Quietbritishjim

Welcome!

Hello, Quietbritishjim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! FusionMix 00:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I notice you made a sensible edit to this, and wonder if you'd have a look at my 'minimum volume' topic in the discussion. John Wheater (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jim, I understand your point that the monument is often just described as "ziggurat of Ur", but the title "Great" is used just as much and I don't see a reason why this is a problem. Izzedine (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi-I apologize for not updating the surrounding text! I re-read the WP:REDIRECT page, however, those guidelines refer to "article" pages. Since a "disambig" page is a non-article page, the general guideline page at WP:PIPING says that disambig pages should not contain piped links or redirect pages with very few exceptions. The "continuity" page needs to be cleaned-up in general, as the majority of the listed links should contain the word "continuity", not "continuous" (which redirects to "continuous function"). Maybe the terms that have "continuous" in them could be included within the "continuous function" article and removed from the dab page. Another suggestion would be to make "continuous" a dab page, instead of a redirect page, and then list all the "continuous" links on that instead, to reduce the # of links on the "continuity" page, and to organize and separate the topics a little better. If you could help, that would be great, as I'm not sure my knowledge of mathematical theories is sufficient to sort out the two pages. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for chiming in on Talk:TrueCrypt. However, I think there's little point in continuing the argument, LogicKey seems to be trolling us. He made 8 attempts at deleting the section -- despite receiving several warnings -- and was banned for 24 hours. We gave him plenty of benefit of doubt on the discussion page. It's time to stop feeding the troll.

The references about "Stoned" in Heise Online, iTWire, heise.de, Gulli, Schneier's blog and Black Hat conference stand on their own to justify the section, and are in accordance with Wikipedia policies. -- intgr [talk] 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair point, I agree. Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message. Quietbritishjim (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I failed to restrain myself... But it looks like the argument has shifted from opinions to Wikipedia policies, which is good progress. -- intgr [talk] 20:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding to my comment on the 24-hour clock. I have made a response and I hope you can sense that I do speak in good faith. I would like to hear specific explanations for the errors I am sure I made due to my lack of rigor in my reasoning; I hope you can agree that though I may have odd thinking that there is some foundation to what I am speaking. If all the issues I bring up have been addressed in some higher level mathematics I would love to learn about it. Cheers! Rukaribe (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand why you would put it the way it is right now, but I reverted it back because of two main reasons: 1. You make it seem like its compatible with only those things, when it is, in fact, compatible with more than just those. 2. When He said "removing verifiable content", he meant removing content that was already verified. You basically made the group that it said it was compatible with seem smaller than it really was. LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I've just left it the way it currently was, and just editted some words into there. The features section edit you made was probably making it possibly seem like it had less features than it did. I understand you are trying to help the wiki, as am I, but I guess I was a bit too annoyed by the edit you made. Something like that. LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Quietbritishjim. You have new messages at LikeLakers2's talk page.
Message added 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hey there Quietbritishjim, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Quietbritishjim/MathType.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you like me to CSD that for you? (I can only add the CSD template, I can't actually delete it) I've removed the page link from your userpage, as, looking into the history of the page, it was under a section of pages you were working on. I Do not mind if you revert my edit to your userpage, since it was finished and moved to the real page. Again, would you like me to put a CSD template on User:Quietbritishjim/MathType? I have no real need to do so.

P.s. If you have a page in your userspace that you want deleted, (its not really deleted, the page is just hidden from public view) you may place {{db-u1|rationale=YOUR REASON HERE}} or {{db-userreq|rationale=YOUR REASON HERE}} on the page you want deleted, replacing "YOUR REASON HERE" with your reason. An example might be {{db-u1|rationale=Page moved to [[User:Quietbritishjim/sandbox/asdf]]}}. Again, I can put a CSD template on it for you if you want. No need for me to. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but it isn't doing any harm, so I don't think it's worth worrying about. Plus, it's still being referred to by my comment on Talk:MathType. Thanks for the info though. Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You asked about this in the talk page, but I missed it. Per the articles sources...

