User talk:Larry R. Holmgren

Welcome!
Hello Larry R. Holmgren! Welcome to Wikipedia! 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To report vandalism 

MESSAGE TEMPLATES:

Note on my talk page
I see you left me a message on my talk page. Although it's about Go, I don't understand why you left me the message. Was it in response to a query I made somewhere, or did you perhaps leave it on the wrong user's page? --Steve Kroon 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation
Thanks for the recommendation of "Breakthrough to Shodan". However, I haven't seen that book anywhere in South Africa, and our national organization doesn't stock it. If I get a chance to reaad it, I definitely will. --Steve Kroon 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Polynomial
Thank you for the "Highest Common Factor" section at polynomial. I have two notes. First, the section should be named "Highest common factor", with lowercase "c" and "f", per WP:MoS. Second, I'd argue that there are a lot of other things about polynomials which should be mentioned first, before the hcf, like history, roots, etc.

I'd actually think that the hcf section would be more appropriate in the Greatest common divisor article, rather than in Polynomial, as there is better context there. Wonder what you think. You can reply here, under this post. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oleg. The Greatest common divisor article seems to refer to whole numbers. Capitalizing the initial letter only is fine. The order can easily be changed to present introductory, preliminary ideas, then algorithms and practical examples. Also, I could not find an article on fractional algebraic equations, an Algebra II topic. I have more Vedic algorithms. I am a graduate of UCLA, MBA 1983. Larry R. Holmgren 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The greatest common divisor article refers to a few things. It starts with integers, then it deals with gcd in general rings. The polynomial section could fill that gap. For now, I moved that material from polynomial to its own article, greatest common divisior of two polynomials, and I linked to it from the appropriate section in polynomial (the "divisibility" section). It would need more work with correct math formating, as in Polynomial long division, if you are willing to work on it, of course.


 * Nice to see somebody else from UCLA. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A new article is fine. I hope that the related links (or a key word search) are sufficiently clear to find the topic desired. Larry R. Holmgren 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added links to it at Polynomial long division, Greatest common divisor, and Polynomial. If you think there are other places links could be added, you're welcome to. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a very good article now with two footnotes, a book reference, and a link to the author's biography! I'm glad that some over zealous administrator did not flag it or delete it! Larry R. Holmgren 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Note that Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja is not an external link, rather internal. I fixed that. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries
Hello. We have each edited the Roy Masters (commentator) article recently. I thought I'd mention if someone hasn't already that putting ~ in this line does not yield a signature. (For instance, see this.) The edit is already tagged with your user name so you don't have to sign in this spot. It is when you edit a non-mainspace article, like my writing on your talk page now, that issuing the ~ yields a signature (with a time/date stamp). Hope that helps/makes sense. If not, please let me know. Happy Editing! --Keesiewonder talk 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Partial Fractions
This section now has book page references and an algebraic general formula and is ready to be put into the article. Larry R. Holmgren 02:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Go
No problemo amigo. Just ask if there's any other WP:go articles that you think need assistance. VanTucky 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to rearrange the images if you want, my image skills are still really rusty. VanTucky 19:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Auxilliary Fractions
An editor has nominated Auxilliary Fractions, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 14:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Larry R. Holmgren! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

divisibility rules
Dear Larry - I've noticed you were more or less the only one editing on that article within the last 9 months or so. I'm considering a major rewrite of the article and actually splitting it up in probabyl 3 different ones


 * basic ideas, few rules, generalizations of the ideas
 * somewhat cpmprehensive list of rules
 * proofs & techniques

The latter 2 are basically new articles and don't concern the original articles, however i'd like to use that to completely rewrite (in particular shorten) the original article as well. That means most of its content would be deleted or moved to the other articles. However I don't want to do such extensive modifications without the original contributors being ok with it. So it would be nice, if you dropped me short note with your opinion on that (i.e. should i go ahead or rather leave it as it is).--Kmhkmh 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article on Matrixism: an Entheogenic Religion
There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.3 05:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Go handicap stone placement
Your addition "handicap stones are traditionally symmetrical, like dominoes" isn't exactly right, as 3 stones go in the corners, and not the diagonal through the center. I would have just said they usually are placed on the marked hoshi. But i'll leave it up to you to perfect that paragraph if you want. Pete St.John 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work maintaining this. I'll note though that for 13 stones we place the extra 4 (past 9) at the (7,7) spots (two diagonal towards the center from the corner hoshi) and only for 17 stones do we place the last 4 (past 13) on the (3,3) spots (san-san), backwards from the order you give. This is only used for teaching games and isn't very important. The order may be reversed in Japan, I've never myself seen a Japanese give such a large handicap to anyone. Pete St.John 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to make this look goood, but I place the last 4 stones in a 13 stone handicap like this:


