User talk:JCSantos

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

And one remark. Rewriting html formulas in LaTeX is good, unless it creates images, which is not good. :) That is, PNG images embedded in text usually look of different size than text around them, and should be avoided, that's per the math style manual. Otherwise, both HTML and LaTeX formulas are acceptable, I would think. Enjoy wiki-ing! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oleg, except that it's weird to see something like "&radic;$$2\,$$" instead of either &radic;2 or $$\sqrt{2}$$. Michael Hardy 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that $$l$$ &ne; $$0$$ looks much better than $$\ell\neq0$$. And you (Michael Hardy) didn't have to be agressive about my understanding of TeX. I understand it well enough to have my name on the list of the contributers to the TeX FAQ. Where's your name there? The same thing applies to The not so short introduction to LaTeX2&epsilon;.JCSantos 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you just use non-TeX notation, thus:


 * x &isin; A

instead of writing


 * $$x$$ &isin; $$A$$?

Michael Hardy 22:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the later more than the former. Besides, this has nothing to do with the pages that I wrote and that you decided to rewrite. In those pages, what I did was to replace things like $$\{z\in\mathbb{C}|1<|z|<2\}$$ (which creates an image) with things like { $$z$$ &isin; C | $$1<|z|<2$$ } (which does not create an image and which is equally readable).

Now that I answered your question, please explain why you accused me of having a &ldquo;less-than-perfect understanding of TeX&rdquo;. Not that I claim it to be &ldquo;perfect&rdquo; but, of course, an expression like the one you wrote strongly suggests a feeble knowledge of it.JCSantos 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cauchy.png
Thank you for the Image Cauchy.png. Although it illustrates the geometric interpretation, there is something funny about it. It is always possible to choose c such that the vector (f ' (c),g ' (c)) points in the same direction as (f(b)−f(a),g(b)−g(a)). In everyday language, if you drive (on a flat plain) along a road from A to B, and your destination (B) is due North with respect to your point of departure (A), then however contorted the road may be, at some point of the trip you're headed due North. In the image, however, the oriented tangent vector at c points in the opposite direction; it is an "accidental" solution to the equation in c. This should be clear if you imagine the curve slowly straightening up. Would it be much trouble to make a new image in which the directional tangent vector at c agrees with the direction of (Δf,Δg)? --Lambiam 10:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it. Maybe tomorrow. — JCSantos (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. — JCSantos (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! --Lambiam 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

TMR
I think he may have said "dreck" in the interview, but don't recall for certain. Will try to find it over the weekend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your edit to the entry "Bounded variation"
Hello JCSantos, I wrote to you just to say that I reverted your edit to that enty: precisely I wrote again


 * $$ V^a_b(f)=\sup_{P \in \mathcal{P}} \sum_{i=0}^{n_P-1} | f(x_{i+1})-f(x_i) |$$

instead of


 * $$V^a_b(f)=\sup_{P \in \mathcal{P}} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} | f(x_{i+1})-f(x_i) |. \,$$

I know that the notation you introduced is the standard one, but I think the one I chosen clarifies the concept, showing the explicit connection between a partition $$P$$ and the number of its points $$n_P$$, without complexifying the expression too much: please let me know if you have any objection to this change. There is also another reason that persuaded me to wrote you: I would like to ask you advices and suggestions for a project about a new entry I would like to launch: you can find the details here. Please have a look at it and, if you want, leave comments, soggestions or anything else. Best Regards, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=718056556 your edit] to Proofs of Fermat's little theorem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=718238030 your edit] to Proofs of Fermat's little theorem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)