Sega Genesis - 22.3-23.8 million

Mega Drive - 17 million

So that's roughly 57-58% in favor of Sega Genesis depending on the difference.--SexyKick 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

you reverted this edit, but your history is counter factual. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Itanium&diff=455591969&oldid=455467153 Itanium was being introduced into a market already being served in part by 32 bit x86. Once Itanium was introduced, it did not lose out to more 32 bit x86; it lost out to 64 bit alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.224.25 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello buddy, let's discuss the reversion of the above article here.What's your point of not accepting my source? Xentram (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're right, it would be good to discuss this openly, not in one-line edit messages, but this isn't the right place. I started a section on the Cauchy-Schwarz talk page. Quietbritishjim (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jim, I saw your draft for a revised Fourier inversion theorem article. Having put up the proof that's on there now myself, I really liked your revisions and I think you should put them into the actual article ASAP; they would be a big improvement. I'd be happy to help if you're short on time. Compsonheir (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind words. Actually I think the proof you added to that article is excellent, and I've made only very minor changes to it. It's just about the only part of the article I haven't rewritten completely! Anyway my new draft for a revised article is finally done (as must as I intend to do, anyway), so if you have any thoughts on it please leave a message in the section for it on the article's talk page. Thanks! Quietbritishjim (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fourier inversion theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operator (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) 11:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

For the record: this is now fixed. Quietbritishjim (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank L. Pollack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man in the Middle (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) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've replied to your removal of the photo from this page on the Talk Page. I agree with your view. Rickedmo (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Hello. Although I share your concern about the mess which 99.241.86.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sometimes makes, you should comply with Wikipedia behavioural guidelines. A WP:vandalism accusation is a thing which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, if beyond obvious cases. A vandalism claim made without any substantiation is a severe breach of civility which can lead to sanctions against yourself, instead of “correcting” 99.241.86.114. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. You're right, WP:Vandalism notes that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." This seems to describe that editor precisely. I've now removed that term from my notice on that page, although I've left it strongly worded. Quietbritishjim (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Quietbritishjim, thanks for the post on my talk page but it wasn't completely true what you wrote. The article states that the max norm is not submultiplicative (hence, not a matrix norm by the definition of matrix norms). You can show that multiplying the max norm by the dimension of the matrix makes it submultiplictive and hence an actual matrix norm (see Horn and Johnson). I'll change it back if I don't hear back from you in a couple days.

Cheers, JDW Jdw11 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see the problem: you consider submultiplicativity part of the definition of matrix norm, whereas the article considers that just a possible additional property (look at the definition further up). This is why I said that rescaling doesn't change what you called being "a valid norm". I've looked quickly at a couple of other sources and they seem to agree with you, but unless you're planning to change the whole article I think any change should stay consistent. If you did change the whole thing we'd still need a name for norms without that property because there's much useful information on these in the article at the moment. One source I've looked at still call these "norms" but not "matrix norms", which is rather confusing.

Anyway, for now, how about this update to the section instead:

When the matrix is square (i.e. ${\displaystyle n=m}$ ) this norm is not sub-multiplicative; however, when rescaled to ${\displaystyle n\|A\|_{\text{max}}}$  it is sub-multiplicative.

Quietbritishjim (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In reference to this edit, what do you think is the advantage of stating that completing the square is restricted to "elementary" algebra? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi James! There are several reasons I can think of. They're mostly variations on the theme that the word "algebra" without qualification is rather ambiguous, even in a mathematical context.

• A result of this is that the previously linked-to article algebra isn't very helpful for a reader of the completing the square article. They'd probably find elementary algebra more useful.
• Personally, when I see "algebra" without qualification I see "abstract algebra". This is definitely not what completing the square is part of. I realise in principle completing the square works on any commutative ring (or maybe even more general than that), but that sort of argument applies to any elementary algebra operation. It seems to me that if even completing the square doesn't count as elementary algebra, then nothing does.
• If you consider "algebra" to mean its widest possible meaning, including elementary and abstract parts, it doesn't seem helpful to use the more general term when a more specific one is available. For example, why not say "In mathematics, completing the square is..."?
• Saying what subject area a topic is part of doesn't restrict where that topic is used. For instance, calculus is obviously used widely in science, but I wouldn't start differentiation with "In mathematics and physics, ..." just because it's used there.

