User talk:Point-set topologist/Archive 2

Your comments
Thank you for your comments. I have made a full reply, addressing each of your points. I hope that you will find this helpful. Dr Dec ( Talk )    22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your reply
Thanks for your comments. I agree that my number theory is basic compared to some of the editor. Although I have studied both elementary number theory and analytical number theory, I never enjoyed it and never studied it beyond the mandatory courses. The flavour of the help desk is very analysis/number theory orientated. I am a differential geometer! Granted, my question about the commutativity of composition showed a lack of thought. But my question on the commutativity of addition was a good one: it stimulated some very interesting discussion with different opinions. There is a proverb that says something along the lines of "A man that asks a question feels stupid for a minute, but a man that doesn't ask a question remains stupid for a lifetime." I think this applies to the commutativity of addition question. My background is more towards the applied side of things and I don't really know many technical results about metamathematics and the like; so I asked! Dr Dec ( Talk )    10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Just a quick note about Wikilinks. I saw this post of your and thought I might offer some advice. The standard form is BLUE TEXT YOU WANT TO APPEAR, so for example anti-vandal page comes out as anti-vandal page and links to WP:AIAV. Dr Dec ( Talk )    12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-hounding
In reference to this edit, I would ask you to read this section. Dr Dec ( Talk )    12:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As per your question "Do you think that it would cause inconvenience to other editors, perhaps?", it's quite the opposite. A new editor might not be familiar with Wikipedia. Upon reading a post signed "pma" he might type "user:pma" in the search box and end up going to someone other than the person signing his posts "pma". This section clearly says that "Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden." The only reason I have a signature different to my account user name is because I am also the holder of user:Dr Dec and have a divert in place from that user to my own user space.  Dr Dec  ( Talk )    14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sudoku
Hi. I find I can’t let this go, because I’m mystified by your responses, but continuing the discussion on the Ref Desk itself would not be appropriate.

First, you say that questions about solving Sudoku puzzles don't belong on the Mathematics desk.


 * I never said that; I said that such questions would be more appropriate for the miscellaneous reference desk (advice for the OP which may provide him with a broader range of responses). -- PS T  01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, when it's pointed out that there's a rather detailed article on Mathematics of Sudoku, you backtrack and say "I would not call someone who can solve sudoku puzzles a mathematician". That, like it or not, is a denial - of a statement that nobody ever made; but a denial nonetheless.


 * Dr. Dec pointed out that article in response to my comment that "arranging numbers in a 9x9 grid has nothing to do with mathematics". I then asserted that it nonetheless would be more appropriate for the miscellaneous reference desk since people there would be more experienced with solving sudoku puzzles, whereas many mathematicians on the mathematics reference desk may not be experienced; much of the mathematics behind sudoku is common sense written in a mathematical language (i.e. not much mathematical intelligence (but rather mathematical terminology) in sudoku) (the point is that even if a mathematician was experienced with sudoku, he/she would have to describe his/her reasoning in a mathematical language; laymen can explain techniques in a laymen language since with experience, they will unknowingly know the mathematics behind sudoku. Thus the laymen would be the most appropriate people to answer this question.). -- PS T  01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, when I wonder what this denial is about, you deny making such a denial. That's another denial.

I just have no idea what point you're trying to make, and I'd be grateful if you could throw some light on it. The only thing I can discern at the moment is some kind of academic snobbery, but there must surely be a better explanation than that.
 * No academic snobbery; if you look at my past contributions you will know that I am not that sort of person. -- PS T  01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries (as you Australians would say). Thanks for being polite, but if you still have any comments, please feel free to make a note of them here. -- PS T  01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the math reference desk
PST, please let me tell you a story, the moral of which I feel is applicable to your comments at Reference desk/Mathematics. Once upon a time I heard some interesting music on public radio, and I wanted to find out what it was so I could buy it on CD. So I sent an e-mail to my local public radio station, asking, "What was the name of the song that was played at such-and-so time on this date?" The reply began, "That piece of music is not a 'song,' because a song is properly a musical composition with a singing part. The music you heard would properly be called an 'instrumental work,'" or something like that. I was irritated and a bit insulted because whoever replied to me came off as a smug, superior elitist who corrected me on a stupid and irrelevant technical point that I wasn't interested in anyway.

Now, if I were in the place of the person who asked for resources for "subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division in decimal, fraction, and other section of maths," and the first response was "Subtraction, addition, multiplication and division in their basic sense do not constitute 'math'," followed by some links for "real math" that led to a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo I couldn't understand, I would feel the same way. The implication, whether you intended it or not, is that the questioner's idea of "math" is foolish, childish, or wrong, and "real math" is limited to the kinds of things studied in graduate school and beyond by intelligent, highly educated people such as yourself. Can you see how this might be insulting? —Bkell (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)