User talk:Wcherowi/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Wcherowi/Projective planes has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Projective planes, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Projective planes. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Wcherowi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

I'm sorry you've had such a run-around with the projective plane page. You've picked up a lot of Wikipedia's often mysterious ways of working very well, but obviously not all of them yet! I think we are getting there, if not let me know how I can help, see below

Here are some pages (from the normal welcome script) that you might still find generally helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Andrewa (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

{{help me}}:Thank you Andrew. I would certainly like to get this Projective plane page untangled. I realize that it will take an administrator, such as yourself, to carry out the move that I have asked for. My only question at this point in the process is the following: During a lapse of judgement on my part I actually followed someone's advice and sent the article to AfC, where it now happily resides. My second request for a move now looks like I am asking for a redirect to replace the original article. What I would like to know is whether or not I should move my article back to my sandbox or just leave it where it is, hoping that whoever works on this will understand my intent and do the right thing? Is there anything else that I should do to make the process easier? Thanks again. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now seen your other posts with suggestion to just cut-and-paste. I'm fine with that. I thought that I was going about this the right way, but I must have missed a bump in the learning curve. I'll withdraw my request for a move. The above question is now moot, but I'd like an answer just for my own edification.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I see the whole picture (note a helpme won't always bring back the same person that replied before!). I see a few choices (I think)...
  1. Move the page back to User:Wcherowi/Projective planes - you should be able to do that as there is only a simple redirect with no history. You may also ask an admin to delete the redirect left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Projective planes - or ask an admin to do both (leave me a note on my talk, if no one about)
  2. You can ask for other editor feedback at any time (without moving the page) at WP:RFF
  3. When you are happy with the new page - check no one has edited the original and added something you might overwrite! - then you can cut and paste your sandbox into the original in one hit (this is probably the only use for cut and paste on WP - as all the edits are by a single editor - the edited article will only show one edit by your self, not the 40 or so you have done), OR you may ask an admin to do a history merge (leaving out the AfC edits) with the original page - in a nutshell the main page is deleted, your page moves to the article name, and then all the deleted history is restored, given one long history.
Hope that makes some sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It all makes good sense to me, thanks for putting it so clearly. I have cut to the chase and done the move back to user space, and have not created a redirect.
The reason that cut-and-paste moves to the article space are discouraged, even forbidden in most cases, is that we need to preserve the history of edits others have made, in order to associate the edits with the authors. That's a condition of the copyleft licences we use, both the GFDL which we still use for historical reasons and the Creative Commons licence we now prefer. If the changes you're making to the article are all your own, this is not a problem.
The other place I can think of that cut-and-paste is sometimes needed is in performing article splits and merges, but those topics don't concern us here. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you like me to now formally close the move request? Normally this should be done by an uninvolved admin, but I'd be quite happy to do it in this case at your request, under our policy of WP:IAR, see also WP:SNOW. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate your formally closing the move request. Thanks again for getting involved in this. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not taking a closer look at this the first time around. If I had seen exactly what was going on, I could have saved you a lot of grief. I look forward to working with you, and hope that next time I'll be helpful rather than a hindrance. Cliff (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cliff. I'll chalk this up to one of life's little lessons: If you don't go through any rough patches, you'll never learn how to deal with them. I'm sure that things will go a bit smoother in the future.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry

Apparently you do not know how protection works. See WP:PP. I am just doing maintenence edits. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wcherowi. You have new messages at LikeLakers2's talk page.
Message added 12:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Fisher's inequality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Erdős-De Bruijn theorem
Steiner system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Affine plane

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Hughes plane, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Nearfield (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Hall's marriage theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marshall Hall (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) 11:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Combinatorial design, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Networking (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) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


TUSC token 59513e5919c9a01df897ae05eddf7914

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 

    Transformation in time.    
    I like your boldness.Three hours to read, understand new knowledge is not enough. I suggest read again, think and then answer. The equation is not distorted in the 'editing'. Cosmology csn be difficult so ask questions if you want to know more. KK (83.26.192.45 (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Combinatorial Species

hello. I have seen you have modified my contribution to the Fano's plane.

I have added the combinatorial description, uses the language defined here Combinatorial species - yes I know - it needs some exercise to read the combinatorial equations.

This one is a very short equation, that contains two derivations and a product and, for sure, deserved to be mentioned.

