User talk:Monguin61

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! --Landon 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Also, have fun at Wikipedia, but not to the extent of vandalism ;) -- Landon

Markup for surface integrals
The best places to ask are Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and m:Help talk:Formula, not where you did. Uncle G 03:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Credentials
Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia. You asked at Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 if any of the participants had "real credentials", by which I assume you mean formal academic training and possibly degrees in mathematics. That seems like a reasonable question, given the content of the discussion. The short answer is that a number of Wikipedians with a great deal of mathematics expertise are likely keeping an eye on the discussion, but choose not to participate. Why? Because Wikipedia states that the purpose of a talk page is to improve the article, which is not what the discussion in question is about. Many of the comments ignore the first rule of talk pages, "Sign your posts on talk pages", and seem intended solely to provoke. Insults violate the bedrock policy of civility. I commend to you words attributed to George Bernard Shaw: ''Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.''

Beyond that, Wikipedia culture and customs seem to give little weight to credentials. To what extent that's helpful or harmful, only time will tell. However, academia itself often reviews papers "blind", so that reviewers are not swayed by knowing the identity of the author(s). In principle, Wikipedia is more conservative still through its policy of "No original research". Although some contributors, like me, do not advertise their "real world" identities, the credentials of many of our mathematical editors can be found at WikiProject Mathematics/Participants. We have recently created a page where anyone may ask mathematics questions; perhaps you'd like to add it to your watchlist.

And speaking of watchlists, if you wish to reply to me, you can do so here; I'll watch for it. Protocol is to indent the paragraphs of your reply by beginning each with a colon (":"). --KSmrqT 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I know the discussion on that page isn't really worth participating in, for several reasons including the one you mentioned, I just couldn't help myself for whatever reason. I don't know if its evident anywhere, but I just registered about a day ago, so I'm still getting used to the rules and community here. Your comments and others like it will help me get the hang of things, so thanks. -Monguin61 09:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. Yes, the provocateur(s) has been remarkably successful at luring victims. Many give responses that are weaker than those in the article itself.
 * Two things make it evident you are new. First, your talk page shows you were officially welcomed on 2005-12-08, and that happens soon after your first edit. Second, while looking at any user's personal pages, the left side of the screen shows a link to "User contributions", so it's easy to see your complete history of edits.
 * There is much to learn, including policies, technology, and tactics (not to mention subject matter). If you are using the default monobook style, above the text field window during an edit you will see 11 buttons. Hover your mouse over each to see what it does. The one next to the right end inserts a signature, handy if you talk much. At the top of the screen (when you are logged in) is a link to your preferences. One of the things you can play with there is the form your signature takes. For example, mine includes a superscript "T", a link to my talk page. --KSmrqT 10:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

MathML Characters
Your page listing MathML characters is fun to look at. Its also one of the only places on the web that I've been able to find the "double contour integral" symbol, which I have an inordinate interest in for some reason. Most of the symbols show up fine for me, but for some reason a lot near the bottom are all just question marks. Do you know why this is? I'm still trying to figure out the relationship between wikipedia, TeX, MathML, fonts in general and whatever else might be used here to create characters of this type, so if theres somewhere else I should be looking, please, just point me in the right direction. --Monguin61 02:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm replying here for your convenience. Unfortunately, visibility of characters can depend on OS, browser, settings, and fonts. Fortunately, just installing a font is often enough. I suggest trying the Code2000 font. I also find the Mozilla browsers, like Mozilla Firefox, support MathML and Unicode fonts fairly well. --KSmrqT 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Rivers
Can you please give the reference cited in your source? I might have seen something like that long ago and might help to understand the problem. Jclerman 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jclerman, I've provided a reference in Talk:Pi. And, Monguin61, maybe we should start watching different articles! Melchoir 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See two paragraphs I entered in the talk/pi page. I can't get to jstor and sci.amer. to check on Luna Leopold. He wrote a book about geometry of river flow which I saw and read partially in the 1990s when I was reviewing an environmental project and wanted to understand stability of meanders. Can't remember which one, the online catalog I've checked shows like 15 works by him. Jclerman 23:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ways to respond to cranks
The aggressive anon(s) at Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 will, I believe, continue to attack so long as someone continues to reply. This is no attempt to clarify or improve the article. This is a desire for a soapbox and an audience. Nothing is guaranteed to stop the postings, but it is pretty clear that so long as people respond the postings will continue. If you agree with points, they continue. If you disagree with points, they continue. Best strategy in such cases is usually to say nothing in reply. If the insults erupt again, you may bring them to the attention of an admin like Jitse or Oleg. (An admin can block a misbehaving editor.) --KSmrqT 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good point, everyone should have stopped responding a long time ago. Is there any kind of troll template to address this issue? "This subject has attracted trolls in the past, please thoroughly evaluate the comments on this page before responding to them." --Monguin61 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Most people learn by experience, or by a quiet word on the side. As for a template, would you rather walk into a courtroom that said "equal justice under the law" or one that said "we've had a lot of criminals here"? Even when someone is blatantly trolling, it's not necessarily helpful to publicly call them a troll. To do so in advance of any behavior would be unfair and unwelcoming. More subtly, to suggest on the talk page that people not respond could be seen as hostile and provocative by someone looking for a fight. However, insults and personal attacks warrant swift and stern warnings, and stronger responses if they continue. Usually a warning is given to an individual privately by an admin, and always if a block is contemplated. A brief comment on the talk page may also be appropriate; a counterattack, never. What can I say? It's more work to be constructive and fair than to rant and troll. (But I like the results better.) --KSmrqT 00:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Euler
The section on Euler's proof mentions at the end that the "equation" seems odd to modern eyes, et cetera. I've seen this kind of statement in regards to Euler and other less rigorous mathematicians before, and it always annoys me. The meaning of the "equation" is perfectly evident to me; of course we'll never know for sure exactly what he meant, but how could he have meant anything other than our modern day, rigorous equivalent? The article then says that the proof can be slightly altered to conform to modern standards of rigor. Wouldn't that just amount to replacing all the infinites with Xs and taking the limit as X approaches infinity? This is almost the only useful interpretation of the infinity symbol, and the presence of the unqualified symbol naturally suggests replacing it with a limit. Why are proofs like this considered so drastically different than our modern ones? --Monguin61 22:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that just amount to replacing all the infinites with Xs and taking the limit as X approaches infinity?

Not in this, involving "ln(ln(+&infin;))". The limit would merely be &infin;, but what the paragraph says Euler almost certainly meant is something other than that.


 * This is almost the only useful interpretation of the infinity symbol

That is nonsense. There are many interpretations that are useful. You've just mentioned one of them, and what the article says Euler almost certainly meant is another one.


 * Why are proofs like this considered so drastically different than our modern ones?

Did you sleep through the whole 19th century? Notice, for example, the reasons why we distingish between pointwise convergence and uniform convergence, etc. Michael Hardy 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Polyhedron animations


Here are the polyhedrons. Haven't had much time, but finally got the polyhedron points to appear in the right place... Κσυπ Cyp  15:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?
Hello, Monguin61. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You can learn more about ways you can contribute and find articles you might like to work on by going to the Community Portal. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 02:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)