User talk:Chinju

Hello there Chinju, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Instead of making and editing Test Page, edit the Sandbox -- it should serve your needs, and it is obviously not an article. If you need to test more complex things that require multiple pages or something, go to http://test.wikipedia.org/ and edit away. If I misunderstood what you were trying to do, tell me or just ignore this. Thanks! Paullusmagnus 19:18, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

General number field sieve
Regarding your edits to general number field sieve: I'm afraid you're mistaken. On MathWorld, it doesn't say that n is the number of bits in the number to be factored. In fact, when talking about factoring, n is by convention the number to be factored. Anyway, in factoring, it's unusual to specify the size of numbers in bits (except with, for example, RSA keys), since decimal digits are a more intuitive measure of number size to us humans. Decrypt3 15:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, now I agree with the change. I hadn't spotted the n and logn difference, since in every source I've seen apart from Wikipedia it's logn, and I wasn't expecting it to be different. I think it's better this way - like I said, it is conventional to use n as the number to be factored in factoring discussions, so this keeps with the convention. Sorry for the confusion! Decrypt3 00:07, Nov 14, 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)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Req. for your work on Sony v Universal
I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology.

Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. Feco 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Practising
I did not make that edit which you question, but Merriam-Webster on line allows both spellings. There may be some difference in British vs American usage, but from my best recollection (mostly U.S.) the spelling with the "cing" is used more for practicing music, tennis, mathematics, and so on - part of a learning or development process, while I believe for the concept of following precepts, as in religion or moral code, I have seen the "sing" more often. For a profession, such as being a doctor actually in service, however, I think I have seen the "c" more. Maybe we are both "practising pedants." Pdn 03:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Direct sum of modules
I agree with you that, strictly speaking, one does not have to define integral scalar multiple to define the direct sum of abelian groups. So, I left this out of the definition. However, I reverted everything else back to read "abelian group" and inserted a remark regarding integral scalar multiplication.

The whole purpose of the article is to describe direct sum constructions of certain modules. In other words, to describe various coproducts in certain categories of modules. The reason to include abelian groups specifically, is that the direct sum construction is only a coproduct in the category of abelian groups, but not in the category of groups. The reason to include the 2 cases of vector spaces and abelian groups is that each of these is a special case of a category of modules over a ring (with vector spaces, it is a field; with abelian groups, it is the integers). This is why it is important to mention the integral scalar multiplication.

Even in the category of finite groups, the direct sum (coproduct) construction is not the direct sum as described in this article, it is the free product. Revolver 01:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Remark
Hi Chinju. Thank you for your change to Independence (mathematics). The article looks better now. And one request. It would be really nice if you put edit summaries when you contribute. This is one of those things which make it easier for other people when they check the watchlist and for editors checking recent changes. Think of it as of the "Subject:" line in an email. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov 03:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Arbitrary username
please check updated message there - thank you kindly for your concern. 83.145.108.71 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Causality
Hello,

I was planning to make changes to the special relativity article on this point some time ago. I agree with you that one cannot say that a violation of causality is a logical paradox. But if one can send signals using tachyons, one can create a so-called "anti-telephone", i.e. you can send a signal to yourself in the past. This can be used to construct paadoxes, however, it is then still possible to conjecture that you can only have consistent solutions. In this article some details are given.

Anyway, it would be interesting to give some more details in the article, like how the faster than light signals should be sent in order to send a signal into one's own past than just say that there are observers that see the order of events reversed. Count Iblis 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removal
What are you attempting to do on the Michael Phelps article? I can help. Dreadstar †  04:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's gone now? Cool...I'm not even sure what the vandalism was.  Can you provide a link or two?  Dreadstar  †  04:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also wanted to make sure Kigabo's edits were ok. Dreadstar  †  04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying on my talk page is fine. I also check the talk page of the editor I'm communicating with.  Six of one...  Thanks for the info on Zodiac.  Dreadstar  †  04:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the vandalism in question is template related because it effected all of the old versions of the article in the edit history. I.E. even when I looked at version from the last week they were screwed up, and then they were ok again. It would be good to know for the future. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is what I now realize. It's just coincidence that my article edits have coincided with the fix of the templates. I'm curious which template it was this time. -Chinju (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was the Template:Infobox Swimmer, the vandalism itself was right here: . Dreadstar  †  05:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Large Hardon Collider listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Large Hardon Collider. Since you had some involvement with the Large Hardon Collider redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cauchy-Schwarz inequality alternative proof
Hi. I just saw you replaced the "standard" proof by yours again in CS ineq page. Please take a look at the talk page of CS inequality. I still believe the "standard" proof should be there as a reference. Your proof or the other one in talk page can be an ALTERNATIVE proof. --Memming (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Zero interest-rate policy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Zero interest-rate policy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Zeta Function Regularization
Dear Chinju, I found out you edited the wikipedia's page "1+2+3+4+..."

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

where I've found the following statement:

More generally $\zeta(s)$ will always be given by the degree zero term of the Laurent series expansion around $h=0$ of $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s} e^{hn}$.

