive editors, and if Abbas Ibn Firnas and Armen Firman are different translations of the same name or they are 2 separate persons, as suggested by one reference. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Composition of the human body

What about Chromium and Boron, you didn't add those, but don't worry about it, someone did. I did some math, and your numbers don't make a 100% full human body. I have a question for you then. I know that ${\displaystyle {\cfrac {65}{100}}+{\cfrac {18}{100}}+{\cfrac {10}{100}}+{\cfrac {3}{100}}+{\cfrac {1+{\cfrac {5}{10}}}{100}}+{\cfrac {1+{\cfrac {2}{10}}}{100}}={\cfrac {98+{\cfrac {7}{10}}}{100}}}$, but that still would leave Potassium, Sulfur, and Chlorine (.6% together) Sodium (.1%) Magnesium (.05%) Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, and Iodine (<.2% together) and Selenium and Flourine (<.02% together), which I'm afraid doesn't add to 100% when added with the 98.7%. I'm aware that I left out Iron, but Iron has to differ depending upon the person, not just one exact mass. So for someone to have no harmful elements, what would the percents be for Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine, Selenium, and Flourine? Please continue this conversation on my talk page.

Philosophia X Known(Philosophia X Known) 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

--Earthan Philosopher

Gutsy. And so funny!

I like your style. My only advice now: Run. Run like the wind. You have no idea what your "joke" could unleash. - Angels...Pins...Whatever (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Elk

Hey, thanks for contributing zero to discussing your unilateral move of the Elk article to a different name. It is a feature article and your unilateral move was never decided two years ago and even if it was, which it wasn't, that was two years ago. I am moving it back just so you know.--MONGO 15:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Way to go...you just screwed up plenty of pages that now need to have their rediects fixed!--MONGO 15:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Red_Deer#Name_Selection. Even you agreed to changing the name to "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". I am working on some of the redirects now. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No please...that was before it became a featured article...please don't make a bigger mess...I have asked the FA leader to fix this mess...you can't just pop in after 2 years and make a unilateral decision and changed the name of a featured article! Whats a matter with you man?--MONGO 15:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I found that the article "Elk" discussed Cervus canadensis, which I didn't think was good. So I read the whole discussion from two years ago where people decided to have an article on this species and call it "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". I agreed with the conclusion, and I didn't understand why it was called "Elk" after that discussion. So I looked in the history and found that somebody changed the name a year ago to "Elk", without any discussion and apparently without consulting the discussion of a year earlier. So I simply changed it back! I don't see what it being a featured article has to do with it! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Because...that was a discussion from TWO YEARS AGO! Hello! I mean, you certainly are arrogant to think that you can use a two year old out of date discussion to come along and without further imput, change the title of a featured level article unilaterally. Look, I'm sure you're a good guy and all, but no way will this stand.--MONGO 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any discussion since then. The first thing I did of course was to look at the talk page of the Elk article, where someone recently brought up the point that "Elk" was not a good title, and someone else refers him back to the discussion of two years ago! Which, as I said, concluded that the article should have the name "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Type I error

On Galton's problem you are correct of course and I am glad to see you made the correction! Douglas R. White (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Supernova

Hi,

You recently commented out my Fact template on the Supernova article. My concern was with the statement that, "The peak absolute magnitude of Type II supernovae is ... dimmer than Type Ia." In your comments you first mention the subsequent statement that a Type Ia supernova is more dangerous than a Type II, which is undoubtedly true but that paragraph does not state why. You then mention the subsequent example of a single supernova explosion, which doesn't quite prove the rule; only an instance of it. (I think that SN 1987A is also considered a low luminosity supernova, so it's not the best example.) Unfortunately I don't see that either of these demonstrate the correctness of the universal assertion that Type II is dimmer than Type Ia. If this statement is correct then there has to be a citation to prove it, per WP:CITE#CHALLENGED.

With regards to the "Dangerous close" statement, I think the usual method is to add quotes when it is attributed to a particular source. Otherwise you are expressing a point of view, and these tend to get challenged per Misplaced Pages:PoV.

