User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/2015/

de Moivre's formula is (as of your revision) grossly incorrect

I was wondering why you have reversed my corrections to the erroneous de Moivre's theorem page. Your summary of "not improvement" is vastly insufficient (and also false). My corrections were perfectly valid whereas the previous (and now current) version of the page are wrong in their majority. For proof that de Moivre's theorem is true for all ℚ at the very least (though no actual proof is given) please see pg 36 of book with ISBN number: 978-0-435519-21-6. Un-fortuitously I am unaware of any books that provide a proof beyond an integer power but I have already provided a proof and if you find that insufficient I can provide you with other internet sources that cite it. I can understand and forgive a non-mathematical page containing errors as non-mathematical phenomena are not clear cut nor are they ever entirely obvious and often it is plausible to find support for all sets of contradicting information. However this is not the case with mathematics which is the only subject that can have all of its information conclusively proved or disproved. As such maths should never be quoted incorrectly in any Wikipedia article as it is extremely black and white, i.e; things are either purely correct or incorrect and as it stands my corrections were correct whereas the current page reversion is not. I am amazed at how this page is able to pertain information of such mass, gross inaccuracy especially given the simplicity of de Moivre's theorem and the prerequisites needed to understand it. It is after all something that all students of complex numbers by extension of studying further mathematics learn at the age of 16 in England, UK. Though I appreciate that even a graduate of a masters in mathematics may be mis-informed on this subject given that they have never studied complex numbers but as such they should not consider themselves versed enough to be able to misinform others by way or publishing erroneous statements in this article. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

This is explained quite clearly in the article itself as well as in the discussion on the talk page currently numbered 1 and 6. I suggest you read those discussions and post your comment there. (I am currently on vacation and am not able to respond at length.) Best, JBL (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have previously read the corresponding section in the article and found it to be false hence my heavy edition and renaming of it.

I have also previously read the corresponding sections in the talk pages and found that there were many whom agreed with me but also opposing factions including yourself whom disagree despite being provided with nigh perfect proofs and sound logical explanations in their multitude. My proof and explanation alone via my edit of the main page should have been sufficient to convince you of its validity -providing the assumption of your competence on the area in question-.

I wished not to add to the discussion on the talk page as I believed you would be less likely to respond to my question, I apologise for taking up your holiday time and understand if you may not be able to reply in full for some time though I would like to know when you plan to respond to me in full which I assume would be after the conclusion of your holiday unless it is a long one where you might find time during to reply to me. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George B. Purdy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel. 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) 08:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

What does "Pure OR" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.245.229 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's wikipedia shorthand: "OR" is "original research." WP is not a venue for publishing original research. You can read the policy about it here: WP:OR. Hope this helps. --JBL (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not "original research" in that sense at all. The source I cited (not my work) is just one of many I could have cited. Multiplication of Pythagorean triples using complex numbers (a,bi,c) x (d,ei,f) is well known and should be covered somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.245.229 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you cited is a research paper someone self-published on their own webpage, and therefore is OR under the Wikipedia definition (even if it's not your personal work). To include this sort of material in Wikipedia, it should be supported by references in secondary sources (e.g., papers published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, or even better textbooks or similar).

I am completely happy to accept the idea that this sort of operation is well-known in some circles. I am much less convinced that it should be covered in WP (assuming you are correct and it has been written about in some appropriate secondary source). The reason for this (and now I am speaking just personally, not about WP policies) is that Pythagorean triples have attracted a very large amount of attention over the years. As such, there are a huge, huge number of theorems relating to them. For the WP article on them to be usable by anyone, it is important that it not be comprehensive and instead focus on the more important aspects. So, probably I would try to limit this material even with appropriate sourcing. Possible places you could look for other opinions are on the talk page for the article, and at the math project talk page. --JBL (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your critique of my addition seems to hinge on the source I cited. Fair enough. But in my opinion, the sections titled "Square-Difference Generation" and "Generating triples when one side is known" are of even more questionable value since both are just applications of (or extensions of) the Euclid and Plato/Pythagoras formulas previously given. Moreover, neither section is referenced in any way, not even with "pure OR" as you call it.

On the other hand, Multiplication of Pythagorean Triples Using Gaussian integers is taught in many high schools and is hardly an arcane topic. It deserves coverge in this article. However I won't argue the point further. Instead I challenge you to write your own section on this topic using whatever sources you deem worthy. You might start with Jackson, M.(1987), Complex numbers and Pythagorean triples. The Math Gazette. V71, No.456. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.245.229 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

About the other two sections, I couldn't agree more -- the former is a recent edition, was quickly deleted by another user, and then for some reason was restored; I've removed it again. I'm not sure how long the latter section had been there, but there has been a comment on the talk page pointing out an obvious error in it for over a year; I've removed that section as well.

