proving that probability metrics satisfy triangle inequality
Neither the original paper nor the wikipedia page prove that the introduced probability metrics are guaranteed to satisfy triangle inequality constraints. Any leads on that?
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Firstly, congrats on your PhD! Friend of mine did one on graph theory - not that I could ever understand what he was working on. There are a couple of possibilities mentioned on the AfD page of ways we could resolve this problem without losing your very valuable expert contributions. See what you think. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought of using your work as an example in a more general article? For example, when I wrote the article on enzyme inhibitors, I used one of my papers as an example (figure on left). Tim Vickers (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your lack of background in chemistry pales into insignificance compared to my almost complete inability to grasp mathematics! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Agnieszka Gortel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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 article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Hi Guswen,
I saw your comments on the Earthquake talkpage. Glad you are OK! Sounded chaotic at the airport. Did you get any pictures at the airport? Or anywhere else showing damage or rescue efforts? --220ofBorg01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Borg,
You're right - it was chaotic.
I put some airport pictures at
[[1]],
[[2]]. I also have some pictures and films taken mostly from the cab that we took from Thamel district of Kathmand to the airport an hour after the first shock but they're nothing compared to those now shown on TV. Guswen (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for some 'good' () pictures of quake damage, but we actually seem to have a fair number on commons here A few Wikipedians obviously live in the affected areas. 220ofBorg21:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Guswen. 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 Wikipedia 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.
Hello, Guswen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 Wikipedia 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.
Hello, Guswen. 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 Wikipedia 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.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Hi! You seem to be as much in love with Mathematics as I am. (See that essay of mine on my own wiki.)
I think the RM at Talk:Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric is probably a lost cause. But you have raised some good points and I hope I have not been dismissive of them. I really value your contributions.
With your interests in Poland and Math I can understand how this article is of particular interest. At least we spell Łukaszyk correctly there (I think)! And I admit I cannot pronounce Łukasiewicz with any degree of confidence, much as I have tried to learn it.
God made the integers, all else is the work of man. I like this Kronecker quote of your essay very much. Though, in my opinion he slightly missed the point, unless he meant God made the natural numbers, all else is the work of man.
Dimension n = -1 is a dimension of the empty set ∅ or (-1)-simplex (the “empty simplex”) or the nullity or void. Now, if one assumes that the void contains a single point, it is no longer the void and dimensionality increases to n = 0 (the 1st natural number). But this simple assumption that n > -1 induces all the remaining dimensions and other points that both also satisfy n > -1. The 1st (0 is a natural number) and the last (there is no natural number whose successor is 0) Peano axioms for the natural numbers are therefore sufficient to introduce all the other dimensions n > 0.
I know that this is a lost cause. I am simply fed up with the accusations of this function is not a metric as it is not positive definite or considerations about how not to define a metric in mathematics are not relevant, etc. [3], etc. I know that it is not a metric, and my intention was to clear this issue.
Your Ridiculous Numbers idea is cool. But I'd rather not discuss about the definition ridiculous unit j, as the multiplicative inverse of zero [are we talking about or here] :)
Yes, I should have said a multiplicative inverse of zero. I stand corrected!
Ridiculous Numbers is a parody but also a serious teaching tool. It calls attention to the significance of Peano's axioms. (We were taught that one of them was that one was not equal to zero... that must have been an earlier formulation, or perhaps it was someone else's later attempt. Somewhere I have my lecture notes from one of Vic Dudman's awesome lectures, it may be his own formulation.) That's probably why you like it.
