User talk:109.70.40.55

Only appropriate, usual, and standard language posted here will receive attention. This is particularly exclusive of anything difficult to understand or phrased to obfuscate meaning.

Why did you revert my edits to setuid.

unix -> filesystem, identify changed back to ID as it refers to the id number)

DGerman (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you revert my edits? 109.70.40.55 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * setuid (no thanks to type corrections)
 * I actually did not revert your edits but meant to clarify them.
 * Unix is an operation systems that supports the file systems which include modes which include setuid.
 * That is the file system incorporates the flags. I suppose not could be said that unix enforces them.
 * UID and GID are numbers and as such are not really identifies, the included reference says that. DGerman (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello, I'm Giraffer. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Mannaz—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misclicked. I've re-instated your edit. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. 109.70.40.55 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello! I reverted your change on Quaternions and spatial rotation: in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternions_and_spatial_rotation#Alternative_conventions section that had removed the warning that Shuster's convention was discouraged, as indicated by the reference cited. If necessary, I can provide more such references.

The author who added that caveat pointed out that otherwise articles might take the equations in this section out of context, and spread confusion.

In most fields, adoption of Shuster's convention would result in the very thing that Shuster felt was so horrible that correcting it justified changing the very definition of quaternions (i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1) itself.

What was anathema to Shuster was successive rotations "chaining to the right", but for those using the normative QvQ^-1 rotation operator (as is pretty universal outside aerospace) and Hamilton's definition of quaternions, successive rotations have always "chained to the left", as Shuster wished, and adopting Shuster's convention would mean that successive rotations "chain to the right" - precisely what Shuster abhorred. I would like to think Shuster (now deceased) would be horrified by that result.

Shuster wanted the order of rotation composition with quaternions on a vector to be the same as he was used to with rotation matrices (given the vector was representative by a column matrix) - from right to left. In most fields outside of aerospace (and in a number of projects and software within aerospace), Shuster's goal that successive rotations using quaternions "chain to the left" been achieved since 1844.

Hamilton noted that a right-handed rotation of a vector v about an axis u by an angle theta in a right handed sense could be achived using a quaternion Q with scalar part of magnitude cosine(theta/2) and a vector part parallel to u with magnitude sine(theta/2) by the operation QvQ^-1, and that this operation was done for repeated rotations of Q1, Q2, etc., that they were equivalent to using the operation QvQ^-1 with the composite operator Q = Q2*Q1 - that is, successive rotations "chained to the left", as Shuster wished.

So why did Shuster say that Hamilton's multiplication rule caused rotations to "chain to the right"?

Because he was operating in an environment where his colleagues did NOT use the normative QVQ^-1 rotation operator, but rather the inverse, Q^-1vQ rotation operator, which Hamilton had pointed out rotated vectors in a left-handed sense (which is why Hamilton didn't choose it). This had the side effect that successive rotations "chained to the right", which bothered Shuster.

So, not Hamilton's fault, nor any fault of the quaternion definition, but rather of Shuster's colleagues. And Shuster's "fix" will only achieve Shuster's goal in fields (mainly aerospace, and not all of aerospace) using the Q^-1vQ operator.

While I'm on the topic, based on my informal survey of aerospace texts and applications, even inside aerospace, most software (both analysis and application) uses the normative Hamilton convention for quaternion multiplication, not Shuster's.

More on the topic here:

https://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2021/05/10/beware-the-natural-quaternion/

Macchess (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Inductance. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 19:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

December 2022
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Fundamental theorem of arithmetic does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! — Anita5192 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)