I intend absolutely no offense by this; I merely would like to keep the article within Misplaced Pages guidelines and maintain the page's featured article status. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did find Richardson, Dean et al (2002) as a source, so problem solved I think.—RJH (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in regards to your more recent edits to the Supernova article where you restored information that had been migrated to the History of supernova observation. First, I'd like to ask whether you have taken a look at the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Summary style? Second, I'd like to point out that the "Observation history" section is now a summary style section and the past information has been moved to the history page; there's no reason not to do the same with new information.

The Supernova page is already past the maximum recommended length for an article (see Misplaced Pages:Article size), so any excess will need to be trimmed or relocated. Finally, your posted objection seems to contradict the purpose of the section: to serve as a brief history of observation. Your information now seems more pertinent to the "Impact on Earth" section, which may itself be in need to spinning off to another article because of length issues. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand now. I thought you had migrated the information on the titanium-44 gamma ray method because it referred to a specific supernova, so I rewrote it putting the emphasis on the fact that it's a new method of observation. Now I understand that you are trying to shorten the article considerably. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I did try to summarize that and some other recent information from the history page. I hope I captured your information succinctly.—RJH (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Birchat Hachammah

I'll do it on Wednesday -- thanx!

Bernoulli polynomials

Hello. Please look at my recent edits to Bernoulli polynomials. In particular, I changed

n=1

to

n = 1

and

-7.09

to

−7.09

A minus sign looks different from a hyphen, and spacing precedes and follows things like "=", "+", etc. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (mathematics). Also, the period at the end of a sentence needs to be inside the "displayed" TeX—otherwise it can get badly misaligned, sometimes even getting pushed to the next line. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing BC to BCE

Please don't replace BC settings with BCE ones as you did in the PPNA article. It is against Misplaced Pages policy and it starts edit wars. Thanks--79.78.226.52 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy is to be consistent. The article already had BCE in it. I wasn't trying to replace BC with BCE, I was simply correcting a few things, and I chose BCE since it's more usual for Palestinian archeology. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Knee

Hi, Eric. I finally got around to looking at the question about the difference between patellofemoral syndrome and the conditions I discussed in my edit. I had hoped to be adding more information (the difference between compression and instability) rather than causing confusion.

This appears to be one of those areas in which different doctors and publications use different terms. The umbrella term "patellofemoral syndrome" seems to include both compression and instability in many publications, and some of them also use "patellofemoral pain syndrome." I don't know if it's useful for our readers to get caught up in or confused by semantics.

Here's the deleted sentence:

<<There are disorders of the knee which are not necessarily the result of injury, for example patellofemoral syndrome and arthritis.>>

I'm going to add a new sentence at the top of the section that sort of begs the question:

"The most common knee disorder is generally known as patellofemoral syndrome."

As I've mentioned arthritis in my own introductory sentence, there's no need to mention it again.

Do you think that will be sufficient?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Contentmaven (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Contentmaven (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Contentmaven

Yes, thanks. I just added brackets around some of the terms so they will be Wikilinks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Tetrillion

I have nominated Tetrillion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tetrillion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dengero (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Timeline of the future

The article Timeline of the future has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An AfD resulted in consensus for deleting this article. Was recreated against consensus.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UserVOBO (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Marguerite (flower)

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Marguerite (flower). First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Marguerite. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Marguerite - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. GiftigerWunsch 14:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Number 50000 for Quaoar

Hi Eric,

I just got around to tracking down at least part of the citation for the special use of the number 50000 for 50000_Quaoar. Actually, I only found hard evidence for 20000_Varuna and circumstatial evidence for Quaoar — but it's a start. You'll find my comments in the Talk page Talk:50000_Quaoar at the bottom.