Pls. put back my contribution. Thank you. Best Regards Nicolae Nicolae-boicu (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


this one wcherovy : Fano"=X.Klein. Nicolae-boicu (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

dear Bill

I have taken my time to think at your "combinatorial interpretation" - What I have understood, is that right now, nearby "geometrical interpretation" or "physical interpretation" (the small infinits calculus) there is one more. It seems that I will have to live with it. The fact is right now I have no ideea how to deal with "copies". What color would have the intersection of a "green set" with a "red set" ? which is the sum of a "yellow 2" and a "pink 3" ?

Thank you for your intervention and - promised - if one day the wonderful ideea how to deal with "copies" will come to me, I will leave you a message.

you still don't believe me ? there is stuff that works by "cancellation", like math. And there is stuff that works by "ignoration", like the interpretation. Can't trisect an angle ? so what ? the magic is still there ! Nicolae-boicu (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reciprocal polynomial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primitive polynomial (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) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-Desarguesian plane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nearfield (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) 11:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that you are doing a lot of nice work on the disambiguation of links: well done! :-D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyes@wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Intersecting conics examples

Hi Bill,

I think I got it worked out. I added a note with a link to the location of two worked out examples here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conic_section#Example_of_intersecting_two_conics

The only thing I don't understand is why there are 3 solutions to the degenerate conic, but only 1 is necessary to solve for the intersections.

daviddoria (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, but we get two lines from a single degenerate conic, and it seems that this is all that is necessary (I only used and I got both lines that I needed, no? daviddoria (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so the intersection of the degenerate conics is the solution to the original problem (find the intersection of the conics)? It seems in the two examples I've worked out that the intersection of one of the degenerate conics with the original conics themselves also gives the intersections I am looking for? Is this not the case in general? daviddoria (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it all makes sense now. Thank you for your help! daviddoria (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverts on Line (geometry), Plane (geometry), Point (geometry)

Hi there, I disagree with your reverts for the following reasons:

  • The article Mathematical object states these are mathematical objects,
  • All Mathematical objects are abstract concepts of mathematics, hence mathematical concepts.
  • My edits involved the addition of a category that is more specific, and the removal of a parent category, such that no information was lost.

You stated the revert was because the pages are about concepts and not objects, can you source this?

Thanks Bg9989 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed you marked your reverts as minor edits, which is a misuse of this tag see: Help:Minor edit Bg9989 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with your decision's if you believe the articles talk about these terms, as signifiers used in different contexts - as opposed to abstract objects with conceptual framework manifesting in different mathematical forms.

Bg9989 (talk)

Spaces

Hi Wcherowi. I reverted the reversion you did on the Space (mathematics) article. The content I added was content for the encyclopedia page, not discussion for the talk page. Please feel free to edit it to make the text fit with Wikipedia's encyclopedia style. --Hierarchivist (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks so much for your clarification on my talk page. I folded my comment into the article under measurable spaces. The main point I wanted to make was that not all topological spaces are measurable. How I'd written it came off as a justification of my initial comment about the image, which I've now discarded. The statement about a slick proof is probably not encyclopedic, so feel free to rearrange that into a reference. Cheers! --Hierarchivist (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Wcherowi; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

About coordinate rotation

Sorry, my drawing was a bit confusing, since I wrote "P" in a wrong place: it is actually P_x', and "P" is the point from which there are perpendiculars drawn towards all the axes. But anyway, getting back to your explanation. When you rotate coordinate system conterclockwise, your angle between positive x-axis actually becomes smaller, it is going to be (ψ - θ). The angle is going to be (ψ + θ) if your rotation is clockwise. So, the formula in the article is given for clockwise rotation. Liartar (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining me my confusion. Now I see my mistake: I did not realize that the section is talking about rotation of an object, which is equivalent to rotation of coordinate system in opposite direction. Thanks again, and sorry for the huss. Liartar (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion–exclusion principle

Thanks for clarifying and improving my recent edits. Regards, Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

infinity: "size" vs. "number of points" in Dedekind infinity diagram

Thanks again for correcting my explanatory text on the Dedekind infinity diagram in the Infinity#Set_theory article! I was unhappy with the term "number of points", too, as it is not a precise mathematical notion when dealing with infinite sets (that's why I had put it in quotes). However, I thought it may be ok as an informal explanation for cardinality. On the other hand, your suggestion size could be understood by non-mathematicians as length of the line (e.g. in centimeters), which would be rather misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jochen Burghardt (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planar ternary ring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nearfield (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) 11:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Functional notation

