User talk:Jowa fan

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions .I am Earlymen, I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Earlymen  message me!  07:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Thanks for the welcome&mdash;but I've been here longer than you have! Why are you choosing today to welcome me? Is it some sort of obscure April fools' joke? Jowa fan (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jowa fan,
Thats somehow funny,no.Not an april fool,but i saw some of your contribution and i decided to place the Welcome to wikipedia message which contains the five pillars of wikipedia as a guide to your edit.The welcome messege in not just about welcoming you,but the five pillars in it is important when the welcome message is sent to you at any time,Cheers  Earlymen  message me!  02:34, 01 April 2011 (UTC)

Bat signal
Hi Jowa fan!

I put a template asking for help from an uninvolved administrator, which may still be visible in the history of the page. It was properly removed after the problem was solved.

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Let's hope things stay quiet for a few days.  Jowa fan (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Jowa fan, Thank you for your note. I will wait per your suggestion. Indeed, I will not participate further as I have said all I have to say. All I was asking for was a case-by-case consideration of the edits. As mathematics are not a matter of general interest to me, I stand by my declaration that the experts should rule. Obviously, I was wrong on some of the edits (or so it now appears). But I may have been right on others. Of course, even 'a stopped analog clock is right twice a day'. I appreciate your deciding that some of them might be justified. I was working from the connections in the article (and from some of the material in the references themselves (which did mention some concepts that were not in the Wikipedia article). I am very sensitive to the implicit accusation that I was "spamming." It is a word that is 'akin to fightin' words', and I would not use it cavalierly.  I will assume that we have just had a failure to communicate, will WP:AGF, and chaulk this up to a misunderstanding.  If I gave offense, you may also assume that it was unintentional. I am going out of town so I have no intention of writing further on the matter on way or another.  Happy editing.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Going Up and Going Down
Jowa Fan, the correct reference to the proof I gave in that article is "Commutative Algebra" by Hideyuki Matsumura, page 33, (5.D), Theorem 4.

But I still don't understand why a proof needs to be referenced? Surely a theorem/lemma without proof must be referenced but why does a proof need to be referenced - a proof confirms the validity of a lemma and you don't need a reference to check a proof is correct.

Anyway I gave the reference above. Not sure how to put it in though. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.76.63 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the reference to the article. Yes, Wikipedia's various policies sometimes seem strange.  It takes a while to get used to how things work around here.  If everyone agrees that something is obvious, then indeed you don't need a reference (and you'll find plenty of unreferenced facts in the various mathematics pages).  But as soon as someone challenges a statement, you're supposed to name a reference, no matter how unnecessary it seems to you personally.  I hope you don't let it put you off; most people here are friendly once you get to know them. Jowa fan (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jowa and 180.216.76.63. I'm glad to see a reference was finally found and that the result can be included, however the main issue still hasn't been addressed. Our Manual of Style directs us to "[not] include them when they serve only to establish the correctness of a result". To keep the article well maintained for everyone (including non mathematicians) the proof should now be at least moved to be a footnote, if not completely removed. The correctness of the proof is irrelevant, this is just a matter of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
 * I'm sorry for the frustration I must have caused you 180.216.76.63, but I wasn't acting without reason. If you took time to read MOS:MATH, you would know I was just trying to uphold the set standard. Rschwieb (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rschwieb: OK I get where you're going. But part of the point is that the proof I gave also involves a very important idea. In general when you want to study prime ideals lying over other prime ideals, localizing is a very valuable technique. It allows you to concentrate your attention/reduce the result to local rings.

E.g., if A is a subring of B over which B is integral and if p is a prime ideal of A, then the prime ideals of B lying over p are just the prime ideals of B_{A-p} containing pB_{A-p} (B_{A-p} here is the localization of B at A-p). Now this is trivial. BUT the fact that pA_p is maximal in A_p allows you to also apply the lemma/theorem: if D is integral over C where both are integral domains, then one is a field iff the other is a field.

So you see that localizing is an important technique in commutative algebra and integral extensions is no exception. In fact, the proof I gave is very pretty because it tells us that by localizing we can convert the problem to one about faithfully flat morphisms (which are very well understood).

Is this explanation satisfactory for you? I was extremely surprised that "localization" wasn't mentioned anywhere in that article to be honest. So I thought that I'd put in a proof which explains how this technique is valuable. Now I was also stunned as to why the result was said to hold "for Noetherian rings". It holds for more general rings as my proof shows. So my proof has more than one purpose.