 * then for 17 stones, the last 4 go on san-san. I think in general you want the student to learn to connect his stones together, and separate White's. The first joseki everyone learns is the 3-3 invasion of hoshi; if he walls it in he well get plenty of points outside.Pete St.John 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Roy Masters (commentator)
Please see comments on the Talk:Roy Masters (commentator)/Comments subpage of the banners. John Carter 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking the major contributors to Talk:Roy Masters (commentator) to see my request for participation in a research review leading up to a significant rewrite of the article. Please take a moment to see my comments at the top of that talk page. VisitorTalk 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethic of reciprocity
Hi, Larry. On October 9, you added the following to Ethic of reciprocity: The introduction of The Golden Rule was a revolution in ethics that countered the old ethic in doing to others as you were done to, returning cruelty with more cruelty, parent to child, on down the generations. I think what you are trying to do is contrast the Golden Rule with An eye for an eye, however, I find the wording of your statement very confusing for many reasons, one of which is the failure to recognize Leviticus 19:18. Unless you have a good source for this material, I'm going to remove it from the article as it doesn't appear in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD) and seems to setup a straw man. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was paraphrasing from a book I read on the ancient Greek culture. Leviticus 19:18 refers to the ancient moral code, a sense of justice upon wrongdoing. I was attempting to introduce a psychological truth that we treat others as we were taught to behave, cruel treatment begets the same treatment to others. Larry R. Holmgren 07:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you find the title and author's name? The essential part of Lev. was "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", which is considered the Golden Rule in Judaism.  Michael Shermer calls it "The Historical and Universal Expression of the Golden Rule".  I'm still not clear what you mean by a "revolution in ethics" and "countered the old ethic" when by its very nature, the rule is universal. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit on your home page and Gary Null
I arrived at your home page via your amazing talent for math. I didn't have the time to read your English qualifications. Just thought the edit would help clarify. Which it did and you'll notice that I clearly indicated so in my explanation. No issues. We can ALL (myself included) express ourself more clearly. Go ahead and improve a word or 2 on my page and I'll say THANK YOU.

Re Gary Null, I got a spam ad on his books and looked him up here on wikipedia which is how I arrived at your page when I saw your edits on the Null article. Boy, oh boy, people sure wax strong opinions on him - pro and con. SimonATL 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
  If you voted in my RFA... ...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk  This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara ❤  Love's 

Surgical excision or Down the Memory Tube?
I removed it because, as described, it was unsound. The GCD of x2 + 7x + 6 and x2 − 5x − 6 is not the same as the GCD of 2x(x + 1) and 12(x + 1). That is what you get with "original research". I don't assume that you want to imply that I should have left an obviously unsound piece of original research leading to incorrect results alone, but I'm not sure what other course of action you think I ought to have taken. Although I could have replaced the example by one for which the result would not have come out incorrect, I have no idea what the rule is to apply, and on the next example you'd get a wrong result. If you have a description that is: you are welcome to supply it. Descriptions until now have failed in one or more of these essential respects. --Lambiam 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) not original research but citeable from a reliable source;
 * 2) understandable; and
 * 3) not obviously incorrect;