Do you have some reference for this statement? It seems wrong to me, but I am not sure because I am not an expert in complex analysis. IN any case, I found no reference in the literature of such property of the Riemann $\zeta$ function. Thank you very much for your attention. Best Regards, Maurizio Barbato (user: PoppiesInAWheatField)PoppiesInAWheatField (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proofs of Fermat's Little Theorem
Dear Chinju, I want to put back the first method you deleted from this page. This is contained here Proofs of Fermat's little theorem (an older version)

You made the following remark before the deletion:


 * Removed proof originally added by Ling Kah Jai in October 2008; it has languished for years with a large unexplained gap (why must all the b_j be distinct in the second case?

You are referring to the (why?) in the original text:


 * Thus the elements of second row of matrix $$B$$ are not identical to that of the first row, neither are the third and fourth rows, etc. Conditions for Lemma 2 shall hold for all factor $$n|(p-1)$$, any violation will result in satisfying the condition of Lemma 1 whereby the result has been proven. Consequently each value of $$b_j$$ must be unique for $$j = 1, 2, \dots, mn$$.

Don't you think the text has explained every thing? b_j is < p since b_j is result of a^x (mod p). All b_j are non identical and there are only that many numbers possible: 1 to (p-1). Take note that (p-1) is mn.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not think the text has explained everything. You claim all b_j (i.e., all powers of a from a^0 through a^(p - 2)) are non-identical, but do not prove this. You claim it simply because a^n does not equal 1 for any factor n of p - 1, but it's not clear why it would follow that all b_j are non-identical. For example, if p were 23, and I proposed that neither a^1 nor a^2 nor a^11 nor a^22 were equal to 1, why would I then automatically know that b_1 (i.e., 1) and b_6 (i.e., a^5) must be different? We know we cannot have a^i = a^j where i and j differ by a factor of p - 1 (this is your "Lemma 1"), but what about the possibility that a^i = a^j where i and j differ by a non-factor of p - 1?

Indeed, the whole proof you propose is an extremely convoluted way of saying "For prime p, and a distinct from 0 modulo p, assume for contradiction that a^(p - 1) is not 1. Then the values a^0, a^1, ..., a^(p - 2) are all distinct [for reasons unexplained!]. It follows that (a^(p - 1) - 1)/(a - 1) = a^0 + a^1 + ... + a^(p - 2) = 1 + ... + (p - 1) = p * (p - 1)/2 = 0 mod p [we may assume here p is odd, since a is neither 0 nor 1 modulo p], and thus a^(p - 1) = 1, completing the proof". But the key step has been left out: why must a^0, a^1, ..., a^(p - 2) all be distinct? Again, we know that if a^i = a^j where i and j differ by a factor of p - 1, it automatically follows that a^(p - 1) = 1 (for then a^(i - j) = 1, and a^(p - 1) is a power of that), but what about the possibility that a^i = a^j where i and j differ by a non-factor of p - 1? You fail to explain why this cannot happen. And explaining why this cannot happen is the whole key to Fermat's Little Theorem! -Chinju (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Chinju, this is obvious: if b_k repeats b_1, then b_k+1 repeats b_2 etc. Thus this goes back to Lemma 1. If b_k does not repeat b_1, and k can be any such integer, the whole set is unique. You may explain it more clearly if you wish.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious. You prove in Lemma 1 that if b_k = b_1, WHERE k - 1 is a factor of p - 1, then already a^(p - 1) = 1 and we are done. You do not in Lemma 1 do anything to rule out the possibility that b_k = b_1 where k - 1 is not a factor of p - 1. As I said above, consider this example: suppose p is 23, and I say to you that I have an a such that neither a^1 nor a^2 nor a^11 nor a^22 equal 1. How can I be sure that b_1 (i.e., 1) and b_6 (i.e., a^5) must be different? How does Lemma 1 apply to this situation? (It does not). -Chinju (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Chinju, Suppose (Zp, *) is the multiplicative group of integer modulo p and contains p-1 elements.The cyclic subgroup 1 is generated by 'a' on 1. It is  a subgroup of Zp. Say the number of elements is n. Suppose this subgroup does not contains an integer q. The cyclic subgroup 2 generated by ’a' on q shall contain the same number of elements (I.e. n number) as subgroup 1 but have all elements distinct from subgroup 1. Accordingly, there must be m such subgroups available and if we gather all these elements together they are Zp. Thus it is not possible for b_r+1 to repeat b_1 unless r is a factor of (p-1)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning you just gave is valid, but was not mentioned in your original proof. Indeed, the reasoning you just gave suffices on its own to establish Fermat's little theorem, without all the obfuscation of your original proof (as you just noted, by considering the equal-sized subgroups generated by a, we must have a^n = 1 for n some factor of p - 1; accordingly, we have that a^(p - 1) = (a^n)^((p - 1)/n) = 1^((p - 1)/n) = 1). And this proof is already in the Wikipedia article! It's the one at the bottom called "Proof using group theory" mentioning Lagrange's theorem. So I still object to adding a convoluted presentation on top of that as though it were a distinct proof. -Chinju (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Chinju,

Please note also that a^(p-1) -1 can be factored by a^n -1, if and only n is a factor of (p-1). Otherwise it is not true. If a^n -1 is multiple of p, so is a^(p-1) -1.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)