Finally, there should be something about "mod-ing out by an ideal" in that article just because "mod-ing out by an ideal" is important when studying "going-up" as localizing is important when studying "going-down". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.76.63 (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from: we mathematicians know the value of these connections. The techniques you mention are indeed central to commutative algebra, however they are not really central to that article. Also consider:
 * If localization, flatness and quotient rings need to go on this page, then they need to go into basically every other commutative algebra page, and you can imagine how messy that would be :)
 * The proof right now makes a few leaps that not even all mathematicians will understand.
 * Proofs aren't wikipedia matarial (but they are more welcome in the wikiversity and alternatives like that.) That said, we're still responsible for providing references for where proofs (for nontrivial things) can be found.
 * I know you have good intentions about improving the article, but I'm suggesting a look at the bigger picture (and the MOS:Math) will convince you that writing wiki articles is not like writing textbooks or journal articles. We have a much broader audience to consider.
 * The issue of not putting proofs in articles has been fairly well debated in the past, and the consensus is the policy in MOS:Math. As for the proof you added, it's already being discussed on wikiproject:math. So far, people aren't seeing that it has much instructional value for that article. We'll have to wait and see what consensus arises. Rschwieb (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.
You found a more elegant fix for the confusing-sounding lead here. Thanks. Are you concerned that many might still be confused and ignore the note which they might mistake for a reference? (Unsigned comment by Cliff.)
 * This is hard for me to judge. Personally I didn't find it confusing to begin with&mdash;but this is a common problem with mathematics articles, where some people are used to technical or conventional language and have trouble imagining how it appears to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. I think that putting "element of the domain" in the lead sentence makes it sound more technical than it needs to.  The current solution, while not perfect, strikes me as the better compromise.  But if you can think of an even better way, feel free to edit the article further or open up a discussion on the talk page. Jowa fan (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cauchy Product
Hello, I started a new discussion regarding the formula I added on the page.

I would be happy to have your impression on it, it could be a good opportunity for me to learn something.

Thank you and looking forward to have your feedback.

До скорого!

Ksenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.97.92 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Jowa, thanks for the copy edits on the Eberlein-Smulian theorem and making the disambiguation page for Kakutani's theorem point to the relevant statement! Best, 71.206.193.135 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Course-of-values induction
[This really should be on the talk page, but what the heck]. I'm glad you pruned the entry. I wanted to, but have been hesitant -- mathematics is rife with multiple names for things; it wouldn't surprise me to find out that "course-of-values" is "antiquated". If it were me, I'd just stick with "course-of-values" because I have a solid source for it. In particular I don't like the moniker "complete induction" because it is misleading. But with regards to "course-of-values" induction, see on the Talk page the last entry "Paragraph of Complete Induction" where I quote from and suggest the source that I've used -- Stephen Kleene's 1952 Introduction to Metamathematics, in particular p. 193, and see the book's index, too. In his text Kleene uses only the words "course-of-values" induction. Actually, I've seen this same usage somewhere else, I think in Russell 1903 or a later Russell, maybe PM, I'll do some research and add what I find to the talk page. Russell 1903:245ff is really interesting because he discusses Dedekind's derivation of mathematical induction from his "chains" compared to Peano's assumption of mathematical induction as an axiom. BillWvbailey (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

the alternative definition of arrcot (as an odd function)
Hi Jowa fan, I understand why you removed my revision which specifies arccot as arcot(-x) = -arcot(x) since this conforms to a well known definition of the arccot function. There is however another definition which is defined in http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=arccot%28x%29. This definition is also used in various maths books (http://www.intmath.com/analytic-trigonometry/7-inverse-trigo-functions.php  (alternate view)). Had I known about the two definitions initially I probably would have just made a note that there is also another definition.