It seems that you have convinced me to soften my earlier view; I now think that a short section is probably supportable. (The Jackson reference would be a good start; do you have others?) Probably less emphasis on notation than in your first version would be good. (It is ok to write, "other similar formulas exist[appropriate citation]", for example, without including every single variation on a theme.) If you take another stab at it (particularly if you can find a second reference that is not just self-published), I promise I will edit it constructively and not just wipe it out in one fell swoop :).

By the way, thanks for engaging in this discussion in such a pleasant way. --JBL (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling

I am coworker of the author of the theory that you have deleted. The author is currently sick, so I am doing him his favor. I have noticed that you are a mathematician. Could you give any specific reasons why you are deleting the wikipedia page with proper referencing? It is a new theory in origin of language. Do yo have any conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.229.25.202 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Fundamental theorem of arithmetic page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks…

For bringing Duxwing's singular incompetence to my attention. I will definitely be on the lookout for him or her in the future. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. The fact that this edit managed to last so long suggests someone should probably go over Duxwing's history to see if any other damage has survived. But I am not volunteering :). --JBL (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since 95% of the individual changes in that "copyedit" were crap, I expect that a review would turn up a lot of similar crap. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I just mean that at least some of them were reverted immediately, rather than sitting unnoticed for months. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I was sympathizing with your distaste for the job. My idea was that anyone that went back over Duxwing's history would find they had stepped into a giant morass and might never come out again. —Mark Dominus (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Got it -- internet communication is impossible ;). --JBL (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Open street map

Thank you for sharing that link on your user page! I had never heard of it. It is excellent. You literally made my day. Thank you very much indeed. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, and you're very welcome! --JBL (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

floyd algorthm

My correction of the Floyd Algorithm are correct. The entire artcle needs a rewrite to be both understandable and correct. As it remains, it is confusing my students and I spend a lot of time correcting their errors gleaned from this article. This is a simple to understand algorithm when explained clearly. Instead we don't only have mathematical snobbery, but truly inaccurate information. I am SICK of wikipeadia inability to just tell wrong from right. Mathematical truth is not a matter of a VOTE. When k = 1, it is not equal to zero. Fixing this page requires a complete rewrite because the graph and the agorthms don't match and the explanation doesn't inform the reader of facts. Not having fixed these problems in the article has been called not passing a litmus test. The only litmus test here is if the article is informative and educational. It is NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, your refusal to explain yourself clearly and your insistence on edit-warring means that you are going to end up blocked and all your edits reverted. If you actually are interested in improving the article, it is necessary for you to act in accordance with the rules here. This means that when your edits are challenged, you must build consensus. The fact that you believe very strongly in your position is totally irrelevant. --JBL (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Heads up.

Thanks for the heads up about the RfC! Capitalismojo (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rewording. I took liberty of deleting your own "done" and my own request, just to reduce the size of the thread. Hope that was OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and of course it's ok. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stars and bars (combinatorics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Word problem. 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) 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Roscelese that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Abortion

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

More explanation, please

Hi there. First off, I want to apologize first for violating the 1RR rule. I don't normally edit controversial articles, so it didn't even occur to me to be wary of it. My mistake. That said, with this edit you undid several of mine. I explained most of them in the edit summary, and they were in several different places. Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little on how I misrepresented the sources? To which source are you refering? Which edit? Are there some that can be saved and others set aside to work on? Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BrianCUA,

