User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 2
Constructible polygons
Hello Charles. Thank you for the remarks on constructible polygons. I have tried to incorporate them in the article, but please feel free to Be Bold and change anything you don't like—you obviously have more math in you blood than I have. I have lifted the "under construction" scarecrow.
—Herbee 17:10, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
there is little fight between me and Revolver on subsection Relationship to non-Euclidean geometry and physical space, I think it should be removed as irrelevent, in best case it should be a link to non-Euclidean geometry. I'm tiered to talk to him, deside to ask for your opinion.Tosha 23:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Rather late here - nearly midnight. My first reaction is that some mention of 'physical geometry' can stay there. I'll look again in the morning.
Charles Matthews 23:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Constant
I'd be pleased if you took a moment to look at my comments on Talk:Constant. I found many parts of that article to be confusing and possibly misleading. Thanks.
Revolver 05:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The constant page - yes, could do with some work. There is the very formal definition of constant as nullary operation, for example. So, while for example a binary operation is a mapping
- X2 → X
a constant in X is
- X0 → X, or 1 → X where 1 is a singleton set.
There is a pedantic difference between this, which is how it would look in category theory/type theory, and what you are saying about a free variable being a constant. The latter usage is typically what is meant in arbitrary constant of integration say, where indefinite integrals are really cosets of the group of constant functions.
I think the former usage makes sense, for example, in lambda calculus or functional programming. It is good practice in programming, though, to write code taking constants as symbolic throughout, and only assigning values at or after compilation. As an example, perhaps a program involving an exchange rate; which, as you say, should be treated like a free variable (in today's world).
Charles Matthews 06:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
It is suggested that both users agree on mediation, and that they present their case simultaneously. You know the nature of my complaint: Your violation of Wikipedia key policy number 4: Respect other contributors, and the policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I seek to get out of mediation a formal public apology from you, and a guarantee that you will refrain from such behavior in the future. What are your complaints, and what do you seek to get out of mediation? Kevin Baas 16:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I seek (at least - I'm not binding myself at this point)
- improvement of WP pages in the fractional calculus complex, and elsewhere, by a more responsive attitude by Kevin Baas to specific technical questions;
- I am all for the improvement of WP pages, including, ofcourse the fractional calculus complex. You have (and FWIW, have always had) in this sense, what you seek. I don't recall being asked any specific technical questions in these areas, and I'm sorry if I wasn't responsive. I, ofcourse, aim and desire to be responsive to any appropriately worded question. So here, again, you have and have had what you seek. Forgive me for stating the obvious here: I am not the sole arbitrator of the fractional calculus pages. This is a community. Nobody owns the pages, and we are all responsible for mantaining and improving them. You have here what you seek on all counts. But this is all completely irrevelant to the issue on the VFD:fractional electrodynamics page.
and
- the unimpeded application of the community (wiki) processes of editing and possible deletion of Kevin's postings, in the matters of intelligibility, technical completeness, and in particular to POV and the pushing of a personal agenda by him, and of the inappropriate foregrounding of fractional calculus topics (as on the main mathematics page) in excess of the status of the topic area,
- Regarding unimpeded application of the community (wiki)... firstly, accusations do not belong in that sentence. They should be listed separately. I think you have about three or four separate items here. Let me address the first: You already have what you seek. In no way have I impeded the editing or deletion processes. I got a little mad at what's-his-name for putting two unrelated articles up for deletion as a single item. But I did nothing to slow down or interfere with due process, nor have I ever. In brief, you have what you seek.
- Regarding your accusations of POV and "pushing of a personal agenda" - let me assure you that I have no such motivations.