Robert Munafo (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Nicholas Burns (musician)

I have nominated Nicholas Burns (musician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Burns (musician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: . Biophys (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in editing g factor (psychometrics)

Hi, Eric, I appreciate you joining in on editing the article g factor (psychometrics). I have a very meager statistics background, and that is mostly a statistical topic, so I will look on with sources I have been collecting about the specifics of IQ testing. It will be good to have informed, collaborative editing on that interesting topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cockburn

Hey Eric,

I just fixed up the IPA formatting w/o considering if it was actually correct. Both COE-burn and COKE-burn are common. I have no idea which is more widespread, or if COKE-burn is indeed the general pronunciation. The OED only has COE-burn, but that's specifically for port named after a particular wine merchant. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I've just discovered Detailed logarithmic timeline and I think it fits well with a series of timeline projects I'm working on. I see you've done a lot of work on this, but that it only gets about 20-30 hits a day. Conversely, the Timeline of prehistory and Timeline of the future (just changed to Timeline of the far future get ~200 hits a day. I was thinking your logarithmic timeline might better serve the average reader if it were broken up and its information merged with Timeline of prehistory, Timeline of world history and Timeline of the far future. What do you think? Serendious 14:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered by e-mail. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but my anonymous email account has been frozen through neglect. I've just registered another one so if you could re-email me there that would be great. Serendious 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to authenticate. Sorted. Serendious 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Brain size

Hi Eric. I'm happy with most of your edits to the article, but I would like to change back from hippocampi to hippocampus and from amygdalae to amygdala, for two reasons: first, because the changes make the article inconsistent, since other equally bilateral structures are still referred to in the singular; second, because the plural forms will be less familiar to readers. (Even for readers who are unfamiliar with every form, we ought to get them used to seeing the form that appears most commonly, by far, in the literature.) Can I do this? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop you, but I fail to understand why people insist on talking about the amygdala and the hippocampus, but they say "eyes", "lungs", "kidneys", et cetera. I didn't check carefully whether the article mentions other parts of the brain of which we have two, but I would point out that the amygdalae and the hippocampi are not bilateral -- we literally have two of them, quite separate one from the other! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes in tropical year

About your question concerning the statement in Tropical year: "Aggravating this error, the length of the tropical days (measured in terrestrial time) is decreasing at a rate of approximately 53 s per 100 tropical years."

The day can be measured conceptually as the mean time for the sun to return to the same position in the sky for an observer at a fixed location on the Earth. The official definition changes from time to time to suit the instruments and mathematics in use, and tends to be redefined at intervals of 20 to 80 years. The day can also be defined in terms of 86,400 seconds of time as kept by atomic clocks. There is a theoretical definition of a time scale named Terrestrial Time (TT), which is implemented by adding 32.184 seconds to International Atomic Time. It is not possible to precisely calculate the difference between mean solar time and Terrestrial Time; it must be found by observation.

Throughout human history, calendar days have been a count of observed solar days, not days measured by atomic clocks. The calendar in widespread use around the world, the Gregorian calendar, approximates the tropical year. Thus, indirectly, we measure tropical years in observed solar days. But astronomical calculations are carried out in TT (or sometimes other time scales that can be transformed to and from TT with great precision). So the 3 days, 17 min, 33 s that (according to Holford-Strevens) the Gregorian calendar would be behind the Sun after 10,000 years was calculated using TT. But since the Gregorian calendar counts observed days, not TT days, the problem will be even worse. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. But my original question was "What is meant by 'tropical day'?" Surely it is not "the mean time for the sun to return to the same position in the sky ..." because that could be a year (or never, if one is stringent enough)! Maybe you mean "to return to the same azimuth" or "from midday to midday". And I don't think that is called a "tropical day", since the word "tropical" has to do with the sun "turning" at the tropic of Cancer or Capricorn. Maybe you meant to write (in the article) "Aggravating this error, the length of the tropical year (measured in solar days and seconds) is decreasing at a rate of approximately 53 s per 100 tropical years." Can you give me a quote from your reference source for this figure? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the source, and it turns out the phrase should have been "tropical year" rather than "tropical days". Also, the position of the decimal point was wrong, it should have been "0.53 s" rather than "53 s". I have corrected the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not convinced it's correct though. I think it means the length of a tropical year as measured in solar days and seconds, not Terrestrial Time. That the earth's period could be changing that much in real time (Terrestrial Time) seems too much. Could you provide the actual quote? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have sent a photo of the passage by email. Another source says the same think. According to McCarthy and Seidelmann (2009, p. 18, full bibliographic details in article)

The tropical year can vary by several minutes from year to year because of the motion of the Earth's perihelion, the secular increase in the rate of precession, and the periodic actions of the Moon and planets on the Earth's orbit. Averaging over time gives us a specified value for a mean tropical year. The precession rate is increasing, so the length of the tropical year is decreasing by 0.53 seconds per century.