(My fave Dudman quote, from Intro Logic I think, is probably If one of you were to come out here and tell me to shut up, or specifically if you were to say "Shut up or I'll hit you", and if I were to shut up, which I might well do, and if you were then to hit me, saying (some acting holding jaw here) "You shouldn't have done that..." then I have no reason to complain. Or at least, not from a logician's point of view. One of my heroes definitely! The subtle reference to WVOQ in those last four words is sublime.) Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My fave quote so far is "For in her (wisdom) is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unstained, certain, never harmful, loving the good, keen, unhampered, beneficent, kindly, firm, secure, tranquil, all-powerful, all-seeing, and pervading all spirits, though they be intelligent, pure and very subtle". [Ws 7, 22,23]
In fact not only a spirit of wisdom but also even a single qubit is both unique and manifold despite the fact that it seems contradicting (I mean a qubit is unique for a given observer after being measured but it can be easily made manifold by being unitarily transformed or measured in a different base). Guswen (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Schwarzschild radius shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Volume of an n-ball. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
Yes, we do. Per WP:CALC, Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote. The derivation is non-obvious, at a minimum it needs a footnote showing that equivalence and where all the terms came from. I'd prefer an actual reference. I'll be reverting it, per WP:BRD. you're supposed to discuss and achieve consensus before re-instating your change. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-comment; if there is no obvious reference available to cite, the question arises, why is this specific derivation important? If nobody else has bothered to publish it, do we need it here? Tarl N. (discuss) 07:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One particular importance is as follows. If we assume that any inertial acceleration a of any mass M (for M and R not bounded by the escape velocity inequality for c) must be lower than a black hole surface gravity, then
which for shows that inertial potential is greater than a black hole potential of
You misunderstand. It's not so much necessary to explain it to me, but to leave it obvious in the Wikipedia page. The usual answer is that you cite a reliable source which anyone can check. The principle is that writing a Wikipedia article takes an expert, but it must be maintained by people who may have no more than librarian levels of specific knowledge in the area. If someone comes by two years from now and says "hey, he has the wrong exponent", and changes it to , it may be obvious to you and I that such a change is incorrect, but as that escalates into an edit war, the person resolving the conflict is likely to be an admin, not an expert in the field. There are admins expert in physics, but a content disupute will generally be resolved by an uninvolved admin, which often means that those with the most expertise are excluded. That admin needs to be able to immediately see what the problem is - hence WP:CALC, only make trivial routine calculations (like age at death given birth date), not more complicated. If it takes a non-physics expert more than a minute or two to figure out (about the amount of time maintainers can afford to any given article), they'll likely get the resolution wrong. And see WP:CIRC why having bad information in an article is far worse than having no information.
That said, the question remains; if you don't have a reference which specifies this, why is it so important to put in Wikipedia? It seems an interesting piece of trivia, why do we need it? What point in this article requires it? Tarl N. (discuss) 21:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
The exponent cannot be as in this case units would disagree. Potential is measured in , acceleration in . Squared velocity of light is measured in .
Even if the ultimate relevance of this simple and elementary fact remains to be researched, in my opinion, we should not hinder this research by hiding it. Guswen (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SYNTH. If you can't find something that actually says what you want to add, it's either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Again, I ask, given that you seem to presume this is not published anywhere else, why is this required for the article? Tarl N. (discuss) 00:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Surface gravity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen. It has been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Thank you for this invitation but I am unable to edit the article due to the WP:COI, and I am unable to contribute to the discussion, as my account is blocked.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
I did. "If you have an account (registered user): Please log in to edit." So, I logged in. Nothing happened so "For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful." I read the FAQ for blocked users. It says "The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:Guswen|Guswen]] ([[User talk:Guswen#top|talk]]) 21:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)}} on your talk page" So I placed "{{unblock|reason=I have no idea why my IP address is blocked [[User:Guswen|Guswen]] ([[User talk:Guswen#top|talk]]) 21:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)}}" on my talk page. Guswen (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you did. You used the {{unblock-auto}} template, not the {{unblock}} template. What you are saying is that the IP address is blocked. You'll need to tell us your IP address. WhatIsMyIP will tell you your Internet address. --Yamla (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: this one's your block. The advice is to grant WP:IPBE in such a case but I believe this user may not be a suitable candidate, given their recent socking and coi issues. Thoughts? Note that I haven't looked at the checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that I'm not a "suitable candidate" then keep my IP blocked. I've been on Wikipedia since 2006. And I never did anything wrong. I'm OK to be persecuted. Guswen (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Guswen, here's the thing. No one is "persecuting" you, or Donald Trump, for that matter. You were, apparently, guilty of socking and got blocked because of it, and socking is wrong, so to speak. In my block notice I said, "If you are one of the bona fide users on this IP address range, and affected by this, please request unblocking, and ask for checkuser and IP address block exemption", so the ball is in your court. Are you a bona fide editor? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 13 and all that, and what a waste of people's time that was. I sure hope we won't have to go through something like that again, and so it's probably a good idea to not deny previous disruption: we really don't like socking. It spoils everything. If you can assure us that we are dealing with an honest and well-intentioned editor, than I'm sure Yamla can find it in their heart to file the paperwork. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me it was a clear persecution. An article concerning my PhD thesis, existing on Wikipedia since 2008 was deleted (after an appeal) because few anonymous Wikipedians (perhaps fewer than listed but using multiple accounts) requested that.
