User talk:Gandalf61/Archive16

fox geese & beans
why did you remove my post where it was pointed out the logic that geese can swim? a fact that has been known for some thousands of years, thus rendering the official 7 movements a touch redundant. the answer I put forward is simply applied common sense, which is what should always be applied to a logic puzzle. mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowglinova (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We only include information in Wikipedia if it can be verified in a reliable source. Your "solution" to the puzzle appears to be made up by yourself. Therefore, although it is clever, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Euler's identity, Mathematical beauty, etc
Thank you for reverting my edit with a helpful summary. This interpretation seems to contrast with current consensus at Euler's identity (cf ). Given the relevance of the broader topic I feel it would be helpful to seek broad consensus on this, as well as on some other editorial concerns which I've tried to raise (somewhat clumsily perhaps) at Talk:Euler's_identity (and tried to draw attention to at WT:MATHS). Regards, 109.157.83.88 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-motion edit war at Young Earth creationism. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you from letting me know. As a rule, I keep well clear of ANI. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

p-adic numbers
Hi. Back in 2006 you added a reference in the article on p-adic numbers to a book by Alain Robert. The statement you added it to says that the topology of the p-adic numbers (including the rationals) is that of a Cantor set with one point missing. I'm having trouble seeing why that is true, and I don't have the book. Is that really what the book says? I can see that the topology of the p-adic integers would be that of a Cantor set. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct - the Robert reference only supports the first part of the sentence in the article, which concerns the topology of the p-adic integers. I will edit the article to make this clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd Perfect Number is 36k+9
i replied to your post:

yea i just forgot to write that because i know it in my head i just forgot to write that p>=5 ( meaning that p is a prime that is not 2 or 3) because its 3 numbers one after the other (x-1)(x)(x+1) where x is not divisible by 2 or 3 meaning it will have to be divisible by 24 because the other 2 numbers (x-1),(x+1) have to be divisible by 2,3,4. dont forget the p that i am using is p = 1(mod4) so p >= 5

please check it and talk to me if something is not clear about my proof

if you can let me know if you approve what i wrote or not

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1407.0143v1.pdf

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1407.0143

thanks, isaac — Preceding unsigned comment added by isaac.mor (talk • contribs)