User talk:Aleph4

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Policies and guidelines

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~ 

snoyes 16:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hannerism
I put the POV tag on the talk page of Hannerism because I wasn't positive the article constiuted POV. I wanted people to come and determine if the article is POV or it's just inherent. At least that was the plan. I'm not sure it worked...on the other hand, you did look at it. Does it look like POV? RJFJR 00:51, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Abdullah Öcalan
Was merged with Kurdistan Workers Party, the vandalism comment is inaccurate. I am re merging it, thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * My vandalism comment was accurate. There were many edits on this article, so you may be confusing my edit with somebody else's.  In the modification, the anonymous User:85.98.38.241 replaced several paragraphs of text with the words "?????? if you make shite, i (as a kurdish person) will fuck your mother.".  This was clearly vandalism, so I reverted it in.
 * Thanks for informing me about the merge. -- Aleph4 14:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kristallnacht
Can you please read my comment on Talk:Kristallnacht. Thanks -- Obradovi&#263; Goran  ( t al k  15:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

holomorphic function
Hello. It is rather odd to write holomorphic function rather than holomorphic function since holomorphic is, as common sense would suggest, a redirect page pointing to holomorphic function. Michael Hardy 19:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the word "holomorphic" (without it the statement in Multiplicity was not 100% correct), and on second thoughts wikilinked it. But I agree that holomorphic function is even better (by an epsilon).  -- Aleph4 11:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kempler
Kempler video is now translated, be prepared for an attempt to delete tha will probably succeed. The killers friends' are in abundance in wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kempler video (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics pages
Hi There,

I was looking through some of your edits on mathematics pages, and found what I believe to be factual errors. I can see you've studied mathematics, so I was wondering if you could justify them: &mdash;Sean &kappa;. + 12:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, you write, "The Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory (ZF) together with the axiom of choice (AC) are the standard axioms of axiomatic set theory. ZF+AC is usually abbreviated to ZFC", which seems to me to be paradoxical.  Does this sentence imply ZF includes AC or not?
 * 2) In Euler's identity, you wrote that "pi is always constant".  What about hyperbolic spaces?  I believe that is what the original author was attempting to include, the fact that the ratio represented by pi varies depending on the curvature of space we are in.


 * Aleph4's answer:
 * Thanks for pointing out that my formulation in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory was unclear.   I hope that I have clarified that now.  ZF does not include the axiom of choice; ZFC does.    I also think it is generally agreed that ZFC is a better or more natural foundation of "all of ordinary mathematics" (I don't like the formulation "ordinary mathematics", but at the moment I am not bold enough...) than ZF is.  (I will write more at Talk:Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory if necessary.)
 * Concerning Euler's identity, I wrote this at Talk:Euler's identity in May 2005:
 * The current version of the article says $$\pi$$ is a constant in a world which is Euclidean, or on small scales of non-Euclidean geometry otherwise, the ratio of the length of the circumference of circle to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences).
 * While the "otherwise" part of the sentence is true, it does not talk about $$\pi$$ at all. You could as well define $$\pi$$ to be the infinite string 3.14159..., and then claim that $$\pi$$ is not constant if you use hexadecimal numbers.  The string 3.14... does not define $$\pi$$ if you interpret it in hexadecimal, and the expression  "ratio of circumference..." does not define $$\pi$$ if you talk about circles in a non-Euclidean plane.
 * I don't think that $$\pi$$ is used to denote the ratio circumference:diameter in a situation where this ratio depends on the size of the circle. Anyway, remarks about the "value of pi in noneuclidean geometry" belong to pi or Talk:pi.    Whether our universe is Euclidean or not is completely irrelevant to the value of pi (except for history, motivation, etc).
 * --Aleph4 14:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that the article says "number pi" not just "pi". Cool beans.  &mdash;Sean &kappa;. + 14:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sincerely
You are an asshole. why did you delete my page? whatd it ever to to you? put it back. jackass.


 * Please ignore the comments from this IP, this is a shared computer at a school, we have no quarrel with you. Thanks. 207.236.151.102 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for deleting the page by the writer of the preceding obscene comment, I've been trying to get it deleted for a while. I'll probably go to you for help with this vandal in the future; I unfortunately know him personally. Nihiltres 17:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what page you are talking about. I cannot delete pages, as I am not an administrator.     I can only suggest pages for deletion -- you can do that too. --Aleph4 10:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD on algebraical quantity
Hello. I hope you were not affected by my remark on Articles for deletion/Algebraical quantity that you should have contacted the original author of the article. You already did more than usual by listing it on RfC and I'm grateful for that. I do think that you should've tried to contact the author, but I should have told you that (semi-)privately here. Sorry for that, Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. The reason I did not contact the author was that I (subconsciously, perhaps wrongly) concluded from the style of the article that the author did not know math well enough for a fruitful discussion.   Aleph4 12:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

afd on lazytown cast member
did you nominate Articles_for_deletion/Jodi_Eichelberger as an afd? if so i'm confused why you then voted to merge. would have been more to the point. Nateji77 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry, my mistake. I changed the template. --Aleph4 16:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * there's couple of these, and no non-duplicate content beyond the birthdates. but since i have no idea what lazytown is... Nateji77 17:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

copyvio
Can you please remove your copyvio for the listing for Eric Corey Freed? He gave me permission for the text, and even gave me some additions.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.170.55 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, please sign all your comments on talk pages, using 4 tilde signs: ~ . Please read the "possible copyright violation" notice on the page Eric Corey Freed, in particular points 2 and 4, and you will know what to do.
 * (Note also that pages that non-notable people put here about themselves are often deleted as "vanity pages". I am not claiming that Freed is non-notable, nor that he is notable.) --Aleph4 11:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Aleph4
I have sorted out your dispute re Stiltskin, if you have any more questions please contact me

Best Regards

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TessaSturridge (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

m&n's
The use of ndashes for mutiple-person names is supposedly standard or up-&-becoming that. "Just following orders", I guess. There's some discussion here:


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics.

I did not know how to check for reredirs except to use the "what links here" tool. Is there a better way? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wrzeście (PKP station)
Hello. This article is about Wrzeście near Lębork, not near Słupsk. The second village do not have a railway station. CCMichalZ 16:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
understood, thanks

Your reversion of Gödel
''Comment on my reversion by User:Pce3@ij.net moved to Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems. --Aleph4 11:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Luther-Smith
hi I'm robert luther-smith; i own all the copyrights on my pages...please put it back on-line!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Luther-Smith (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 May 2006


 * See Copyright Problems. I added a "copyvio" notice to the page Robert Luther-Smith because it seemed to violate the copyright of arthouserecord.  If the page arthouserecords is published under GFDL, the best way to make that clear would be a notice on the arthousepage itself.
 * Please be aware that many wikipedia editors (including myself) think that it is not appropriate to write wikipedia articles about oneself.  See also Autobiography. --Aleph4 11:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sockpuppets...
I removed the text for privacy reasons, it was being displayed on Google and it's irrelevant since the issue is now sorted.

J.

Axiom of Symmetry
The changes you made state that if "countable" is replaced by "cardinality less than kappa" then there is a contradiction outright. That is not true. Kappa could be aleph 1 and the continuum could be larger than that. In such a model, the axiom is true (it is equivalent to the original axiom) and so there is no contradiction. Perhaps you should consider putting it back the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I have tried to clarify my edit to Freiling's axiom of symmetry, see also Talk:Freiling's axiom of symmetry. -- Aleph4 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Aleph4?
$$\aleph {\aleph_0\atop \aleph_0}<{\rm max}((2^{\aleph_{0}})^{+}, \aleph_{\aleph_{4}})$$

Why is it Aleph 4? Can you tell me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernard the Varanid (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A  proof can be found in Shelah's papers, but also in the following papers:
 * M. Burke and M. Magidor, Shelah's pcf theory and its applications, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 50 (1990)
 * T. Jech, Singular Cardinal Problem -- Shelah's theorem on $$2^{\aleph_\omega}$$, Bulletin of the London Math Society 24 (1992).


 * But if you want to know why it is aleph4, and not rather aleph3, aleph2, or even (what some people conjecture) aleph1 -- I think that nobody knows, so far.


 * --Aleph4 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Not true! I do!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.139.226.37 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Durbin
Turns out it was Durbin who made that definition up (well-order &c). I knew there was something fishy about it. (John Durbin, Modern Algebra, an introduction)

Stylistics
Thank you for helping me write the Wikipeadia article for ‘Stylistics (linguistics)’.

