User talk:Cactus0192837465

Welcome!
$$\color{white}{Hello\ world}$$

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schwarz lantern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smooth ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Schwarz_lantern check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Schwarz_lantern?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Arens square and Alexandroff plank
Hi Cactus0192837465, including here. Greetings to you Cactus. I have reviewed two of your articles above withe the advice of Mark viking as he is the expert in Mathematics. I would you to add additional sources to support the contain claimed as in Wikipedia we need at least 3 independent, reliable sources (Academic books are good sources - you have provided, but we need more) to pas the notability of the subject. Also, pls read referencing for beginners and learn how to provide inline citation on the body text, instead just provide the source without indicating which page of the book you are refereeing for as one could not expect the reviewer or in this case Mark to find the info in the entire book for this your content claimed. Just to clarify, I am the reviewer, but Mark is the subject matter expert for such I could not able to answer about the subject /content but what I would let you know what are needed which are missing. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alexandroff plank
Hello, Cactus0192837465,

Thanks for creating Alexandroff plank! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
Your recent editing history at function (mathematics) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

On January 10, you did four times the same revert. It is possible that, before this warning, you ignored the WP:3RR rule of Wikipedia. Now this rule has been notified to you. So, the next time you will break it, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI for an edit block. D.Lazard (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one engaging in edit war. I reverted and immediately added the section in the talk page to discuss what is wrong with what you wrote. You are the one reverting without going there to read the explanation of your lack of understanding of proper grammar.

Map (mathematics)
I have made my case why this page is really a disambig page at the talkpage. -- Taku (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Function (mathematics). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Favonian (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It depends on which version is considered the origin. As I understand, the version I reverted back to is the original one; see My edit merely changed the statement back to *this* original version. Please seek a consensus before change it. —— Taku (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which was fixed quite a while ago. Well, now you have a false theorem in the article, plus two references that don't have that statement. Simple as that. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What they call a map is more commonly called a function and so there is no ref problem. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the books referenced are internally consistent. The section with your addition is the one that isn't. It requires either fixing the definition given, or the theorem, or present both definitions and both theorems. Anyway, this really simple mathematics. I don't think that I have to explain anything else. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some comment to clarify at the talkpage of a function (please see the talkpage and especially links I have provided). But to repeat, I don't believe the current def of a function exclude codomain. You seem to think there is a distinction between a relation and a correspondence; and I know *some* authors do make some distinction, but that's not universally agreeded upon. In any case, changes need to be introduced after the discussion. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are the one that is very confused there. There is confusion in the literature about function and map etc. but there is no confusion about what a relation is. A relation is, for everyone, a set of pairs, period. No one confuses this concept because the ones that needed it (logic, foundations of mathematics) are places in which care is taken to express things formally and consistently, as opposed to the mess that some Calculus books have done with function and map. In that section of the Wikipedia article, a function is at the moment defined (in the part that says "Formally ...") as a set of ordered pairs, and if it is left at that, if you are given a set of ordered pairs, there is no information to recover what was the codomain, unless you always assume that the function is surjective. Therefore, the theorem you gave in that section is false.
 * About the link that you added to category of relations. You are making things up and don't really understand what a category is. That category is defined by placing arrows for each relation. That doesn't imply that relations on their own carry any information of the start and end objects in that category. For example, for the relation $$\{(1,1)\}$$ they draw one arrow from the set $$\{1\}$$ to itself, and they draw an arrow from $$\{1,2\}$$ to \{1,3\}, and in general across any two sets that contain $$1$$. That that is the definition of that particular category, which got given that particular name, doesn't imply in any way that relations carry with themselves the two sets at the ends of the arrows. No one does that. You are imagining it out of the definition of that category. There is already a concept that does exactly that and that is what is called correspondence. One thing that you should do is check references, instead of making things up. If you don't know what you are talking about, first check the relevant books. In this particular case, you could have just clicked on the very link in the very page of the category of relations to the page about binary relation, and if you have doubts on the content of Wikipedia go to the references at the bottom. It is really a waste of time to have to argue so much, when you clearly don't know what you are saying, and you don't know because you haven't read even the minimum, the definitions in books. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See also the reaction of Trovatore to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. I get the distinction you want to make between a relation and a correspondence; that a mere set cannot carry codomain. That's not how the things are done in practice or references. A relation does carry codomain; in fact, I have just edited binary relation to emphasize this point. When you say a relation is a subset of $$A \times B$$, you are implicitly specifying $$A, B$$. Yes, sometimes you define a relation (or correspondence) as an ordered triple (A, B, R) to emphasize the fact you're using A, B, but that's just a matter of the writing style. For example, in Jacobson, Basic Algebra, a correspondence is defined as a binary relation; i.e., a subset of a Cartesian product. If you like, you can think that a "subset" implicitly specify the ambient set that is used. -- Taku (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a doubt about a qualification of me as an editor, you should go to the talkpage of function (mathematics) to convince other math editors, that it is I who am confused and not you. -- Taku (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note I have also added a more explicit form of a definition of a function at the note. -- Taku (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? A set carries the information of its supersets? Yes, I am certain that you are not qualified. Just like Trovadore isn't. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect what neither you nor Trovadore think, but two things (1) the definitions and theorems used in reliable references and (2) trivial logical deductions that follow from them. A set carrying information about one of its superset is neither of those. Yes, Trovadore, like you, is imagining things. Functions are not defined out of the definition the category **Set**. Functions are defined, and then **Set** is defined. The reliable sources contain some a definition that makes one functions for each arrow in **Set**, while some others a definition that isn't. If you put in a section the definition that isn't, then you cannot follow it by a theorem that requires them to be exactly the arrows of **Set**.Cactus0192837465 (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)