The conventionally accepted value of the tropical year is 365.242 189 7 days, or 365 days 5 hours, 48 minutes and 45.19 seconds. An accurate expression calculating its length in days in the distant past (Laskar, 1986) is

365.2421896698 - 0.00000615359T - 7.29×10T + 2.64×10T

where T is in Julian cenuries of 365.25 days measured from 2000 January 1 Terrestrial Time (TT).

Since TT is the only kind of time mentioned in this passage, and because UT1 is so hard to work with because it is irregular and unpredictable, I feel confident all the times quoted in the passage are TT. The conventionally accepted value of the tropical year agrees with the value on page C2 of the 2011 Astronomical Almanac. On page C1 that publication states "Mean elements of the orbit of the Sun, referred to the mean equinox and ecliptic of date, are given by the following expressions. The time argument d is the interval in days from 2011 January 0, 0h, TT." It goes on to say on page C2 "The lengths of the principal years at 2011.0 as derived from the Sun's mean motion are...." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the scan and the reply. The book you scanned (I assume that's Blackburn & Holford-Strevens) says that the length of the day is increasing by 0.0015 seconds per century. Since it was 86400 seconds in 1900, then (continuing to use T to mean the number of centuries measured from 2000 AD), the length of a day is 86400+0.0015×(T+1) seconds. The tropical year, as of 2000 AD, was 31,556,925.445 seconds, and currently shortening by 0.53 seconds per century, so it is approximately given by 31,556,925.445−0.53×T seconds. Combining these two, we find that the length of a tropical year in days is approximately

(31,556,925.445/86400.0015 − 0.53×T/86400) / (1 + 0.0015×T/86400)

≈ (365.2421863 − 6.14e−6×T) / (1 + 1.74e−8×T)

≈ 365.2421863 − 6.14e−6×T − 6.35e−6×T

This shows that the expression you quote above from Laskar has the term − 6.14e−6×T (approximately) but doesn't have the last term which takes into account the fact that the day is getting longer. That's pretty strange. Do you have the reference to Laskar? I don't find that formula in his 1986 paper referenced in Tropical year.

I concede that your sources do mean that the length of the tropical year (in absolute seconds) is presently decreasing. I didn't realize it was such a large effect. But I notice that the equation of Laskar (if you copied it right) shows that the year will start getting longer in a few thousand years, due to the cubic term in T.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the scan is from Blackburn and Holford-Strevens.

I will need some time to think about all your questions, but let me point out where I think the terms can be found in the Laskar (1986) paper. In Table 5, page 64, notice the list of terms for ecliptic longitude (λ) for Earth. This gives the expansion for longitude, while the form of the equation in McCarthy and Seidelman is for the length of the tropical year, which is the time required for the longitude to increase by one revolution. So Laskar's expression would have to be differentiated to give the rate of change of longitude and solved for the time required to change λ by one rotation (2π or 360°). Also the time units would have to be changed from 10000 julian years to the mixed time units in McCarthy and Seidelmann (julian centuries and days). As partial confirmation of this idea, consider the t term in Table 5 for Earth, 628307584918000×10 = 62830.7584918. If we ignore higher-order terms we would expect λ to increase by 2π when one year passes, which would be an increase in t of 10. So Δλ for 1 year ≈ 62830.7584918×10 = 6.28307584918 which differs from 2π by only 0.0017%.