I think that I got the hang of things – in the end.

I’ve now finished my contribution – give or take the odd minor correction.

I hope to be able to contribute to your project again. I did feel that this entry deserved a fuller explanation.

As for the biographical note, no, I did not write this (but my agent did). I just pasted it in.

I fully accept your guidelines and will, therefore, edit it to a form consistent with your standards and style.

I do feel, however, that a brief entry about my work and credentials should be available for scrutiny, but please feel free to edit accordingly.

Thanks again for all your assistance.

Brian Lamont 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are u anyway
Who gave u da damn right to tell who and when to delete pages, who are u anyway, im at m brothers house, and i see u like deleting things, get a life, just go and delete people articles, main im trying to get known, dont do us lik dat bitch, but with all do respect, i said the following... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

hoe stop
dont delete no more, or im taking action —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.20.92.68 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I can only repeat: I am not an administrator, I do not delete pages.  In fact I cannot delete pages.
 * If you want to discuss the proposed deletion of a page, please do so in the relevant deletion discussion.
 * --Aleph4 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

antoine j
im sorry, but why did you remove my page i created, is you in charge of this thing or something, i really would appreciate it maam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntoineJ (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * See Why was my page deleted?, and also my answer on your talk page. --Aleph4 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

im saying, i know u deleted it, are you a regular person, or do you work for wiki, if not, youre just really ,mean,  im tryna start a name for myself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntoineJ (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I am a Wikipedia editor with no special privileges.
 * Please sign your posts on talk pages.
 * If you want to "start a name for yourself" as a Wikipedian, I suggest you improve some wikipedia articles, and/or tell us more about yourself on your user page.   At the moment I can only see "I am 16 years old, and im having fun with life".  (Which is a great attitude, but not enough to make a name for yourself.)
 * If you want to "start a name for yourself" in the real world -- go ahead and do it. Design your own webpage, join a band, discover a new planet; the possibilities are endless.
 * Please have a look at What Wikipedia is not and our guide to autobiographies.
 * --Aleph4 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User Page
Thanks for moving my subpage. Merry Xmas. Alhen &#x2650;... 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quasiconvex function
Thank you for your work at quasiconvex function. But note however that a quasiconvex continuous function need not be convex. A counterexample is the function


 * $$f(x)=\sqrt{|x|}.$$

Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. Thanks for correcting me. --Aleph4 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) By the way, your work inspired me to expand on that article, so now it's bigger. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your unusual name...
Are you possibly named after the psychoactive drug Aleph-4, by any chance? -Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, after the cardinal. --Aleph4 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Löwenheim-Skolem theorem
Hello aleph4, I don't understand your formulation in the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem article, but to the extent that I do it seems to be equivalent to the original version. The careful reference in your comment suggests that you were really up to something, but I can't even guess what it is since we don't have the book in Leeds. Could you please have another look at the article? Thanks, Hans Adler (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that I have clarified it now, both in the article and the discussion. Aleph4 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I am very happy with your correction in the article. I certainly didn't intend to make you write such a long comment, but it's certainly a good thing that it's there now. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More on Shelah (name)
I have made some additional revisions on top of your very helpful contribution. Could you take another look at Shelah (name) and provide some additional input regarding the Hebrew names (e.g. adding to the Template:Hebrew Name parameters that are now empty). Thanks for your assistance. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your additions. I am not familiar with these (Tiberian etc) transcriptions and would rather leave them to an expert.    But I changed the niqud (vowels).
 * I have some doubts about "this Hebrew name was used as a single name", are you sure about that? It seems to me that שלח and שלה  were two different biblical figures, with different names, and never is one name used for the other. --Aleph4 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On Yerida
Thanks for your redirect advise. I'm new to this, so by talking to you, I'm testing the communication channel. regards Pini00001 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for mentioning (in 2007) the relation between Dependent Choice and Baire Theorem on "Axiom of dependent choice". I've read also the proof and feel happy! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=670519075 your edit] to Axiom schema of replacement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * as the claim that neither of these theories can prove its own consistency, if it is consistent.) The cardinal number $$\aleph_\omega$$ is the first one which can be shown to exist in

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)