The distance function that I discovered twenty two years ago has merit and applications so I disagreed with this motion and alone engaged in the discussion. In the process I asked a friend to support me and I was accused of socking. But you're damn right. I was spitting into the wind and it was a terrible waste of time.
No, I didn't: this is very silly. Your recent edits are/were all to promote your own thing, and you're wasting people's time. Please stop that. If you wish to be exempt from this block, explain to us what you are going to do here, something that doesn't involve self promotion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not promoting my things, but edit information that is related to my education, I know or I'm personally involved in, such as April 2015 Nepal earthquake. I don't need to explain anything to you. Wikipedia remembers everything. Guswen (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to JBL's comments, reviving an old conflict between us - read WP:V. DO NOT add stuff from your personal conclusions, analysis, or imagination. Those constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Additions must be attributable to a reliable source, and immediately confirmable from that source. If your source doesn't say what you are claiming, you cannot add it. If you don't have a source, you cannot add it. This seems to be a variant on your surface gravity addition pattern, something you decided would be a cute factoid, not something you found in a tertiary source which deserves addition.
You were temporarily banned during an earlier conflict, and then your return got tangled in a IP range block - now that you appear to be back, be careful to not trigger a permanent ban. Additions like this look very much like WP:NOTHERE. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen. Please leave me alone. This section reads where n is any integer. And the equation is unsourced. I checked this unsourced equation to find it is valid for complex n, so I added this information. You disagree, and I'm perfectly OK with that.
If you insist on claiming it is valid only for integer n, let it be. I did not start this bizarre I mean really discussion. And - I mean really - do not have time to spit into the wind. If I mistakenly upset some Wikipedia ruler(s) again, I humbly ask for forgiveness and a modest punishment.
To address the math aspect ... that equation giving the value of in needs a caveat or two if it is to be applied to other than integers n. Specifically, when n isn't an integer the expression in is frequently considered to be multivalued. That is in is often considered to be equivalent to exp(n log(i)) = exp(n (2πm + π/2)i) for any integer m. If n is an integer then this right-hand side does not depend upon the choice of integer m, but when n is not an integer then there are at least two and as many as infinitely many possible solutions. For example, n = 1/2, gives the value indicated by the formula, and its negative. Yes, one could talk about principal values and make that work, but that hasn't been done and I'm not sure that it's worth it. To the extent that some of this is already obvious, I apologize in advance. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, the principal value of is , which - using Euler's formula - is . And this is valid . So perhaps, someone (not me, of course) would kindly consider having it done? Or will we keep insisting that it is worth claiming that is true if and only if , instead? Guswen (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To address “leave me alone”, read WP:COLLAB. If you insist on declaring yourself a lone ranger who operates in defiance of policy and refuses to respond to corrections, that is pretty close to definitive WP:NOTHERE. Your past history recently cost you the assistance of an administrator when trying to work around an IP range block. Continuing your pattern does not bode well. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never declared myself anything, and I never tried to work around anything. I've been a Wikipedian since 2006.
In your second edit, you added the ridiculous text "(which is valid for some unspecified n)". But the domain of validity was correctly specified at the beginning of the section! (Per your request, I will not post here further unless required to do so by policy.) --JBL (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus, would you do me the favor of stating it here before proceeding? My fear is that we haven't yet achieved consensus. My worries include that one chooses principal values by designating a branch cut and a sheet (or by similar means) and that a blanket statement that gives in for non-integer n without discussing that is misleading. I added a sentence after that formula in the article to address this. Perhaps we could discuss here specific improvements to the article rather than making them on the article page. (I really do mean "perhaps". If you see a consensus or if you think my edits don't achieve a consensus then, of course, you also have the option of going boldly on the article page. However, I urge cautious edits because I worry that we don't actually have consensus yet.) Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this edit. However, would you mind amending the "...this last equation would apply to non-integer values of n as well" into "...this last equation would apply to complex values of n as well"? Otherwise, what can a reader infer from "non-integer values"? , ? it is clear that in the referred case.
If you are talking about a citation for "Although we do not give the details here, if one chooses branch cuts and principal values to support it then this last equation would apply to all complex values of n.", I don't have one. If you think that it needs a citation, rather than being a candidate for WP:CALC or similar, then our job here is not yet done. Personally, I went with "... if one chooses ... then this would ..." because there are also other ways to define in when n ∉ Z, but if one bothers to set things up accordingly then one could use this formula. Your thoughts? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in debating anything technical with this editor, since that so often results in ad hominem attacks. They seem more interested in arguing and demeaning other editors than in building an encyclopedia. Most recent example from above "do not post here further until you grasp some math rudiments" - unacceptable WP:CIVIL (bullets 8 & 9) violation. Whether that eventually leads to a WP:NOTHERE ban is not directly up to me. My commentary here is that WP:V remains the primary principle of Wikipedia - Any edits made (even "the sky is blue") must be accompanied by a WP:RS citation which actually says what the editor claims. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply unbelievable. I noted that some formula is valid for and not for . In fact, as User:Quantling correctly noted, this is true only for the principal value of . Then I was personally attacked, ridiculed, and harassed, even though I said I was OK with leaving this formula wrong and I didn't have time to spit into the wind in such futile discussions. And When someone shouted, "But the domain of validity was correctly specified at the beginning of the section!" I advised him/her to check the math him/herself.
I've been a Wikipedian since 2006. May I kindly ask you, User:Tarl_N., when did you start contributing?
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your additions have been reverted 6 times by 3 different users. I think it's time to accept that they are not improving the article. Otherwise you're engaging in disruptive behaviour and are bound to get your account blocked. Tercer (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "my additions". I only reference recent research results concerning quantum nonlocality published in renowned peer-reviewed journals. This is in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability and aims in improving the quality of this article.
Thank you. Feynman was right saying that "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't." Luckily it's no longer mechanics. It is mathematics. And I am deeply convinced that those bounds and this peculiar qubit have something more they would like to say. Guswen (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pi. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
You have all the arguments to unblock my account on file, and I see no reason to repeat them here in detail. All I ask for is a fair, unbiased verdict. I confess that in December 2023, I was trying to broaden Carl Sagan's observation that "the creator of the universe buried a message deep within the digits of ". However, for this endeavor, I was already punished by being blocked from editing the Wikipedia article on . I accepted this verdict and did not appeal it. Indeed, in this case, my edit was against WP:NOR Wikipedia policy. Guswen (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
This block was imposed on April 5th, not in December; it's not obvious to me where your arguments are "on file". You need to provide the reasons to unblock you in your unblock request. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia. You don't address this disruption(Disruptive editing; including but not limited to edit warring, violations of the conflict of interest guideline, misrepresenting other editors' positions as detailed in ANI thread; previous p-block just spread the disruption to other pages (e.g., Assembly theory)) in this request. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
When you're blocked sitewide, your talk page is the only page that you're able to edit, for the purpose of appealing the block. DanCherek (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I would only like to add information that my account has been indefinitely blocked at the end of it.
For those who care about such things, yes. In preferences->gadgets, there is an option set by most patrollers which will flag blocked usernames when they appear in edit histories. That's mostly to show a user has already been dealt with by an administrator, so any problem observed doesn't need to be reported again. In addition, anyone editing your talk page (in the standard Wiki Editor) to leave a comment, will get a pink-background notice that the user is blocked. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tarl N. for this comprehensive explanation.
But those Wikipedia users who don't care about such things and they're the majority (and I presume that at least here we agree) may be misled to think that I wholeheartedly agree with every revert of my Wikipedia contributions, which (and I presume that also in this point we agree) would be misleading, right?
So, would you kindly allow me to simply amend the last sentence of my user page at [4] that terminates with
"I use Wikipedia almost everyday, rather occasionally contributing since May 2006, but still and invariably having a tremendous respect to the quality of this project, that even though relaying only on the work of numerous, mostly anonymous volunteers astonish with its ability to deliver reliable and concise information."
to read
"I use Wikipedia almost everyday, rather occasionally contributing since May 2006, but still and invariably having a tremendous respect to the quality of this project, that even though relaying only on the work of numerous, mostly anonymous volunteers astonish with its ability to deliver reliable and concise information.
Unfortunately now my account has been indefinitely blocked."
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assembly theory. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2015_Nepal_earthquake#/media/File:Qatar_Airways_Cargo_B777_providing_humanitarian_support_after_the_2015_Nepal_earthquake_April_26,_2015.JPG){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polish_rescue_team_at_Kathmandu_airport_apron_April_27,_2015.jpg){kind=link}