What are your ideas on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickweedon (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the slow reply: I've been on holiday. Yes, there's more than one way to do it.  My concern is that the article needs to be consistent: if we give just one definition, then the identities must be true when using that definition.  Certainly the article could be improved by mentioning the alternative definition and giving some references, and I don't mind if you want to edit it along those lines.  Thanks for your interest.  Jowa fan (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review
You closed an AfD that I opened earlier, and I'd like to ask you to please take another look at that. The article has been nominated several times before, but last time it was only given 8 hours, and this time less than two. The first commenter asked that we be given the full seven days for discussion, and I think that this is very reasonable, since that would make it the first real discussion since 2008. The discussion has frequently been heated because of the subject's admin status, with editors constantly alleging bad faith. I believe that a comprehensive, full length discussion could finally help put this to rest and either give credibility to the entry, or remove it once and for all. My nom does not meet the criteria for a speedy keep ( I did not withdraw, it is not vandalism, I am not banned, the page is not a policy, and the article is not linked from the main page). Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Jowa fan !voted to speedy keep the article but didn't actually close the AfD, witness . Favonian (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So it is. Will take this up with Drmies. Thanks. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Right. I considered closing it as WP:SNOW: based on the previous discussions, this nomination has virtually no chance of succeeding (even though it was made in good faith and with a clearly stated rationale).  But my involvment in Wikiproject mathematics means that I'm probably a little too close to the subject to be closing this debate early; it's better that the decision be made by a non-involved admin.  I hope that any subsequent deletion review or other discussion can be conducted in a civil way by all parties. Jowa fan (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Discriminant
You have reverted my edit on discriminant. As it is, the lead is mathematically wrong: the discriminant is not an expression, as there are many different expressions whose value is the discriminant. More elementarily, the discriminant of x2 - 3x + 5 is -11, which is not an expression, but an integer. What do you propose to have a correct lead? D.Lazard (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a good clear answer to this; I see the current lead as the better of the two options, but there may be a still better way. Perhaps it's a good thing to raise on the talk page and see if anyone else has a good idea.
 * I didn't see the word "expression" in the lead as referring to a formal definition; personally I have no problem with -11 being a (rather simple) expression. I did consider changing the word "expression" to "quantity", but that's entirely too vague.  On the other hand, I think "element of the ring generated by ..." is too technical for the first sentence, although it's something that could be mentioned later in the article.  I'm thinking of high school students who might learn about the discriminant of a quadratic and then look here for more information: I think the first paragraph shouldn't venture beyond real numbers.
 * I suppose we could sidestep the issue by just saying "the discriminant of a polynomial gives information about the nature of the polynomial's roots", but that seems a bit unsatisfactory too. Jowa fan (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think of "the discriminant of a polynomial is a function of its coefficients, which gives information ..." It is not perfectly correct because of not distinguishing between a function ans its value, but seems acceptable, as this abuse of language is very common. D.Lazard (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It works for me. Jowa fan (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Standard Model example in Group
The Standard Model uses Lie Groups; they're pretty central. Heck, some people even think they're exceptionally central! I put the Standard Model example in there because many academic disciplines sounds pretty darned vague and having a concrete example improves the situation. On the other hand, the Matrix group sentence now has three examples. Mind if I change it back? --Olsonist (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch. I had a look at the Standard Model page, and all the groups mentioned there seemed to be matrix groups.  I wasn't aware of the E8 Theory--thanks for the link!
 * My main issue with the examples on the groups page is to do with language rather than content. After your edit, it said Such symmetry groups, particularly the continuous Lie groups, play an important role in the Standard Model of particle physics. Matrix groups, for example, can be used....  But the things in the second sentence aren't examples of the standard model.  I moved the standard model into the second sentence so that the sentences would flow more smoothly.  If you can think of a better way to express it, please go ahead. Jowa fan (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying and I think for example is the problem; it connects the two sentences. So I reworked both sentences. Take a look. --Olsonist (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Jowa fan (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Science vandalism
I know enough about science and math to put in many subtle errors. Convince me that this is a bad thing. I think people get tied up in Wikipedia and neglect the things that really matter--family. By putting in subtle errors in science and math, I encourage the continued employment of professionals in science to produce edited content (who can then hug their sons and daughters). Is this not a net positive? By the way, I like Go board game as well(wanna get back into that). I'm really on the fence here, and could easily become a constructive editor. What about Wolfram math world? Wouldn't that gain if Wikipedia lost reputation? You can correct an error that I put in that is still a problem, but I think Wikipedia needs a solution for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.153.198 (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad Meltzer
Hi. Please do not put personal arguments or viewpoints in articles, either in commented-out sections or anywhere else in the article text, as you did with this edit to Brad Meltzer. We do not make "arguments" in articles, nor require sources to do so. We only relate what they say, in particular secondary sources. The New York Times is a secondary source that says that Meltzer's site may have been the first author website for his first novel. Now if you have evidence that calls this into question, then feel free to add it to the article in a proper citation, and not a commented-out note that features speculative wording. Putting aside the fact that the blog post by Sawyer is a primary source rather than a secondary one, he says that his was the first science-fiction author website, and not the first author-created site for a first novel. Interpreting it to mean the former would be a violation of WP:SYNTH, among other policies. Please do not add interpretative, evaluative or analytical material without a reliable, source that supports it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Nightscream, thanks for your your feedback. However, I'm confused on a few points.  Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain further?
 * First, I did not add any personal opinion to the article. My intention was to tone down the wording of what was already there, and add an HTML comment to explain for the benefit of other editors.  I've seen comments of this nature added to other pages, and haven't been aware of them being at all controversial.  But in any case, the link I gave really exists--you can follow it and check--it's not just my personal opinion.
 * Second, your edit summary relating to your comments above includes links to four Wikipedia policies. I am already familiar with these policies, but I don't understand why you're linking to them in this context.  Could you explain one by one how each of those policies relates to the edit I made?
 * Third, I don't understand the distinction you're making between an author web site and a science fiction author web site.
 * Finally, you ought to be aware that your comment above could easily be misinterpreted as patronising and aggressive in tone. I'm sure this was not your intention, and I hope you accept this comment in the constructive spirit in which it is offered.
 * Thanks in advance for any further advice you can offer. Best wishes, Jowa fan (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jowa fan. I'd be happy to discuss this with you.

