User talk:Leegrc

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Leegrc. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! benmoore 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Illegal immigration
hi,

I understand you point of view and while it may seem intuitive to some of us, it may not be obvious to some. Generally Wikipedia prefers including published sources that agree with the provided information. This practice of quoting reliable sources holds good for most cases and is especially important in cases such as this where the information might be seen as offensive to some. The reason there is a problems section is again due to the fact that it quotes a source.

In short please find a published source that talks about the benefits of banning some forms of immigration before adding a benefits section. thanks, Pvpoodle (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Generating function, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harmonic numbers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Quantile estimation from a sample
I have moved this discussion to the talk page for the Quantile article. Leegrc (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BERKOM's contribution to Quantile Talk
I have been preparing my first contribution to Wikipedia. To check how it works, I saved the first chapter and when it seemed to work, deleted it. Somehow it appeared again. Since it is meaningless alone, I hope that neither Wikipedia nor you are active in returning it.

Now I have learnt how to write mathematical expressions in Wikipedia, but there seems to be a misconception in my formulation and fixing it may take time.

Don't worry, I am not one of the former contributors on Quantile Talk page. But to be clear, I try to use their notation and imitate their wording whenever possible. For a non-native English speaker it is also the easiest way. 84.250.125.99 (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)BERKOM

Belated reply to email
I have just discovered an email from you, which you sent 8 days ago, but which went into my spam folder, and I didn't see it. I see that the block has been changed to "anon only", so presumably the problem is over, but I will just give an answer to one of the points you mentioned in your email. You said that it seems quite unlikely that the corporation you work for "would choose a web host provider that was any degree of shady". I am sure that is true, but the point is not that the web host provider might be "shady", but that some people using the web host provider might be shady, using a web host provider for dishonest purposes, such as to evade blocks, or to help support a fiction that they are more than one person, so as to give a false impression of independent support from multiple editors in a discussion, or other such deceptive purposes. I have no idea whether that has happened in this case, but it certainly has with some web host providers in the past: it's the motives of some Wikipedia editors who use web host services that may be "shady", not those of the web host providers. Any way, I hope as far as you are concerned the problem is over, and you won't be troubled by blocks again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, you have explained why it started working again. Thank you for that and for the clarification about web host providers.  𝕃eegrc (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Floor Function
Sir, you still didn't listen. It's not the sign of x. Idk where you got that idea in your head from. It computes whether a number is greater than another and what does efficiency have to do with it? It's a mathematical formula, rather than a computer science operator. I feel like you're trying to mix the two when it reality this function is instead mathematics version.

TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe that you are saying that we can check $z ≥ y$ by plugging $z – y$ in for $x$ in the formula $floor(x / (x^2 + 1)^(1/2)) + 1$.  I agree that this is a true statement.  Unfortunately, it does not follow that this information belongs in the Wikipedia article.  The surest way to win acceptance of the text is to show that a reliable source considers it noteworthy.  𝕃eegrc (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"...we can check $z ≥ y$ by plugging $z – y$ in for $x$ in the formula $floor(x / (x^2 + 1)^(1/2)) + 1$"

Heh heh heh. That's an incredibly trivial use, but I'll admit it's true as well. No, the thing I'm trying to say is that we can use it in mathematics as an actual formula. For instance:

x*(x>=0)=y

That, is the sort of things it can be used for. Rather than being a checking method of some kind it's an actual operator with a formula tied to it that can be actual used in building equations. You can't do that by just "plugging in numbers". It would defy the very principle that formulas in mathematics should have equations tied to them, not algorithms. Of course, you can still debate notability issues and all that. I'm just saying it's not as stupid as you think.

TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * People would write it as you just have $x*(x>=0) = y$ or using the Heaviside step function $x * θ(x) = y$ or via similar compact means.  If you are not looking for an algorithm to compute it, why bother writing out $x * (floor(x / (x^2 + 1)^(1/2)) + 1) = y$?  𝕃eegrc (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Because an expression is not an algorithm.

TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

incompleteness
I undid your most recent revision as I think it's simply too strong a statement to say 'based on' right in the intro...the article could use some more info about the 'diagonal lemma' and the similarities to Cantor etc but just not right at the top like that...go to that talk page if would like..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving discussion to Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems 𝕃eegrc (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

re: Continued fraction article
Merged with discussion on User talk:Mindotaur.

In regard to this edit, I've added to the article a terse explanation of why I used "ar-" rather than "arc-". Michael Hardy (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)