I agree with your results, approximately. First, I used somewhat different values; based on a graph on page 54 in McCarthy and Seidelmann I used a rate of change of day length of 1.7 ms day century. Also, the graph indicates that when using the linear approximation to day length, 1 UT1 second = 1 SI second in 1820 (This is because TT is a successor to ephemeris time, which was computed based on the work of Simon Newcomb, who relied on observations beginning when telescopic observations began and ending in the late 19th century.) The equations got a bit messy, and my memory of how to do series expansions is a bit rusty, so I just put the equations into OpenOffice Calc and did a numerical differentiation. That showed that the length of the tropical year at 2100 will be shorter than the tropical year at 2000 by about 1.2×10 day.

I do not find it surprising that Laskar left out the term to convert from SI seconds to UT1-seconds-of-date. There is considerable uncertainty in the length of the UT1 day at various times in the past and future, and astronomical equations of motion always use SI seconds because that is the unit that is compatible with the laws of physics that the equations of motion are based on. So by giving the length of the tropical year in SI seconds (or the equivalent) Laskar lets the reader employ whatever advances may have occurred in correlate UT1 to TT after Laskar published, or lets the reader plug the results directly into equations of motion.

For the length of day graph on page 54, McCarthy and Seidelmann cite Stephenson, F.R. and Morrison, L.V. (1995) Long-term fluctuations in the earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990. Philos. Trans. Phys. Sci. Eng., 351, 165-202. I have not found a free source for this paper. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hill sphere

"...will eventually fling the moon into either the planet's Hill limit, or the planet's Roche limit. Which of the two depends on..."

"I don't understand what you mean by the moon going into the planet's Hill sphere. It's already in the planet's Hill sphere -- otherwise it wouldn't be a moon."

What I meant is the moon approaching the Hill sphere boundary from the inside--moving from the inside of the Hill sphere to the outside. You can visualize a sort of a "habitable zone" for moons in the shape of a thick spherical shell surrounding the planet, with the inner radius at the Roche limit, and the outer radius at the Hill limit*. The moon can exit this shell through the inner surface, or through the outer surface. Freederick (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Sorry to have taken such a long time answering: I was AFK on vacation. I took the liberty of placing this response here, as keeping track of responses on NS comments can be a pain. :-) Freederick (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of IEEE machine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IEEE machine 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/IEEE machine 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Normal balance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Three-phase traffic theory

Thank you very much for your very important comments. We applied some changes to the abovementioned article based on your comments. In our changes, we have tried to answer on your remarks „Clarify“ made through the text (3 times). Please check whether our explanations are clear and prove whether section “Criticism of the theory” that you have written is still valid in relation to recent publications: 1.) The article by Hubert Rehborn, Sergey L. Klenov, Jochen Palmer, "An empirical study of common traffic congestion features based on traffic data measured in the USA, the UK, and Germany"] Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Volume 390, Issues 23–24, 1 November 2011, Pages 4466-4485. 2.) The article by R.-P. Schäfer et al, "A study of TomTom’s probe vehicle data with three-phase traffic theory"]. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol 52, No 5, Pages 225-231, 2011). 3.) The Chapter 10 of the book (Kerner, 2009) in which a detailed criticism of two-phase models with a fundamental diagram has been made. 4.) Section 5.2 in the article arXiv:1012.5159 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5159). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueshifting (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Umar Patek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indonesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Hyperopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Elk (mammal) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elk (mammal) 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/Elk (mammal) 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 template from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude

Hi, I raised a question over on the Mathematics Reference Desk regarding a passage that you originally added several years ago to the article "On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude". Any comments/insight you have would be appreciated; thanks! —SeekingAnswers (reply) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Algebraic structure

The reason "algebra over a field" and "associative algebras" were cleaned out was that "algebra" was taken to mean "associative algebra," as it is in most contexts, and it seemed senseless to include all the special cases. That said, recently some edits have been made to "algera over a field" that might help your recent edits be incorporated. Stay tuned! Rschwieb (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could say that since fields are rings, the article did include algebras over fields. But although I don't insist that all the kinds of algebras for which there is a Misplaced Pages article be mentioned, I do think algebras over fields should be, since they include such important cases as the real numbers, the complex numbers, and the quaternions. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if we have an article on an important topic like that, then it's worth weaving in a wlink to it. If you check out the latest edition of algebraic structure, you can see my attempt to seamlessly incorprorate the links. Rschwieb (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)