User talk:Wcherowi

Re: Determinant 1

Sorry about revising the revision on the Modular Group page; i hit submit without adding a comment; the reason unit determinant differs from determinant 1 is that in a ring (such as the ring of all 2x2 matrices, or in this case Z), a unit is anything invertible. In particular, the original reading could lead to an interpretation that the determinant was 1 or -1, which if you remove the identification criterion, reads as a quotient of GL2Z rather than SL2Z. The example I gave had determinant 1, but I meant it to have determinant -1, whoops!

Sorry if this isn't the place to chat with a user, I'm not super well-versed with this :)

Warning Templates

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

Re: Kepler Fraud

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

Percentage point

Dear Wcherowi, The changes I made you reverted as "good faith edit". However, I'm afraid that the current definition of the percentage point may be interpreted in the way that 44% - 40% = 4% is wrong. Of course, it is 4 percentage points as well. I am not against "percentage points". However, from the mathematical point of view, the arithmetic difference of two percentages is the value in percentages again. So, I wanted to ask why did you revert my contribution? I'm looking forward to your reply, so I can improve my contribution. ToMiBi (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole idea of introducing the term "percentage point" is to avoid the confusion that you are trying to introduce. Percentage points are not percentages. Your insistence on saying that m% - n% = (m-n)% is just a meaningless manipulation of symbols. While it is true that you can express a percentage point as a percent, it is not given by this simple-minded formula. A change from 1% to 5% is a change of 4 percentage points, but an increase of 400% (and not 4% as you would like to say), and the example in the article, from 40% to 44% is likewise a 4 pp increase, but a 10% increase. You can not equate percentage points with percentages because the percentages depend on the magnitude of the quantities and the percentage points do not.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The water level indicator displays the water level in a rainwater tank from 0 to 100%. It corresponds to the volume of water divided by the volume of the rainwater tank. Let's say (due to the rain), there is a change of water level from 1% to 5%. I agree that the volume of water has relatively increased by 400%. However, it is still true that the water level has increased by 4%, since water level is defined as the volume of water divided by the volume of the rainwater tank. And that volume of new water corresponds exactly to 4% of water level change. In other words, if the total water volume divided by the tank volume is 5%, could you explain why the new/added water volume divided by the tank volume is not 4%???

So, the problematic part is not the percentage itself, but 1) expressing what is a base of percentages, 2) providing the information if the increase is expressed as a relative change (fold change) or as a difference (absolute change or actual change).

Wikipedia says: "For example, moving up from 40% to 44% is a 4 percentage point increase, but is a 10 percent increase in what is being measured."

To me, it is not clearly defined what is being measured... "The water volume or the water level"? It is a relative increase or an absolute increase? Moreover, if 40% + 4 pp = 44%, then for sure it implies that 4 pp = 4% (otherwise we cannot sum up these numbers).

I hope you can see my point. ToMiBi (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, no. You are making the same mistake in different terms. Percentages do not add or subtract as their numerical values. A simple example will show this. Suppose you have 100 ml. of milk that is 30% cream, and 100 ml. of milk that is 50% cream. Add the two together and you have 200 ml. of milk that is 40% cream (and not 80% cream, as you would have it). Another example shows that you can not use a simple additive rule without taking into account the total volumes. Again, 100 ml. of 30% milk and now 300 ml. of 50% milk. Combined this gives 400 ml. of 45% milk.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with your example. There is no discussion about that. Or are you suggesting that I can use percentage points instead? I.e. add or subtract p.p. as their numerical values? In that case I do not agree with you (200 ml. of milk that is 80 p.p. cream makes no sense to me). Moreover, my example is telling a different story. You basically said that I'm not taking into account the total volumes. Ok, let's fix this. If rainwater tank volume is 100 liters and there is just 1 liter of rainwater, then the volume of rainwater corresponds to 1% of the tank volume (water level indicator displays 1%). If due to the rain, there is a 4 liters increase, then there are 5 liters of rainwater in total. Thus, new water level corresponds to 5% of tank volume (and the water level indicator displays 5%). So, could you explain, please, why the new/added water volume divided by the tank volume is not 4%? ToMiBi (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For a 100 L barrel that originally has 1 L of fluid in it and then later has 5 L of fluid in it, the following things are all true:

• The water level has increased by 400%.
• The water level has increased by 4 percentage points.
• The water level has increased by 4% of the volume of the tank.