Quietbritishjim (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the very full explanation. I accept enough of what you say to decide that I will leave your edit in place. However, I feel inclined while I am here to comment on a few of the thoughts that I have relating to things you say. You are, of course, free to take as much or a little notice of what I say as you like, right down to not reading it at all, but I offer my thoughts in case you may find them of some interest.

I'm not convinced that either of the articles Algebra and Elementary algebra will actually add anything to the understanding of completing the square for anyone wanting to find out about it, so to a large extent it doesn't matter which is linked to. The content of Elementary algebra clearly has more to do with completing the square, so there is a case for linking there. On the other hand, neither really helps with understanding of completing the square, and there is, I think, a case for linking to Algebra, which puts the whole subject in a broader context. However, which article (if either) is linked to is a completely different issue from what wording is used in the article, as it is perfectly possible to use a piped link, as [[Elementary algebra|algebra]].

You say that when you see "algebra" without qualification you see "abstract algebra". Probably that is true of any graduate mathematician, but how many graduate mathematicians are likely to look up the Wikipedia article to find out about completing the square? In my opinion, and the opinions of many others, the coverage of mathematical topics on Wikipedia is appallingly bad, because even elementary topics are covered from the point of view of research mathematicians, making them largely inaccessible to most of the people who might want to read them. I am not suggesting that writing "elementary algebra" instead of "algebra" in itself makes the article inaccessible to lay people, but I am suggesting that your remark about what you "see" when you see "algebra" indicates that you, like the vast majority of mathematicians who edit Wikipedia, think when you are editing in terms of what is relevant to a research mathematician, not what is relevant to the readers who are might actually stand to learn from the article in question. I have spoken to scientifically educated people who say that they frequently use Wikipedia to find things about scientific matters outside their own fields, but never do so with mathematical topics, because mathematical articles even on elementary topics are aimed above their heads.

Using the expression "elementary algebra" in its use to mean the traditional algebra of various subrings of the complex field in writing addressed to the general reader is open to question. To anyone who has studied abstract algebra, the expression "elementary algebra" is a convenient way of distinguishing traditional algebra from abstract algebra, but to the average reader, who has never encountered abstract algebra, beginning an article with the words "In elementary algebra, completing the square ..." is more likely to convey the impression that completing the square is a rather trivial technique, at a low level. OK, to any mathematician who has studied some of the more advanced techniques of traditional algebraic manipulation, that is certainly true, but from what you say it is clearly not what you meant, so your choice of words is likely to convey a different message than the one you had in mind. We are back, in fact, to the issue of writing an article from the point of view of research mathematicians, rather than from the point of view of someone who may actually make use of the article.

I agree entirely with your last two points.

I see that your user page describes you as a Cantabrigian. Do you feel like divulging your college? I would be interested to know. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I undid your undo of my accurate correction:

Max Planck WAS (1900) the sole discoverer of Quantum THEORY, which originally consisted of the single observation that all energy occurs in integer multiples of the constant named for Planck. Planck also coined the word "Quantum."

Planck doubted the physical reality of Quanta until Einstein (1905)discovered that light must consist of individual quanta now known as "photons."

Quantum MECHANICS was a later (1925&ff) development of the original theory. The first discoverer was Heisenberg, although, as you note, numerous others have contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jim!

I've left a comment back on the Conway base 13 talk page.

Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgilbey (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi

What did you mean by this sentence? "The inverse transform is again be define the smooth cut off, but with the conclusion that ..." ([1])

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

And another question, while I'm at it: Is there a theorem saying something like that the Fourier transform of a continuous function is integrable? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Have you read my questions? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply