User talk:Lambiam/Archive 3

looking for non-English dicdef advice
Lambiam, you're a thoughtful multilingual inclusionist, so I thought you might be a good person to bounce this off of. I prodded Mataal, but it is a bit more than a dicdef. Still, it seems as though en wikipedia shouldn't have as much info about non-English words as it does about some English words. Thoughts?--Kchase02 T 07:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To me the article is a pure dictdef. The fact that tone (and of course context) carry additional information is a universal of spoken language; noting that here does not add to the article. Not knowing any Bangla I can't verify this article. Although I have no strong reason to doubt the information supplied, it is rather suspicious that the article was created by a single-purpose account, User:Mataal. --Lambiam Talk 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Took it to AfD. Feel free to remove my quoting of you there if you don't like being quoted.--Kchase02 T 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkification
Hello Lambiam, May I bring your attention to the Turkification article. It seems to have some serious POV issues and disputes regarding to the scope of the article. Your input would very much be appreciated. Regards--Kilhan 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncertainty Principle
Lambiam, I read your post under the talk section in Uncertainty Principle and I agree, the humor section seems like a magnet and really has no relevance to the article. I want to delete the section, but am not sure if I should. I have read the section, and some of the jokes don't even have relevance to the Uncertainty Principle itself (I have already deleted those ones). However, I am not sure if I should delete the entire section. What do you think? Gagueci 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RD/H
Thanks for your reply apropos of the obituary; I'm rather inclined to agree with your interpretation, but I still think the formulation to be odd, if only because, irrespective of the extent to which one actively sought to complete God's work during his/her life, he/she didn't (in general) actively undertake to effect his/her death, such that, whilst the fact of the death may complete the Christian victory, he/she does not make such completion: death is a passive act. I suppose the obituarist doesn't concern himself with such trifles; perhaps those who, as I, consider the syntax of an obituary as more important than the substance thereof ought to rethink their priorities. Joe 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

List of persecuted Turkish writers
The article wasn't deleted, as you may or may not have heard elsewhere, so I'm canvassing opinions for what to rename it to/merge it to on its relevant talk page. All reasonable suggestions will be entertained. BigHaz 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party
Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Analytic expression
Analytical expression or Analytic expression ? Which one is correct ? --Gtdj 08:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered on that talk page. --Lambiam Talk 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work
I'd like to commend you on your fine reply recently to a question on the difference between socialism and democratic socialism at the reference desk. It was so calm and pleasant for some reason, I enjoyed it. --Clngre 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Aletheia page
I noticed that there are now a few pages dedicated to the term 'aletheia', with the disambiguation page referencing either the philosophical term, or the mythological term. Yet the original Aletheia page remains, as an exact replica of Aletheia (philosophy). Since you did some earlier work on the disambiguation and redirects, do you know whats going on, or how to fix it? Sam 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible?
I read your suggestion..its ok. actually now I am in malaysia for a social visit..i will return my homeland in 2 weeks because my malaysia visa is over. are u sure that i will get a positive end for my application if i file in autralian embassy?
 * As I wrote: No, we can not be sure. Is it documented that you are persecuted? And also, they may want to know why you did not file in Malaysia. --Lambiam Talk 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your suggestion.

User:Gnevin
User:Gnevin is continuing to function as a censor, something which you yourself took issue with him over on his discussion page. He has a habit of removing anything he does not like, citing "POV" (i.e. in this case GAA). This is really unacceptable.

Can anything be done about it? 216.194.1.23 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never had any problem for any other users re my pov edits and i would say 100% of my pov edits are fully justified (Gnevin 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Reverts on Modern geocentrism
Hi Lambiam, I got your message: >Reverts on Modern geocentrism > >Just a reminder that you've reached the 3RR limit on Modern geocentrism. >--Lambiam Talk 02:57, 6 >September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember you were in fact the first to revert the content, no? Lucaas