FYI, the content at functional notation (which you just PRODed) was not mine. I merely moved it out of the unrelated article functional (mathematics) (as indicated in my edit summary). The user that originally added the content is Reddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to whom the copyvio warning should obviously go, and who, I should add, is already the subject of a related inquiry of my own at WT:WPM#Conservative vector field. I appreciate your vigilance in this matter, although it magnifies my worries about User:Reddi (an established editor of more than 50,000 contributions). I fear a Jaggedesque scenario might soon be on the horizon. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the text, although clearly plagiarized word-for-word without WP:INTEXT attribution, does not appear to be copyrighted (see, e.g., the publication date). This mitigates my concerns about the user in question only slightly, however. I have not removed the PROD from the article, although I think it is probably no longer a candidate for proposed deletion under the precise rationale that you gave. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for that ... I was aghast when I saw that Twinkle sent you the notice (I should have checked before PRODing). As to the copyright issue, it is clear that no violation can be claimed against the original source, but I was looking at Google's terms of service legalese and couldn't quite tell if this was covered under that umbrella. So I just tossed it out there hoping that some of our CV sleuths would work it out. I share your concerns about User:Reddi and will keep my eyes open for other instances. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. Thanks again for catching this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Projective geometry

My apologies for my incorrect edits at Foundations of geometry. On checking I find that you are entirely correct. Projective geometry "modifies" Euclid's parallel postulate by simply dropping it altogether. I had always assumed this classified it as non-Euclidean in the same sense as the hyperbolic and elliptic varieties. My mistake. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a Funny Joke - Magic Squares

My edit to Magic Squares article was not a "Funny Joke" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic_square&oldid=579884727 References is now added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic_square&oldid=579886504

Regards TraxPlayer (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

De Morgan and circle squaring

I just saw your addition to Squaring the circle; I don't think it is quite accurate to say that De Morgan was "debunking" circle squaring in the Budget of Paradoxes. In the Budget, he does "review" many publications relating to circle squaring, and in a handful of cases he discusses what is wrong with the argument presented, but most of the time he simply says that it must be wrong and makes fun of the authors and their complaints when their work is ignored by mathematicians. But the debunking is very limited, and he does not present an argument for why the problem is unsolvable (he only has an appendix proving the pi is irrational). I don't want to get into an editor war or big discussion about it, but I do wonder whether "debunking" is an appropriate way to describe what De Morgan does in that book. Magidin (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: 'ridiculing'... while more accurate, perhaps it would be better to simply say that the Budget is one of the most famous compendia/catalogue of attempted circle-squaring that appeared since the invention of the printing press. Magidin (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did think "debunking" gave the wrong impression, but I'm willing to go along with your current wording. Magidin (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Square root, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finite (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) 09:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Pappus hexagon theorem article

Hi Wcherowi. I see you recently made an edit at Pappus's hexagon theorem. I've put a remark on the Talk page to the effect that the diagram shows a special case of the theorem and suggest the article should be amended to clarify this. Specifically the Pappus line is not in general concurrent with the lines formed by the two sets of triads. A Sextet Short of PG(2,57) (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Vertical line test

Why did you revert the edit? In what way do you think the notation is poor? It is the same notation as in Function_(mathematics)--Biggerj1 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isometry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Similarity (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) 09:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Approximations of Pi

That editor has been warned twice before (me and another editor) for similar edits. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Hilbert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pasch (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) 09:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Closure (topology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mapping (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) 09:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So-called "Tongue in cheek reference"

You removed the reference to a MacTutor History of Mathematics publications in the Wikipedia session on the Fibonacci number. This article was refereed and published. It was published online! TonyMath (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Field trace

Thanks for your additions to this article. Please remember to add citations to independent reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Yes, you're right. I was misreading the earlier definition to indicate the "closure operation" results in something in X. Without that, though, there is no guarantee a set can be closed, which makes the operation incompletely defined. But I agree, that's not always relevant. On the other hand it is often is very much desired. Perhaps the distinction can be noted somehow? Daren Cline (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Function (mathematics)

I've been either a college student or a college teacher for more than fifty years, and while I have seen the phrase "natural number" used to include zero, most notably by Peano (though I don't know what the phrase is in Italian), the blackboard N almost always does not include zero -- I can't think of an exception. But, I agree we need to be clear. I did not notice the N when I made my edit. I'm glad you caught that. I'll take another look, at order of operations, natural number, and factorial. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Permutation figures

Continuing our "discussion" (as you've generously put it) from David's talk page. I've contributed this image Wikimedia commons - Permutations to Permutation. I'm interested to hear whether you find it "wrong". it is different from the figure featured on Permutation Graph Larkin2 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at this image when you put it into the page. It depicts the repeated application of the permutation (1 2 5)(3 4) in cyclic notation or 25431 in one-line notation. It is not "incorrect", but it doesn't have much of a point. Similar diagrams are used by bell ringers who ring the changes to keep track of when each bell is to be rung. I don't know why you decided to put it into a section on cyclic notation, it doesn't seem to say anything about that style of notation. I thought about moving it elsewhere, but couldn't find a place where it naturally fit in, so I left it alone.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It "doesn't have much of a point"? really? My intention was to help visualize cycles by clealry showing the orbits, that they are disjoint, cyclic and that each element scans over all elements in the cycle. I was quite pleased with how many group theory concepts can be illustrated using that diagram and hoped it be useful in other contexts. But maybe it's "pointless" as you say. Wikipedia is not for me, I can't stomach the ubiquitous overtones of entitlement. Do what you will. Larkin2 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. I was in the process of working on a way to add text that would make the illustration meaningful in that section - in accordance with your vision of what this was meant to show, when I noticed that this wasn't the permutation I thought it was. In fact it is the inverse of the permutation I mentioned above, namely (1 5 2)(3 4) or 51432. (The diagram is not incorrect, just the caption.) I will go ahead with this, but it will take a little longer since I would now need to change other things in the article for consistency. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inverse function may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Two-graph may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • any set of non-orthogonal equiangular lines in a euclidean space can give rise to a two-graph (see [[equiangular lines]] for the construction}.<ref>{{harvnb|van Lint|Seidel|1966}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error

Thank you for noting that I was confusing the connected-unconnected vertex language with the colored-edge-on-complete-graph language! I made a similar edit elsewhere in the article before reading your note, then reverted that too!

But now I am thinking that the equivalence of the "colored" vs "connected" presentations should be mentioned near the beginning of the article, since the introduction mentions only coloring, not connecting. I realize the equivalence is a pretty trivial thing to understand, but, as you saw, it did confuse me. I have refrained from making that addition to the introduction, just in case I am somehow wrong about this too! But what harm could it do to point out the equivalence? Dratman (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes you get so involved with something that you can't see the forest because of all the trees! This has certainly happened to me a number of times and I am sure that it will happen again. I think you are right about putting the equivalence into the article – I'll take care of it. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Divisibility rule: Thanks!

Gees, I made such a grade-school mistake .. Thank you for pointing out! Besides that, I'm adding "divisibility by 9" now; you can oversee it if you want. --SzMithrandir (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parallel (geometry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simplicius. 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) 09:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Similarity (geometry), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Transitivity (mathematics) and Isometry (mathematics). 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) 08:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Taylor series

Hi my friend f is equal to it's Taylor series and the new notation that I add is necessary because if you do the derivatives from f(a_1...a_d) the result is zero but in my notation you must first do the derivative then put the numbers in it. there is a total difference and it must be in that way otherwise it lose its meaning here is a ref for you to see. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TaylorSeries.html eq 31&32 thanks for your attention and time. I'm waiting for your answer. Reza Naderi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhtarphysic (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Reza, sorry but you have mistaken me for another editor, I have made no edits to Taylor series. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read and comment delete or keep Dao's theorem

Hello Wcherowi,

I see history of Euclidean geometry I think You have knowledgeable classical geometry, please read pages Dao's theorem and comment anything You think. Delete or keep pages Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.

Best regards

Sincerely

--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Factorization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FOIL. 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) 15:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Further reading

There were recently two new items included in the Further reading section of Functional equation: both books were by E. Castillo & co-authors. The first book, at least, should not be there; I am unsure about the second.

I looked at the article's History, and discovered that the two books were included when someone added books by E. Castillo to many Wikipedia articles. Such additions are a violation of WP:Further reading. The additions were later reverted. You, however, undid the reversions.

I have reverted your edits. My suggestion is that if you believe that some of the books merit inclusion, and you have studied those books yourself and are willing to stand by them, then re-including them would be fine.
TheSeven (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with you reverting my edits. I had observed that an IP had systematically removed all of these references by E. Castillo, et. al. without giving any reason. This looked like an act of vandalism (specifically targeted), so I reverted many of them. It is true that these references were all put in by another anonymous IP and I suspect that this was a violation of WP:Further reading, but I have no proof of that and many of the titles looked appropriate. I am not in a position (nor willing to spend the time to be) to decide if the references are good additions or not and hope that those editors with closer ties to these subjects would do so, on a case by case basis. My only objection was to the wholesale nature of these deletions. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

wondering about your comment on Talk:Pasch's axiom

on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pasch%27s_axiom#Statement_of_Axiom

you say: " To Pasch, the side AB of triangle ABC meant the line determined by A and B. For a line m to meet the side AB internally, means that the point of intersection of these two lines is between A and B on line AB. For m to meet side AB externally, means that the point of intersection is not between A and B"

i had a look at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=ABV7607

page 21

and in "IV Grundsatz Pasch writes about "geraden Strecken" and as far as my German goes "Strecken " means line-segments not lines. can you comment on this ? Thanks WillemienH (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I had not seen the original and was basing my remarks on the belief that the Beutelspacher & Rosenbaum statement would be a more faithful rendition of Pasch's axiom than it has turned out to be. My main concern was trying to establish the distinction between Pasch's axiom and Veblen's axiom, a task that can be difficult if these axioms are loosely stated. Pasch does use lines as the sides of a triangle in his alternate statement of the axiom ("Oder - ") but he clearly doesn't refer to external intersections. In my comments I should not have attributed that statement to Pasch, but rather to Beutelspacher & Rosenbaum. I'll need to rethink my use of their statement in the article. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
even the oder -- part doesn't use lines as the sides of a triangle it loosely translates as: For the points A, B, C, D in a plane, [and a point] F on the straight line AB between A and B, the straight line DF goes either through a point on the segment AC or through a point of the segment BC. Thanks for correcting the wikipedia article (but now the drawing needs updating), I don't think the book of Beutelspacher & Rosenbaum is very good . WillemienH (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposition to revise Permutation article

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Permutation I wrote about difference between Russian and English meaning of term "permutation". In Russian sources(Encyclopedia of Mathematics definition is taken from V.N. Sachkov "Combinatorial methods in discrete mathematics") term "permutation" and "variation" differs where permutation doesn't allow repetition while variation allows. In English sources there's no such distinction. Take for example classic book on combinatorics by J. Riordan "An introduction to combinatorial analysis". He notes at first page that elements may be distinct and may be all of one kind http://books.google.az/books?id=zWgIPlds29UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false I'm proposing revisal of article with same list of cases as author listed to clear confusion: 1) Number of permutations of distinct things 2) Number of permutations of n things, p of which are of one kind, q of another(matches Permutations of multisets in Wikipedia article) 3) Number of permutations with unrestricted repetition — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalDemocrat (talk • contribs) 10:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This would not be a good idea. This is not the way permutations are defined in modern mathematics. (Riordan is quite out-dated.) "Variation" is not commonly used in English. In German, where the term is used, there is a clear distinction between variation with repetition and variation without repetition. If a Russian source uses the term differently, I don't see why the English Wikipedia should comment on it, given that it is not uniformly defined in the non-English literature. Your points 2) and 3) are not permutations in modern terminology. They are part of a complex of counting problems which are today referred to as the Twelvefold way in combinatorics. One of the reasons for defining permutations as bijections is to avoid the confusion that earlier terminologies engendered and which you are trying to incorporate in this article. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

multivalued functions

Hey, I just wanted to ask you about the repeated roots of 0. You say there is only a need to talk of a repeated root for equations but I don't quite understand what you mean by that; in terms of pure maths, each root of 0 can be represented differently in either polar or exponent form as each root has a different argument, the only reason for them all yielding the same root in "regular" form is because the modulus has no unit length. Anyway I apologize for any misunderstanding and would like to clear this up with you asap. Thanks. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