In this edit you added the comment "it probably wasn't actually the first". Whether it "probably" was not the first is a statement of your personal opinion, viewpoint, conclusion or speculation. We are not permitted to add such comments, as indicated by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We can only add material that is attributed to sources. Sawyer has disputed the claim, so that's what we relate or transcribe in the article, as indicated by WP:V and WP:ATT.

The distinction I perceived was between an author-created website (which Sawyer mentioned), and one created specifically for a first book (which is what the New York Times article seemed to specify). However, on second examination, I'm not positive that that's the specificity that the Times was going for, and that I might have incorrectly inferred that.

Re-reading my message above, it appears to say only what I intended: That your edits violated certain Wikipedia policies, and that I explained and linked to the ones in question, giving a brief explanation of them. What part it seems aggressive or patronizing? That certainly wasn't my intent. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, on reflection, my perception of aggression is related to your edit summaries and speed of reverting other edits more than to your comment here, and is something that's very much a matter of interpretation. I take it back, and hope that no offence was caused.
 * The patronising feeling starts with your third sentence, "We do not...", apparently placing yourself as a spokesperson for the whole of Wikipedia and negating the feeling of community that usually prevails here (at least, that's how it came across to me on a first reading; I understand now that it's not what you intended). It seems self-evident to me that any substantial article on Wikipedia will contain passages that could be construed as "making an argument": the English language is always open to some degree of interpretation, the editorial voice can never be completely absent, and a bare list of facts without any thread connecting them would make for deadly dull reading.  Of course this is just my opinion; but your own opinion on this point is also just an opinion (i.e. not based on policy or established consensus, as far as I'm able to tell right now).
 * Then comes the sentence "Now if you have evidence..."&mdash;well, you can see that I have evidence, since I posted it. So it might seem that you're talking down to me here.  Then there's the fact that you linked to WP:PSTS not just once but twice.  There's no need to labour the point.
 * I realise that these are subjective impressions. But I think it's possible for you to make your point in a way that's more likely to provoke constructive and friendly responses.
 * As for the policy issues relating to the article, I'll take some time to think about this, and then open a discussion on the article's talk page. I feel that the current version is inelegant, but I'm not sure of the best way forward.  More on that later.
 * Thanks for your patience. I'm learning a lot by thinking about these issues. Jowa fan (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

S2
I removed that, as that link is there superfluous. Also the self-reference does not note the notability of S2, and hence, does not really define whether it is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Not saying that that is here the case, but anyone can write a piece of software with statistical capabilities, put it on a download server, and put it there - Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. It sort of makes sense.  But it looks distinctly odd to delete a link to some information and replace it with a "citation needed" tag.  As regards notability, certainly there is no evidence that S2 is notable enough to deserve its own article, and indeed it doesn't have a Wikipedia article.  But as far as I'm aware, it's not necessary to establish notability separately for each individual fact mentioned in an article. Jowa fan (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For lists I would argue differently, otherwise they do become a WP:SPAMHOLE. Better examples are the inline text-examples you sometimes find - 'this functionality is provided by A' .. before you know it, you have 10 examples, and 9 of them are totally unknown.  But it is easy advertising.  For lists, I'd prefer that the items have at least some notability (which may be lower than what WP:N suggests, but not the home-hacker who uploads his software to a free download server and calls himself a specialist worth of mentioning.  But I'll agree that it is a grey area.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WP: Requests for comment/EEng
[]

Please, sign in the RfC. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's too early to start an RfC on this. First you need to resolve the ANI discussion.  I see not one but two editors behaving rudely, and I'm not willing to take sides at this date. I hope you can find a constructive resolution. Jowa fan (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, forget it. The situation already changed considerably. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)