Jump to content

User talk:JRSpriggs: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
wp:AIV comment
Aa35te (talk | contribs)
515 edits
Gravitational Constant revert
Line 109: Line 109:


Thanks for your comment on AIV. Just to check - how else should someone deal with long term vandalism? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]]([[User talk:AndrewRT|Talk]]) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on AIV. Just to check - how else should someone deal with long term vandalism? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]]([[User talk:AndrewRT|Talk]]) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== Gravitational Constant revert ==

Thank you very much for reverting [[gravitational constant]]. I was wondering all yesterday why my acceleration due to gravity kept turning out to 9.786 x 10^22. Greatly appreciated. --[[User:Aa35te|Aa35te]] 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:08, 6 February 2007

Pointers:
Category:Ordinal numbers, Category:Cardinal numbers, Category:Set theory, Category:Root-finding algorithms, Category:Proof theory, Category:Mathematical logic, Category:General relativity, Category:Hyperbolic geometry,

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, User talk:MathPhys/WikiProject Relativity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

User_talk:Oleg Alexandrov, User_talk:Jitse Niesen, User_talk:Trovatore, User_talk:Arthur Rubin, User_talk:CMummert,

ordinal number, ordinal arithmetic, large countable ordinal, ordinal notation, Constructible universe, implicational propositional calculus, harmonic coordinate condition, Peace of Westphalia, InuYasha

Resources:

http://wiki.epstone.net/werdnabot/

Archives:

Please review

Hi, JR.

I just wrote this article to explain how the complex argument can be defined without reference to geometry, or trigonometry. (Well, I still have to add the references, which I'll get around to soon.) I value your feedback; when you have the time and the inclination, please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! DavidCBryant 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on your talk page. JRSpriggs 06:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Kagome Higurashi Vandalism Warning

What I'm doing is NOT vandalism. If you've looked at my edits, you'll see that I've used no inappropriate words, etc in the Kagome Higurashi section. You'll see that I've protrayed Kagome in both a positive and a negative light )ie: I've shown her to be both beautiful and kind, but I've also portrayed her as having a bit of a temper. If you persist on irritating me with unwarranted claims, I will alert the REAL authorities. There I've signed in. Hope that satisfies you. LucifaelsBride 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)LucifaelsBride[reply]

I am not harassing you. I have been more than patient. If you want to seek mediation or other intervention from an administrator, be my guest. However, you should have the courage to log in as yourself when you put messages like this on another person's talk page. JRSpriggs 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations...

... on finally somebody not bearing it anymore with your redlinked user page and making it into a nice blue redirect! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess. Apparently, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs) felt that I had been around too long to take advantage of the forbearance we accord to newcomers. JRSpriggs 05:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

total lack of understanding from Biedermann 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Sir, i guess it was you who diagnosed my total lack of understanding. This certainly couldn’t help me to some better understanding. So, let me try to explain in more detail what I think to be my understanding with respect to what Gödel’s term Z(y) could be in the symbols of Gödel’s System. Without such knowledge the Gödel number n of formula (x)~Dem(x,sub(y,19, Z(y))) cannot be determined. But this is essential for the progress of Gödel’s argumentation; just to name it ‘n’ , does not serve the purpose, n not being a symbol of the System. From Gödel’s definitions 16 an17, together with 8 and 9, we know Z(n) to be (to BE, as Gödel says expressis verbis, not to Designate, as some people seem to believe!) the Gödel-number of the number n in the symbols of the System. With the claim that sub(n, 19, Z(n)) be obtained from sub(y, 19, Z(y)) through substitution of 19 (i.e. fffffffffffffffffff0 ) by Z(n), of necessity Z(y) would have to BE the number 19, and the term sub(y, 19, Z(Y)) would in fact be sub(y, 19, 19)), from which the term sub(n, 19, Z(n)) certainly does not result through simple Substitution of n for y ! To my poor understanding, Gödel’s argumentation depends on the assumption that Z( ) could be a function sign expressed in the symbols of the System, in which you may freely exchange the arguments n for y etc., and which could simultaneously yield the mathematical function ‘Gödel number of n’ on the argument n, and the deliberately chosen non-mathematical relation 19 for the argument y ! To my poor understanding it seems evident that such function cannot exist. Would you please be so kind as to explain me what you think to be your better understanding! With kind regards Biedermann Biedermann 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gödel numbering makes the primitive recursive functions involved very messy and the numerical values of the codes very large. Like many "proofs" in mathematics, his proof is really just an outline of how a formal proof could be written, if one had the virtually unlimited resources necessary to carry out such a formal proof. That is one reason why his argument uses variables to refer to constant numbers which result from the encoding. Another reason is that the details of the encoding, beyond the fact that it is primitive recursive, are really unimportant. You could switch to any of an infinitude of coding schemes and achieve the same outcome.
For me to explain this to you in a way that you could understand, I would have to walk you through the details of the Gödel numbering and compute some of those codes. It is just not worth my time to do that, just to help one person, when I could be improving articles which help thousands of people. If you really want to pursue this topic, you should read the book recommend by CMummert. JRSpriggs 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well Sir, thanks for recommending me a book that is out of my reach. But, isn’t it funny: as I formulated my concerns in a few straightforward sentences with direct reference to Gödel’s Original, certainly any good answer to them should be feasible to be formulated in just as straightforward reference to that paper. But you say: that cannot be done! You wouldn’t believe it, but I take this your comment as an excellent corroboration for the justification of my concerns. Reading your book couldn’t serve but to divert from the problem at hand. Besides, to my great surprise, the author of that article does not even mention the decisive problem in Gödel’s invention: how to insert into a formula its own Gödel number. That almost smells of some lack of understanding! On top of all this, I am glad to find at the beginning of that article the sentence: ‘Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, can be expressed: ‘G cannot be proven true’ (although I would prefer the simpler statement: ‘G cannot be proven, i.e. derived from the axioms’!), where by inserting the meaning of G for the letter G we obtain: ‘’G cannot be proven true’ cannot be proven true’’, and repeating this manoeuvre over and over again, we will obtain an infinite nested structure of ‘’’’’’’G cannot be proven true’ cannot…’…’…’’’’’, but we will never get rid of that letter G and never come to know what it should be that ‘cannot be proven true’! But if such a silly nonsense structure is at the core of Gödel’s invention, why do you take it for serious? I am sorry, I cannot! And I am glad that, according to my analysis, such selfreferent nonsense cannot even correctly be formulated in the symbols of Gödel’s Formal System! Biedermann 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are a victim of an over-simplified "translation" to English of the Gödel formula. Rather than translating it as G = "G cannot be proven from the axioms of arithmetic.", it would be more correct to translate it as G = "The sentence which results from replacing all occurrences of the last letter of the alphabet by 'The sentence which results from replacing all occurrences of the last letter of the alphabet by 'z' in 'z' is not provable from the axioms of arithmetic.' in 'The sentence which results from replacing all occurrences of the last letter of the alphabet by 'z' in 'z' is not provable from the axioms of arithmetic.' is not provable from the axioms of arithmetic.". I hope you see that this is not an infinite regress. Rather it is a statement which refers to itself indirectly by describing a way of constructing itself. JRSpriggs 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing my talk page with warnings about Kagome Higurashi

Again, that was not inappropriate stuff, it give both negative and positive (ie: neutral POV). Oddly, this is the way I've worded all my other edits in other section (refer to my contribution) and you did not seem to find a problem with any of them, only Kagome. This is shows that you're just a disgruntled fan of Kagome who hates seeing her portrayed in anything other than a flawless light.

LucifaelsBride 12:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)LucifaelsBride[reply]

When you stop committing vandalism (or get banned which would have that effect), I will stop warning you about it. I suggest that you stop. Also, this kind of attack on those such as myself who are trying to enforce the rules will only get you in more trouble. JRSpriggs 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attack. I don't see you doing anything to Ned Scott and he deleted the whole personality section from KAgome Higurashi. Why? Because you think he has a point about Kagome having no personality? That makes no sense. You're just trying to bully me, because I'm newer than you. You don't have the courage to confront someone else who knows Wikipedia as well as you do.

LucifaelsBride 12:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)LucifaelsBride[reply]

As TheFarix (talk · contribs) pointed out on your talk page, the issue is your original research. In other words, it is not whether you are pro-Kagome or anti-Kagome or balanced. It is whether your contributions are: accurate, verifiable (i.e. you can point to documents which support them), and relevant to Kagome's part in the anime and manga InuYasha. Your very hostile attitude towards me and the other people who try to help you does not incline us to continue helping you or otherwise cut you any slack. JRSpriggs 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's method

Hi!

I've seen you cited me as the author of the French article. It was not necessary, as my contributions are public domain (see fr:Utilisateur:Lachaume).

Moreover, don't you you have a template on the English Wikipedia to automatically add links to the list of authors and current version in order to comply with the GFDL? fr:Modèle:Traduit de and fr:Modèle:Référence/Traduction add something like "parts of this article are a translation from the GFDL article hu:zene (version of January 17th, 2007), see the list of authors".

Cheers.

Régis Lachaume 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic energy

Imagine a page on velocity which doesn't mention that it's a concept which only applies between two or more named objects, and has no meaning on its own, for ONE object? Don't you think somewhere in the beginning of the kinetic energy article (or indeed ANY place in the article) it should be noted that the concept of kinetic energy is more or less a relative (and therefore, except in special circumstances, somewhat arbitrary one), like velocity? SBHarris 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs you added were both incorrect and misplaced. Incorrect, because you are confusing dependence on the frame of reference with being a collective property of a system of objects. Misplaced, because the lead is supposed to be elementary for the students who are just learning the subject for the first time and your paragraphs, even if they were true, would just confuse them. I put a short section acknowledging that kinetic energy is relative to the reference frame at the end of the article. JRSpriggs 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that I have no such confusion regarding dependence-on-frame with collective properties. Some collective properties have frame dependence, and some don't. The one we call invariant mass, which includes some (but not all) of the kinetic energy in systems, does not. That means some kinetic energy is frame dependent (i.e., not objectively real, because it merely depends on your point of view, like velocity), and some is not. Which is NOT like velocity. You might not consider this an important enough fact about this interesting form of energy to put in the LEAD, but it's surely not trivial enough to stick into the end. This is, after all, energy we're talking about. Either it's objectively real or not, or both. In this case, it's both. Some is objectively real (observer non-dependent) and some isn't real (is observer dependent or merely relative to point of view). Is is incorrect to simply say that kinetic energy is observer dependent. That is wrong. So how about we compromise and move it up front to the section following lead.? SBHarris 11:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your belief that things which are not invariant are consequently not objectively real. Kinetic energy is objectively real even though it is not an invariant. Your statements about it would just confuse a naive reader of the article. Moreover, to understand your comments about kinetic energy, one must first know what kinetic energy is. Therefor, any mention of your ideas should be at the end. JRSpriggs 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some kinetic energy is invariant. For example, all the kinetic energy in a can of ideal monatomic gas is invariant. All observers do and must agree on its value, for it is the summed energy of the gas in the COM frame (some observers may have to transform to that frame to get the number), minus the rest masses of the gas particles. We call that kinetic energy "heat." It contributes to invariant mass, and in fact is the invariant mass which isn't the sum of the particle rest masses. You can define kinetic energy any way you like, and you'll still come up (or should come up) with the immediate question of kinetic energy relative to WHAT?

One more very simple example. Two equal mass astronauts in space do total work = F x d = E to push off from each other in opposite directions (to be clear, each astonaut only does E/2 amount of F x d, because each pushes through only half the distance that ultimately separates then when they part). Yet each then sees the kinetic energy of the other as 2E. Some kinetic energy has appeared, from each person's view, without being paid for in potential (which totaled E not 2E). Clearly, kinetic energy is a system property, not a property of any given object, unless you clearly define your inertial frame (which is not done in the opening LEAD of this article). Then, it actually IS a system property, and a well behaved one, too. Both invariant and objective. SBHarris 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Werdnabot help.

(from User talk:Werdna): To PurpleRain: You set the retention period to sixty (60) days. The only message on your talk page which is over sixty days old is the first one. And that message is not in a section because there is no section header above it. Thus Werdnabot is not supposed to archive anything from your page yet. In other words, Werdnbot is working the way it is supposed to work. If you think that some sections should have been archived, then you should either reduce the retention period or put a section header over that first message. JRSpriggs 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I forgot to add the Werdna talk page to my watchlist, so I missed your helpful comment until now. I was aware that only the first message was old enough to be archived, but couldn't figure out why it wasn't being archived. Thanks for explaining. —PurpleRAIN 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. There is an option in one's preferences (which I use) to automatically add any page you edit to your watchlist. You might want to use it. (Or not, because it can cause your list to grow alarmingly fast so that you have to keep pruning it.) JRSpriggs 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that option only changes whether a certain box is checked by default or not - by carefully unchecking the box before saving some edits, you can avoid adding unwanted articles to your watchlist. CMummert · talk 04:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true, but I almost always forget to uncheck that box (on those occasions when I do not want to watch the article). But I figure that it is better to default to watching than not watching, if I forget to do something with that switch. JRSpriggs 04:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried that option, but it does cause the watchlist to grow alarmingly fast. I usually remember to "watch" all the pages I need to; this was just an exception. Thanks for the advice, though. —PurpleRAIN 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wp:AIV comment

"If you are going to have a template or templates, it/they should be informative -- what can the reporter of vandalism do which he/she has not done? For example, if the vandalism is stale, then you should point him to who can deal with long-term vandalism. If the vandal has already been adequately warned for the offense, then suggest the reporter check whether a warning has already been given. etcetera"

Thanks for your comment on AIV. Just to check - how else should someone deal with long term vandalism? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational Constant revert

Thank you very much for reverting gravitational constant. I was wondering all yesterday why my acceleration due to gravity kept turning out to 9.786 x 10^22. Greatly appreciated. --Aa35te 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JRSpriggs&oldid=105927199"