There is only one number whose square is 0, namely, 0. It does not have complex argument. There are many different ways of writing 0 in polar form, but this is irrelevant. The equation x^2=0 is said to have a repeated root because the fundamental theorem of algebra guarantees us 2 complex roots, but this is different than saying that 0 has two square roots. --JBL (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
(Thanks Joel. We had an edit conflict, this is how I put it...) This is largely a matter of semantics and the level of sophistication that you wish to employ. In its most basic form, the square root of t is a number whose square is t. A more advanced viewpoint would say that it is a solution of the equation x2 = t. An even more sophisticated view would say that it is a solution of this equation in some extension of the field of coefficients of the polynomial. When writing mathematics one should always keep in mind the expected level of sophistication of the audience. Misjudging that can make your writing appear to be pandering or so technical that only specialists can interpret what you are saying. Many examples of both problems exist on Wikipedia pages. Back to the issue at hand. If you consider the equation x2 = 0, you can either say that it has one solution that is repeated or two solutions that are equal. Mathematically these are the same statement, but semantically they are different. The first version is consistent with the basic definition of square root and it says that there is only one square root of 0. The second version raises the question, why only two solutions? After all, there are an infinite number of ways to represent 0 (as you have indicated above) any of which gives a representation of the square root, so why are we being limited to just two? The answer to this conundrum lies in the more sophisticated fact that any quadratic equation has precisely two roots (when counted with multiplicity) in an algebraically closed extension field of the coefficients. Now this "fact" is no longer necessarily true if you are not working over a field, so something genuinely more sophisticated is going on here. The statement about solutions that I have given is often simplified to, "any quadratic equation has two solutions over an appropriate field", but this is not really a correct simplification, since the equation may have one solution with multiplicity two, which is not the same thing as having two solutions. When this refined terminology is applied to our situation, we again conclude that there is only one square root of 0. The "2 solutions" comes from a slight misreading of a property of polynomial equations. Given that this is a fairly low level article, one should not write at the level where meaning comes from the type of fine distinctions made from a sophisticated viewpoint.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Cherowitzo, I can understand that this is more a matter of semantics than anything else and I can appreciate that this may beyond the level of the rest of the article. For that I apologise. Though I must disagree with JBL that 0 has no argument. By considering only principal argument (i.e; the argument exists such that -π < θ ≤ π so as to not have an infinite numbers of ways to describe each number we can say that the argument of 0 is 0 radians as 0 ∈ ℕ ⊂ ℝ and as such is non-negative and contains no imaginary parts. It follows thusly that 02 has argument of 0 and 0 ± 2π/2 = π and -π however -π falls outside of our range for principal argument and as such is not an "original" solution for want of a better word. This follows to apply in this fashion for all nth roots of 0 meaning 0 has 1 principal argument and the nth roots of 0 have n solutions each with their own argument that due to the modulus still pertain to be 0 in "regular" form as it were. As such 0 does have an argument and as it's roots have different arguments they are multiple when considering polar or exponent form. This however is digressing from the original point at hand (which I again apologise for) which Cherowitzo has resolved for me by extension of digressing this section of this article is not needing of such a high level when considering comparatively the level of the rest of the article. :) (Sumandark8600 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Mathematical physics

Hi, Wcherowi! I see that you are a mathematician. I ask you how do you view the relation between (applied) mathematics and mathematical physics?--193.231.20.25 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think about it very much because I do not find it interesting. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bill!

I have just received a notice from Wikipedia that you thanked me for a trivial edit to History of Geometry. It took me a few moments to decode your User handle, then I realized who was thanking me. Great to hear from you! I have a lot of time free this semester, finally, so let's get together. Are there any cool coffee joints near you? I'm happy to drive up from Louisville. —Aetheling (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of trivial editing and sometimes I wonder whether I'm the only literate person reading this stuff. So when someone uncovers and fixes stuff that I haven't seen no matter how trivial, I feel a sense of relief, and it is especially good if it is someone I know. I'd love to get together, but perhaps we should arrange this via e-mail (mine hasn't changed). Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

One half

I was bold[1], you reverted[2], now let's discuss. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Catalan Numbers

Information icon Hello, I'm Javalenok. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

This edit is a revert with reason "not improvement". At first, it is nonsense to say that removing garbage is not improvement. Secondly, it is a blatant violation of wikipedia rule, which explicitly denies "not improvement" as a reason for reverts and prescribes you to favour the last edit. If you have not familiar with norms of good behaviour, read the wikipedia rules. It seems that you abuse your credentials. --Javalenok (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Javalenok. Your edit replaced a detailed explanation with the statement "As you can see, ...". I had put that explanation in because your previous edit had no explanation and I thought that one was needed as this was the most obscure detail in the proof. My edit summary on the revert of "Not an improvement" was a polite way of saying "yours was a lousy edit and left the article far worse than it was before." This does not contravene any Wikipedia guidelines. I do not revert lightly and try very hard to salvage the work of other editors, but I do have high standards and will revert when I can see no other alternative. Your devotion to terseness, as expressed in several of your edit summaries, is, I think, a bit misplaced. While there is some value in writing tersely for the mathematically sophisticated, a general audience, such as you find on Wikipedia, finds such writing to be obscure and impenetrable. Being more verbose (putting in "garbage" as you call it) is beneficial for such readers and since we are writing for such readers, and not trying to convince anyone of how smart we are, this needs to be the direction in which we take our edits. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It is a big mistake that verbosity favors clarity and material availability for general public. See the article: It clearly says that it is opposite in most cases. Verbosity obscures material and it is verbosity rather than terseness that claims the false scientific pretense. I could not qualify your paragraph

In the section of the path that is not reflected, there is one more upward step than rightward steps, so the section of the path that is reflected will also have one more upward step than rightward steps (since before reflection it is the reverse of this).

otherwise. I simply could not comprehend how reflection, which converts between upward and rightward steps, can preserve their imbalance. Furthermore, I do not understand which mismatch your are talking about. Even assuming the previous illustration (it was updated), all paths (good and bad) that we count target the main diagonal, which means that they have exactly as many righward steps as many upward ones. There cannot be any imbalance, regardless of the the path good or bad and reflection cannot preserve that imbalance even if it existed. I see how path are deflected in the illustration but not in your explanation. I therefore consider your verbosity as garbage not only because it uses more words than necessary but obscures the obvious fact with something incomprehensible. --Javalenok (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Your use of the word "verbosity" indicates to me that you haven't translated it quite correctly. The nuances of the English language can sometimes be difficult to convey in translation. Increasing the number of words used in a situation, for the sake of clarity, is not considered to be verbosity. Using more words than necessary to convey an idea is being verbose. The sentence you found confusing suffers from being too terse, I did not fully explain the situation and left some details to the reader. The cure for this is not to remove words as you suggest, since that would just compound the problem, but rather to add words for the sake of clarity. This is not being verbose. As to the sentence in question ... The portion of a "bad" path to the point where it first hits the fatal diagonal has exactly one more upward step than rightward steps (because the fatal diagonal is one step above the main diagonal). This means that the rest of this path must have one more rightward step than upward steps since the path ends on the main diagonal, and the total number of these steps must be equal at that endpoint. When this portion of the bad path is reflected, the extra rightward step becomes an extra upward step. The new path (after reflection of a portion of the bad path) has two more upward steps than rightward steps and since there are 2n steps in total, simple algebra shows that there must be n + 1 upward steps and n - 1 rightward steps. This explanation (which I hope is now clear) does not depend on the reader's ability to visualize the problem, a capability that not all readers possess. What you see as obvious would not be understandable to those readers who lack that ability. As I consider this sentence, I do see that it needs fixing in the article. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, this makes some sense now with your clarifications. However, saying that extra rightward terms translate into the same number of upward terms due to reflection is nonsense because it implies that user must have `visual abillities` that your edit is going to circumvent, as you claim. I therefore still do not see how your text is more explanatory than mine which simply puts this principle explicitly. --Javalenok (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You tend to use the word "nonsense" frequently and I wonder if you realize that this word has a derogatory connotation (it is insulting when directed at someone else). While the expressions "it is nonsense" and "it does not make sense" can mean the same thing, the second form is not derogatory and can mean that there is simply some problem with communication. I don't know whether it is culturally or linguistically based, but my Russian colleagues tend to use the harsher form even when they don't intend to be insulting. I have edited the passage for clarity and I can not see how replacing this passage with "As you can see, ..." is in any way an improvement. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The Russian strighforwardness may indeed have place. But there is nothing bad to it. Listen Carlin's monologue "happens to bee" about tolerance. He also has a monologue about special language, e.g "preboarding". I see that every time verbiage is used to hide the story instead of exposing it. Cheers. --Javalenok (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Steiner system