Sorry for the delayed response, and also for the fact that it's going to be a bit long and rambling. I'm sort of cynical about editing in battleground areas like this one, in that I don't really believe that consensus-based editing can ever work with something so contentious. Generally speaking, I think one sees that most editors and edits in any such area are addressed to the goal of making the tone "right", and people who think PP are baby-killers are probably never going to agree with people who think PP is a noble organization doing important work about what the right tone is. About your edits, my objection is essentially the same as that one the talk page discussions related to the RFC you started. What we have (as I see it) is a group that has gone and produced some videos that they hope will make it look like PP is engaged in nefarious acts. There's a tradition on the right of this sort of thing (you can see that BullRangifer is still worked up about an old example involving ACORN), and for whatever reason this group no one had ever heard of until two weeks ago managed to get its version to have some national coverage outside NewsMax or whatever, so here we are. Of course news articles by reputable outlets about these videos are very careful to not say that the videos show anyone at PP doing anything illegal, because they don't. And so instead you get people like Art Caplan being asked hypothetical questions about ethics. Now if, like me, you think that what we have is an elaborate failed attempt at entrapment, you're not going to think that hypothetical questions about things that don't happen are very interesting (and, in fact, you'll think that writing long paragraphs about them is about trying to give a false impression that some boundary has been crossed). If, on the other hand, you already basically think that PP is a bunch of bad people doing bad things, you'll think the question of exactly how close PP operates to various ethical boundaries is really interesting (even if there's not concrete evidence they actually crossed any). And this leads to really weird situations like we have on the talk page, where a couple of editors seem convinced that using ultrasound during an abortion is malfeasance of some kind, or something. I don't know if this is helpful at all to you (I kind of doubt it), but I hope we can have pleasant interactions on some less-contentious subject in the future.

Best, JBL (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Hi Joel,

I am still monitoring a stripped down watchlist to see how the AE actions play out, and was about to hit the generic "thanks" button, when I realized that wasn't quite enough.... so I just wanted to say "thank you" for the kind words. Perhaps I'll make time for Wikipedia after my self imposed 12 month break but that's still TBD. Carry on, and thanks for your service. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, well, you're very welcome. I hope real life treats you well during your break! --JBL (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Laudato_si'

You misunderstood the edit. The sourced material describes a criticism, not a dissent. In fact it uses the term "criticizes". The heading was corrected and the sourced material left.

The editorial gloss about "dissent" was removed since the criticism was not a dissent.

I will be happy to explain Catholic teaching on this topic if you wish, but rejection of a binding teaching is "dissent" while disagreeing with the Pope's personal opinions is "criticism". The Pope cannot bind Catholics to his personal opinions.

(Eblem (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC))

No, I did not misunderstand anything: you gave a misleading and nonsensical edit summary, and removed a sourced sentence. --JBL (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nonsensical" is a fighting word. I appreciate you have strong opinions, but I don't edit articles on mathematics because it is not my area of expertise. Similarly theology is not yours. In Catholic theology a "dissent" involves formal rejection of a teaching. Prudential judgments are not teachings, therefore the heading "Dissents" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and should be deleted. Unless you have something substantive to add, I will consider this a closed discussion noting your personal though inexpert opinion that you're correct and I am not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs)

editing question

Hi JBL, thanks for your help in formatting my questions and organizing things on the Planned Parenthood talk page ... I have an unrelated mundane question, if you have the time, I'd appreciate your thoughts. I see that you have an in-line web link for the NYT article, but it does not show in the references list. This is a different form of link, I can see the code and how to do it - when would it be better to use that type of link and when is it better to use the < ref > < /ref > reference? I can post this to the Tea House as well but I thought I would venture a talk-page with you and say hello and thanks in the meantime. --Cityside189 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Cityside189:, thanks for the friendly words. The short answer is that bare links like the one I posted generally shouldn't be used in articles, and instead using the <ref></ref> commands is the right way to reference things (including the link and additional info like the title, author, etc.). On the other hand, on talk pages it is not really necessary to use the referencing when all one is trying to do is post a link for others to look at. Hope this helps, and see you 'round. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your bare link has been corrupted by a section added below yours. Do a visual scan and then a view-source of these two sections on PP Talk and you will see the source content is corrupted and therefore the viewable content is corrupted too: "Collected references" and "NY Times article". This may relate to Cityside's question posted while I was drafting this. Checkingfax (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your comment, but has the edit I've just made fixed things to your satisfaction? --JBL (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both sections are now uncorrupted however your link is not bare link it was before the corruption. Checkingfax (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

please answer me

dear Joel B. Lewis!are you mathematician?if you are mathematician!i am m.s in mathematic from shariff university!who are the many people?grothendick is one of the greatest mathematican!not greatest!many people?your mean TATE or Mumford!are you mathematician?or set theory or topology!!greatest is very greater than your opinion!you dont know whats means the greatest?please dont exaggeration!please!this is wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.201.135.124 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Fermat's Little Theorem - Chinese conjecture

The original text was something like: "in the expression [p is prime if and only if 2^p(mod p)] the 'only if' is true but the 'if' part is not true".

I interpreted this to mean: p is prime only if 2^p=2 (mod p) but not if 2^p=2(mod p) This doesn't make sense because both expressions are the same.

