User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (14)

Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (5) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (6) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (7) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (8) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (9) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (11) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (12) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (13) (most recent)

Borat
Sexual privacy sounds fine to me. Still, if you want a change, I might be able to figure something out. Lockeownzj00 02:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Moved here by Cyrius|&#9998; because the poster posted it in the archive.

Please comment on Variable
Hi! As you are one of the people who has edited the article "Variable" recently, I would like to ask your advice. Taku and myself have a difference of opinion on a section of that article. If you have the time, could you take a look there and at Talk:Variable and provide your input? Thanks! --FOo 01:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sex of rearing
I didn't want edit war either. Your suggestions were constructive and I agree with most. I provided one more revision which I hope accommodates your principal views as well as mine. I revised some of mine as a result of your suggestsion. See revised sex of rearing article and additional explanation at talk:Sex of rearing. Regards. Alteripse 15:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Linking to wikibooks
The wikibook's I've linked to so far are the most developed in the mathematics section. Maybe I shouldn't make links to pages which are still to be developed although I note this practice is encouraged in wikipedia to draw attention to articles that need work. My aim in adding links from wikipedia to wikibooks is part of a wider aim of broadening the links between wikibooks and wikipedia. I think that the poor development of the wikibooks project (when compared to wikipedia) is in part due to its hierarchical structure (again when compared to wikipedia). I aim to diffuse this problem without disturbing the practical considerations of creating a book (the linearity and style). I am also working on a way of linking wikibooks to wikipedia in such a way that the links will be easy to remove at a later stage. I think these developments would help wikibooks to grow by allowing developers to move more freely between wikibooks and wikipedia. Any comments or suggestions? Barnaby dawson 15:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AIM
You're not on?!? Ambi 06:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mulberry
Hi Dysprosia - do you know which species of mulberry your pic is? - MPF 09:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

K & R Cover
The image that was there was pretty yellowed, so I scanned my copy & uploaded it. Was that a problem? (I'm new to this) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) | Talk]] 15:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

``monospace text``
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377 - go vote for it so it gets implemented :-) (I remember you asked for something like this before)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 00:07, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I've given it ten votes :) Dysprosia 00:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal polynomials
In case I make a mistake wo this, orthogonal polynomials (or any vectors in an inner product space) are orthogonal if  = &delta;ij (with the obvious inner product as defined in the article), correct or not? Dysprosia 10:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No -- f and g are orthogonal if  = 0. In order that such a thing as Kronkecker's delta &delta;ij even be defined, the subscripts i and j have to mean something.  If one had a sequence of polynomials indexed by subscripts then one could say  = &delta;ij, and that would be the same as saying the members of that sequence are orthonormal (not orthogonal).  If you're talking about just two polynomials rather than about a sequence, then you have no "i and j.  Kronecker's delta is equal to 1 when i = j, and orthogonality of two polynomials has nothing to do with something being equal to 1. Michael Hardy 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I condsider this a personal attack! Or I would, if I could understand it. Maybe. -- orthogonal 16:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) ;)

seen on #wikipedia
I saw this on the #wikipedia IRC channel. -- orthogonal 17:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)