The last two statements are synonymous, the first is not synonymous but is equivalent in this particular example. I agree with Bill that your addition to percentage point did not improve the article. --JBL (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear @JayBeeEll:, I really appreciate your reply. Thank you. OK then. Let's find the way to say that 1) if clearly defined, the p.p. is synonymous to the percentage (see your last two statements) and 2) everyone should be aware of what is being measured (see the definition on Wiki and your very first statement: 400% of what? If not spoken, it could be "... of the volume of the tank". To me, the change from "The water level has increased by 400%." to "The water level has relatively increased by 400%." makes a huge difference, since, the relative increase is expressed as a ratio, where the denominator represents an old value - and that defines the basis for the percentages.) May I ask you to clarify the definition on wiki, please? Maybe I am not the best person for that. But at least I can see that the current definition has flaws. ToMiBi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

the p.p. is synonymous to the percentage No: as Bill has explained several times, p.p. is the unit of measurement of a change in a percentage. The true statement is that some (but not all) uses of the words "percentage point" can be rephrased to not use those words, by referring to an absolute change whose size is a percentage of some other quantity, as in the 3rd bullet point above. But there are also examples (Bill has offered several) where no such substitution is possible. To me, the change from "The water level has increased by 400%." to "The water level has relatively increased by 400%." makes a huge difference I understand that you believe there is a difference between those things, but that is because you are confused. Percentages are always relative measures; the phrase "X increased by 400%" always means "... by 400% of its previous value". The existing definitions are completely fine; it is your preferred interpretations that are in error, and once you adjust them, everything will be ok. --JBL (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear @JayBeeEll:, DIN 5477 standard (in german) explicitly recommends avoiding the term percentage point in order to avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings. Instead, the text or formula symbols should be used to clearly distinguish the difference between the ratios (relative changes) and the relative differences. So I think I have a significant group of people on my side with a different perspective. The true statement is that all uses of the words "percentage point" can be rephrased to not use those words! Actually, there is no real need for the term percentage point (from the mathematical point of view). The term percentage point is just a linguistic tool to express something briefly. It is very often used in economics. But economics is not the only discipline in the world. I just hope you don't claim that the DIN 5477 standard is wrong and everyone who doesn't use percentage points is confused. Please take a few minutes to look at this situation from this new perspective. Then you can go back to yours. Sincerely, ToMiBi (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what "DIN 5477" means and do not have any idea why you think it is relevant here. This is the English wikipedia; in English, "A change of d percentage points" is completely unambiguous. Maybe in German this is not the case (I have no idea), or maybe DIN 5477 (whatever that is) is wrong. I don't see why that should be surprising. Certainly, I have seen instances of people trying to make changes based on ludicrous ideas like IEEE standards for how to write the number "e" are binding on wikipedia, and those always (and correctly) get repelled; the idea that we should follow standards from some non-Anglophone organization is even sillier. There is definitely a participant in this discussion in need of absorbing a new perspective, but I am afraid you have mis-identified who it is. --JBL (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear @JayBeeEll:, It is no matter of language. In our country 1+1=2. Maybe in the UK the result is 3 and in the USA is 4 (everything is bigger in the USA, e.g. cars, etc.) :) Therefore I think "DIN 5477" is relevant here. To me, "3/4 of something" minus "2/4 of something" is "1/4 of something", but not "1 quarter point". Similarly, "44/100 of something" minus "40/100 of something" is "4/100 of something", but not "4 hundret points". The percentage is nothing, but a number (or ratio) expressed as a fraction of 100. So simple it is. If I see "44/100 of something" I can call it "44% of something". That's it. The same for "40/100 of something" and "4/100 of something". I'm not trying to remove percentage points from English. If anyone needs them, ok, no problem. But it is not the only option! And your own statements just proved it. (See your last two statements, which are synonymous according to you.) And that's exactly what the wiki doesn't reflect. The same for the increase. There is an actual increase, an absolute increase and a relative increase. If everything is "the increase", why should we distinguish between them? It must be short, but not accurate. Right? ToMiBi (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill, for dragging this out on your page. --JBL (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem Joel. There are some people who will not accept the obvious if it runs counter to their convictions (the U.S. Senate comes to mind here). I have given up on this individual and suggest that you might also. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Sexism

I wonder why you have reverted several undid edits in the Fields Medal wiki page?! This is the first minutes of my activity on Wikipedia website on an account and I was just reading the Fields Medal page that came across an actual Sexism and wanted to edit that but I couldn't as I do not have a verified account. As a random visitor to the website, this is absolutely a case of sexism and it needs to be removed and maintained gender-neutrally. TraceyxD (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Wcherowi. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)