By reversing the sides of the lemma it made more sense to me In the expression "2^p = 2 (mod p) if and only if p is prime" the "if" part is true and the "only if" is not true.

becomes 2^p = 2(mod p) if p is prime, (but not only if p is prime) That is something I can easily understand.

In "if and only if" [if] can live without [only if], but [only if] cannot live without [if]. The original wording had "only if" true while "if" was somehow false, which my brain could not process. Silas Maxfield (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Pedoe

I intend to revert your recent amend to the Daniel Pedoe because it is demonstrably incorrect. The issue was previously discussed at User talk:Niceguyedc#Daniel Pedoe and resolved. I'll do the change in a few days, in case you wish to comment first. Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to get consensus for changes, you should do it on the talk page of the article, not on random user talk pages. Although "demonstrably incorrect" be fighting words, I can't pretend I really care very much about this, so am unlikely to pick a further fight about it. --JBL (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood Funding

No where in the cited article does it say Rep Lummis was incorrect or lying; so, it would be your premise for reversal that is wholly "absurd." Aspencork (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph 5: "[T]he figure ... [is] flawed." This is not tricky textual analysis, here. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Friendly advice on tone

Hi: I'm completely fine with your revert of my edit here, but I wanted to send you a note on your edit summary. I don't think it was necessary to call my edit "inane." You could have simply reverted it, or said something like "restoring better version," or "this version makes more sense to me," etc. We're all volunteers here doing the best we can, so it's really not necessary to use language that can be easily construed as unpleasant and unnecessarily aggressive. Thanks for your time. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, and thanks for your good humor about it. --JBL (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, and happy editing to you! Safehaven86 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mixed Electoral Systems

Hello User: Joel B. Lewis,

The integral component of this classification system is "Mixed Electoral Systems", which is a relatively new family of electoral systems.

“Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?” by Professors Matthew Søberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg from the University of California, classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Systems”, “Majoritarian Systems”, and “Mixed-member Systems”. (P.1-2). [citations omitted--JBL]

What are your thoughts on Mixed Member Systems? Please review the above sources.

Thank you for your time, I value your contributions.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd:, I have responded

here.

I cannot tell how familiar you are with Wikipedia norms, but you should know for the future that it is not acceptable to revert someone's edits to their own talkpage. Please don't do so again. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Joel. Thanks for your message on my talk page. As this "Ontario Teacher" can't be reasoned, I reported him as a spammer, We'll see if some administrator reacts and puts a stop to his disturbing behaviour. --Minorities observer (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made a more thorough (i.e., not edit summary) attempt. FWIW, I suspect WP:Spam is not the right venue for this sort of thing. Best case is Ontario Teacher responds to one of our comments (though the response to your attempt was not encouraging); worst case is probably WP:ANI. --JBL (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I see (s)he hasn't got it yet, all the useless tables still deface a lot of articles on voting systems, (s)he didn't learn how to answer properly on a talk page and just learned the existence of boxes. I don't believe it's a good policy to let new contributors modify articles without understanding the basics of Wikipedia, they should first be forced to learn some basics and be submitted to an examination, it should be an understandable proceeding for a "Teacher" ;-) --Minorities observer (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I have attempted to respond to your concerns and begin a dialogue on the topic you have disagreed with. This is called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Deleting my attempt to "discuss" while simultaneously accusing me of refusing to communicate is confusing. Filing a complaint against me for "refusing to communicate" and deleting all evidence of my communication attempts is not the best way to begin a healthy dialogue. Please demonstrate good faith by participating in the discussion component of the BRD cycle.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Re "Floor and ceiling functions" article

Was looking at the revert and was confused by you commenting that it was correct before. Rechecked the way it appeared in the article, and it looked reversed (the bracket feet turned outward). I then opened up Chrome and checked it with that browser, however, in Chrome, the floor brackets are in correct order (bracket feet turned inward). Possible error in Firefox's rendering??? In Firefox, the revert summary showing the lines affected has the correct order, but if you open the section containing the line to see the wiki source, the brackets are reversed there, too (so, it doesn't look, to me, to be an issue with the math template rendering differently in Firefox, but likely something odd with either Firefox itself, or something odd happening in the WP backend when browser is Firefox [which seems less likely]). Have you heard of anything like this, or have an idea what the issue is??? I can screen cap each situation combo and post them somewhere non-WP if that would be helpful. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi al-Shimoni,

Unfortunately I have no idea about what might be going on. Presumably there is a right place to ask about technical questions like this, but I don't even know where to suggest. Maybe someone at WikiProject Math would have an idea? Sorry not to be more help. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will look into it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)