 * Your prior editing removed the terse proof of the Vedic technique and the other examples. As for being original this technique was the only one with a citation, from a book published in 1965! The two methods that remain were added (by me) without citation to make the article more complete! I had trouble with formatting and others improved on my start. I consider their work an improvement.Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was text claimed to be an "algebraic proof", but it was not stated what it was a proof of, and the proof was presumably original research and in any case so incomprehensible (not only to me; see the talk page) that I could not extract a conclusion from it. Likewise, I (and others; see the talk page) could not extract the methods being applied from the examples. I see now that the first of the Vedic examples I removed then was the same as the example I removed the other day, and so was likewise incorrect. Does that not mean something? Either your cherished Vedic method is incorrect, or your understanding of it is not sufficient to apply it correctly. If the proof I removed was a proof of the correctness of an incorrect method, then of course it could hardly have been comprehensible at the same time. Finally, all this took up almost half of the article and completely dominated the examples, which made the article lopsided by giving this mathematically unimportant and marginally notable (if not obscure) method undue weight. --Lambiam 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was comprehensible. The first examples were so simple and clear that they can be done mentally! Other examples were done as a challenge by another editor. No attempt was made to correct the proof of the Vedic method? Now, with just two methods, the article is not lopsided? Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe comprehensible to you, but not to me, and the following quotes are from other editors than me:
 * "The so-called Vedic method is proven to be right and illustrated with examples, but it is never explained what this method actually is."
 * "It seems like the best thing to do would be to move the "vedic method" into a separtate article."
 * "The "vedic method" ... doesn't work all the time... . I think it should have its own page as it's neither standard nor superior (or even equivalent) to standard methods and seems to be of mainly historical interest."
 * "Isn't this "Vedic" stuff only of interest to historians of ancient mathematics?"
 * "... the Vedic method is not defined at all in this article... The section called "Algebraic proof..." claims to prove that the Vedic method is valid. But the proof is not sound."
 * (Apparently some of these contributors think that Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics is related to ancient Vedic culture, rather than being a bunch of shortcut methods for elementary high-school algebra published in 1965, claimed to be based on Vedic sutras that no-one has been able to find.) You may of course claim that the proof was comprehensible, but no other contributor to the discussion appears to agree with you. I notice that you do not react to the point that the result is wrong. --Lambiam 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Solving fractional equations
Hello. Please notice this difference: And this one: The second alternative is standard in each case.
 * Hence, when we gather both x-terms on LHS. x[p(c-a)+q(c-b)] = bp(a-c) + aq(b-c)
 * Hence, when we gather both x-terms on LHS, x[p(c &minus; a) + q(c &minus; b)] = bp(a &minus; c) + aq(b &minus; c)
 * Hence, when we gather both x-terms on LHS, x[p(c &minus; a) + q(c &minus; b)] = bp(a &minus; c) + aq(b &minus; c)
 * Hence, when we gather both x-terms on LHS, x[p(c &minus; a) + q(c &minus; b)] = bp(a &minus; c) + aq(b &minus; c)
 * $$ \frac{1}{x - 5} $$ - $$ \frac{1}{x + 2} $$
 * $$ \frac{1}{x - 5} - \frac{1}{x + 2} $$
 * $$ \frac{1}{x - 5} - \frac{1}{x + 2} $$
 * $$ \frac{1}{x - 5} - \frac{1}{x + 2} $$
 * $$ \frac{1}{x - 5} - \frac{1}{x + 2} $$

Your article, solving fractional equations, neglects standard conventions of Wikipedia and of TeX on quite a large scale. I've done some cleanup, but a lot more is needed. Please see not only WP:MOS (and note that you used far too many capital letters in section headings and neglected initial context-setting), but also Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Helpdesk
Hi!

I noticed you asked a question on Talk:Equation solving. Obviously that was a while ago now, but I wonder if you know about Reference desk/Mathematics. It would probably be useful if you have such a question in future.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Institute for Liberty
Mr. Homgren:

You might try looking at some of the Tea Party websites for 3rd party references to the Institute for Liberty. Also, there are a number of videos both of and by the organization's people on YouTube. And Peter Roff, the organization's senior fellow, is a contributing editor at US News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesTuner (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Auxiliary fraction


The article Auxiliary fraction has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Insufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG, and the article as it stands fails WP:NOTHOWTO and would need a significant rewrite to become encyclopedic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you still active?
Saw some edits of yours from 2007 on Roy Masters and I was wondering if you were still around to improve the article. It got eaten up a bit since you were last editing and it could use some help. I've done what I can. --Mrtea (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)