- Regarding the prominence of the fractional calculus topics, that is not for one person to decide, and it is quite presumptuous for Charles to consider himself the authority on this matter. For instance, to say objectively that it is "in excess" of the "status" is completely unsubstantiable, as it is merely a POV. I have been receptive and cooperative with other people, including Charles Matthews, in regards the prominence and placement of this topic within the wiki, as the relevant pages and histories will reveal. This is a separate issue.
in the context that the main impediments have been in the past Kevin Baas' discussion style as exemplified on Talk:Hypercomputation, Talk:Real computation, Talk:List of calculus topics and elsewhere.
- That's called discussion, bro. It's how knowledge works.
I'd further like an assurance that he understands the policy on not posting blue-sky research, and the reasons for it; and that the expository standards in mathematical and computing topics must at least tend in the direction of rigorus exposition, rather than plausibility — for the sake of the standing of WP in these major areas. And that this includes the need for citations of external literature to be appropriate, and not off-stage props for arguments that remain sketchy.
- I acknowledge your personal opinion of cited literature that is mathematically rigorous. I endeavour, as always, to work towards maximum accuracy and unbiased representation, respecting the NPOV policies of wikipedia. Regarding rigorous exposition and plausibility, these are not antithetical. I assume you mean experimentally observed vs. plausible. I agree that the nature of what is being discussed should be clear in this respect. You think that my discussion has been lacking in this respect? Thank you for communicating this to me. I will make a stronger effort in this respect.
In short, I'd like to be able to discuss his postings in a normal, academic atmosphere.
- add to this social. FWIW, I would like to do this, as well. That is a primary reason that I am requesting mediation. I imagine that it becomes very difficult to do this when you don't treat the other person with deceny and respect. Kevin Baas 18:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Charles Matthews 17:08, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I hope my feedback is helpful. Let me know what you want to bind yourself to. Perhaps we should both work towards something that we can copy into the RFM section. Thanks. Kevin Baas 18:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kevin, you have requested this, and I have assented. You can't expect me to respond any further. In particular you can't expect me to answer comments such as the above, now that you have initiated a formal process.
Charles Matthews 19:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't expect you to respond. I was giving you my POV, FWIW. It would be very rude (and counter-intuitive) for you to dispute my POV as my POV, for it is not your POV. Likewise it would be a move against productive communication. No, I did not expect you to respond. What would the purpose of a response be given that I have conceded to you what you sought? Hence I called it feedback. I asked for your consent to post a formal statement by you into the RFM section. You said that you didn't want to be bound to what you just said. I asked you what you did want to bind yourself to, i.e. what you wanted posted in the RFM section. I repeat my request. If you don't consent to anything, than I will not post anything for you. This will reflect poorly on you. But I would like to have something there from both of us to at least give the appearance that we are both trying to resolve this cooperatively. Kevin Baas 20:19, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you open a heading on the RfM page, and post your statement, I will follow with something more definite - certainly within 48 hours, probably tomorrow.
Charles Matthews 20:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kevin, I was up early, and posted my stuff at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#User:Kevin baas and User:Charles Matthews. This now awaits your contribution.
Charles Matthews 06:42, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Charles,
Thanks for the your vote in re my admin nomination. I meant it when I said I didn't think much of anyone was paying attention to anything so obscure.
Probably takes a mathematician, I suppose. If you have any comments on anything crypto, I'd love to hear them. I'm afraid I'm out what shallow depth I had long ago in math, however.
I'm astonished at your productivity. On behalf of all, thanks for that as well.
ww 20:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, but much of the best Wikipedian work goes on out of the limelight. Fortunately.
Charles Matthews 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Functional equation
- "...functional equation used to be a redirect to functional. You say a poor definition. It is certainly quite a challenge to give a complete and formal definition - which would also include all interesting examples..."
If not for the word "interesting" it would be easy to list examples. I don't know a good definition, but I think if one knows good examples one could write a decent article consisting mainly of examples. Michael Hardy 20:48, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Agree, really. I put the L-function stuff on a separate page, since it is rather mainstream, important mathematics. There must be quite a large number of scattered, individual examples in the literature. As you say, a collation of some of those could be quite a creditable page.
Charles Matthews 05:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)