I see you've been a heavy contributor to Steiner system. Could you take a look at two sections I've flagged as being confusing? I suspect that both sections may be somewhat dubious, but someone with subject expertise needs to weigh in. Thanks. -- 128.211.167.1 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, those are pretty poorly written sections. I can fix up the projective line method since that is a standard construction with all the details missing. The 3D grid method comes from optimization and that is a bit outside of my bailiwick ... I'm afraid that I can't be of much help with that. I'll try to get to this by the end of the week. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oval

Hi, the article oval deals nearly exclusively with finite ovals. Perhaps You, as an expert on ovals, could add some material on ovals in arbitrary projective planes. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My expertise is really with finite ovals, but I have started a long term project to deal with all ovals. Many auxiliary pages are missing or written with a point of view that is not helpful. I've decided to begin with these problems and update the oval page when the background material is in better shape. My recent additions of von Staudt conic and the section Non-Desarguesian plane#Conics are a start in this direction. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good idea. von Staudt conic completes the essential definitions of conics.
A remark to Non-Desarguesian plane#Conics: I think, desarguesian should be replaced by pappian. In the finite case it is the same. The usual definition of a conic over a genuine skewfield doesn't lead to an oval, because a "parabola" may have more than 2 points with a line in common (s. Hartmann circle geometries, p. 123). So, the projective closure of the "parabola" would not be an oval.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sesquilinear form, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional. 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) 09:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "A Practical Example with four angle bisections"

Hello Wcherowi,
you're right (I have read "WP: OR") my contribution is not suitable for Wikipedia. What is your opinion on this example? Do you see a possibility where this example would match well? Maybe you know a simple but accurate approximate solution? As is generally known that an exact solution with ruler and compass is not (alone) possible, but a practical and accurate approximate solution for the interested reader would be informative. If you saw also "explanation is poor," how could it be improved? I hope you can understand me, my English is no longer good ... Greetings Petrus3743 (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you understand the reason for my deletion, some contributors just get upset when it comes to this issue of original research on Wikipedia. It is clear to me that you put a lot of work and effort into producing this graphic and I do hope that you can find someplace to display it. It is sometimes very hard for someone who is involved with the intricate details of some algorithm to explain what is happening in a way that a casual reader can follow. Trying to do this in a different language makes it even harder. In this case you would have to start with a step by step explanation of what is being constructed and only later describe the finer details of the construction and/or error analysis. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your words! If you're interested, you can once look at the following page (unfortunately in German, but maybe helps a tool for translation): The three antique riddles...[3] Petrus3743 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Set cover

Why did you consider my edits to the set cover problem page SPAM? I have added a toolset for the problem... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruimaranhao (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "spam" was not technically correct, but it was the easiest way to indicate that there were problems with this edit. It was clearly misplaced; talking about algorithms for solution before the problem had been stated. The external link belongs in the external link section, not in the body (or in this case a reference citation) of the article. As a co-author of the code you probably have a WP:COI violation. The entry in the article did not have a reliable source (as a coauthor of the paper is also a coauthor of the algorithm). This was just a little too much for a short edit summary, so I chose to go with "spam". Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

What do you mean exactly by "not encyclopedic tone"? Do you understand that there are meritoric and confusing mistake, that I have corrected Wcherowi? Please read what I have put in again and give it some thought process maybe. e.g. There is nothing in the world like a square p-adic root, if you think that's ok I doubt you know what a root is .. nfc

Hcanabnafets (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by encyclopedic tone can be found at WP:TONE. Some of your edits indicate to me that you are not familiar with common computer science syntax - which you seem to feel need correction. The p-adic numbers form a field, and one can ask about a square root in any field. Your insistence that the concept does not make any sense bewilders me. It appears that English is not your primary language, perhaps you are not reading the statement correctly. If you feel that I am wrong in this, please explain yourself on the talk page of the article. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Cube root

I don' t think complex numbers can be discussed in the "real numbers" heading. For real numbers, the only root is 1, but ok Dan6233 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the definition since it is independent of the field in which the computations are taking place and so does not belong under the real or complex heading only. The article does say that there is only one real cube root of a real number, but a cube root is a solution of a cubic equation and that cubic equation must have three roots in an algebraically closed field (the reals aren't, but they are contained in the complexes which are) so you are forced to look at them. In the complex number subheading, you are talking about the cube roots of a complex number and again there are three of them, but this time they are all complex and finding them uses a different approach than in the case where one of them is real. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)