User talk:EdPeggJr

Discussions
Hi, with reference to these edits [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APentagonal_tiling&type=revision&diff=674432192&oldid=674285315], in future could you add new comments to the bottom of existing discussions? There should be a a "new section" tab on every discussion page for this purpose. While there are circumstances when it's better to add comments to the middle of existing discussions, you should normally use appropriate WP:Indenting in such cases, and should not generally add a new section header. Adding comments to the middle can make it confusing who said said what, when, and also makes it easy to miss your comment. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW since it seems no one has done so yet:

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, EdPeggJr. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidently, if you're Ed Pegg, Jr. a particularly warm welcome as we definitely need people with your level of knowledge an expertise to contribute when they can. Also, I guess you probably know [//www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pentagon+tiling Wolfram Alpha] still gives only 14 pentagon tilings? If you're not, it looks like you've made some handy contributions, so you're still very welcome! Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tower of Hanoi
Please stop replacing your original research coding into Tower of Hanoi - that's not what wikipedia is for, which is why it has been removed several times by several people. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

OEIS Sequence A001511 is not original research. It's a Core Sequence. See L. Gros, Théorie du Baguenodier, Aimé Vingtrinier, Lyon, 1872. The connection between the ruler function and the Tower of Hanoi goes back more than 140 years. EdPeggJr (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But its relation to the ruler function needs to be explained in full, and you have not shown the correctness of the code.

Also: Your recent editing history at Tower of Hanoi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a 30-year-old Core Sequence in the OEIS is wrong? A001511 -- 	1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1 -- number of disk to be moved at n-th step of optimal solution to Towers of Hanoi problem. This is also the position of change in each step of the Gray sequence. How can something be explained when you keep removing it entirely, and can't accept OEIS as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't care how logical or obvious it may seem. The sequence may look right but it stands that you did not clarify the relation to Thomae's function and that without a source about the ruler function part, it's original research. You need to WP:CITE it properly regardless.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Fermat–Catalan conjecture
I figured I'd ask you Mr Pegg, since I came across your interesting post here: 1. Anyway, I've been fiddling with this a bit this morning, and applied an equation I found here: 2. I use Pari/GP, and evaluating the cases from [2], I get an annoying round-off for the first 2 of the 10 cases. I'd like to explain this. Specifically, I compute:   3.075, 4.009, 9, 7, 5, 3, 7, 7, 3, 3   for the cases presented in the paper in order  (note there is a typo in that paper for the eq'n). The form I used was: (log(x^q-y^2+sqrt((y^q-x^2)^2+4*y^q*x^2)-log(2)))/log(y)

Any suggestions ? I can supply the screenshots. I am unsure which package you might use (Maple, Pari etc). --Billymac00 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)