 * So? --Lambiam Talk 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RD modification
If you haven't been reading the RD talk page, I would appreciate some input on a proposed re-arrangement of the reference desks. I have set up a demo here, and I am coming close to finishing the base code for the entire RD suite. It should be noted that there is no plan to use these pages without the aid of an archiving bot, and by that I mean to imply that they are being to be used with a bit that will be made for them. Once a few more things have been set in stone, I will re-issue the bot request. Thanks. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  12:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your help, it was very kind of you. I have realized the decision is not mine, but I feel it is my duty that because she has given up, I should be informed of recent developments in the area. I already told her: "when something does come up that would save your life, I will be there to know about it. And I will tell you, and you will choose whether you want to live or die." Although I have a different view of life's pains than her for obvious reasons, I will for sure respect her informed decision. Happy days to you. — X [ Mac Davis ] ( SUPERDESK | Help me improve  )02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject FACTS/FAQ
Just for your information, any page which claims to be a WikiProject must meet two criteria to qualify as active and/or not be at least eligible for deletion. They must have had some project-related activity in the past 3 months, and they must have at least one active member. Right now, the page specified above has no members. You might want to add your name. Badbilltucker 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Invalid division proposition
I've decided I like your proposed new rule of inference. With $$ x^3-x^2=0 \implies x^2-x=0 $$, we may discover Assumption $$x\ =\ 0$$. So,
 * $$ x^3\,=0\, \ \land \ x^2\,=\,0 $$

and
 * $$ x^3\,-\,x^2\,=\,0 $$

Using the proposed inference,
 * $$ x^2\,-\,x\,=\,0 $$

Using the proposed inference form,
 * $$ x\,-\,1\,=\,0 $$

Adding the last three lines together gives
 * $$x^3\,-\,1\ =\ 0$$

Testing our assumption (x=0) by substitution, we get
 * $$-1\ =\ 0$$

Having derived this contradiction we may only conclude that the proposed inference is invalid. It is neither necessary nor sufficient as it may (simultaneously) introduce spurious solutions and may discard valid solutions, precisely when dividing by zero. Thus, we may either render all of arithmetic trivial (inconsistent) by accepting the proposed inference, or we can keep a userful form of algebra by rejecting it and modifying it with the properly formed inference $$ x^3-x^2=0 \implies x^2-x=0\ \lor\ x=0$$

-- Fuzzyeric 13:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then your claim that $$ \pi r (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = \pi r^2 h / 3 \Longleftarrow 3 (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = r h $$ is justified by $$ x^3-x^2=0 \implies x^2-x=0 $$ is patently false. So you are now in the position that either the proposition you used was gibberish or your defense of it was. Pick whichever one or two you like. -- Fuzzyeric 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that you do not know what you have written. To be specific: (1 - 3 from "Math problem" at Reference_desk_archive/Mathematics/2006_September_20, 4 from User_talk:Fuzzyeric)


 * $$\pi r (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = \pi r^2 h / 3.$$
 * Divide both sides by πr/3:
 * $$3 (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = r h .$$
 * Suppose you have to solve X3−X2 = 0 for X. Clearly, that follows from X2−X = 0, which has solutions X = 0 and X = 1. So I have divided here by X, replacing the equation to be solved by a simpler equation all of whose solutions will be valid solutions to the original equation.
 * 1) $$ \pi r (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = \pi r^2 h / 3 \Longleftarrow 3 (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = r h $$
 * 2) Here is a proof of the implication you are challenging:
 * 1) $$ \pi r (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = \pi r^2 h / 3 \Longleftarrow 3 (r + \sqrt{r^2+h^2}) = r h $$
 * 2) Here is a proof of the implication you are challenging:
 * 1) Here is a proof of the implication you are challenging:
 * 1) Here is a proof of the implication you are challenging:

I have challenged the first quote. It is clearly false. r=0 is a solution of the antecedent and not the consequent. The loss of this solution is caused precisely by division by zero. When I brought this challenge, you leapt to the second quote as analogical justification of the production rule used in the first quotation. Later, you reversed the antecedent and consequent in justifying the step.

It is my perception that (1) you have committed a common high school algebra mistake (destruction of solutions by division by zero) in answering a high school algebra question, (2) denied that this was an error, (3) proceeded to justification by arguing about some other sequence of statements than was actually presented (straw man) by exchanging the antecedent and consequent, (4) and continued to justify by arguing about a different statement than the one that was challenged (ignoratio elenchi). Given the string of fallacies, "gibberish" appears justified. Of course, I share some of the blame for being baited by demonstrating the invalidity of the "red herring" in the context of the challenged statement (arbitrary division of equations). -- Fuzzyeric 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)