User talk:Stefano85

Welcome!
Please feel free to submit any criticism or comment, 'remembering to sign it'. Or you can reply to anything I've posted on a talk page.

My version of telescoping series
I am confused by your comments. What do you mean by not rigorous enough?

However, I am still planning to extend this section. x42bn6  Talk  03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A more "rigorous" approach
Resuming what I was talking about:

The series $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{n^2+n}$$ can be represented as:

$$ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{12}+\cdots $$

Since the general term of the seqence can be represented (according to the method of Telescoping series) as:

$$ a_n = \frac{1}{n^2+n} = \frac{1}{n}\cdot\frac{1}{n+1} = \frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{n+1} $$

the same series can be represented as:

$$ \left(1-\frac{1}{2}\right)+ \left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3}\right)+ \left(\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}\right)+ \cdots $$

From this representation, one can more easily represent and compute the sequence of partial sums $$\{s_n\}_n$$ as: $$ \{s_n\}_n \quad=\quad \frac{1}{2},\quad \frac{2}{3}, \quad \frac{3}{4},\quad \cdots,\quad 1-\frac{1}{n+1} $$,

i.e. intuitively it can be said that the general partial sum is $$s_n = 1-\frac{1}{n+1}$$.

What I said was not very rigorous is the fact that you infer that the $$n$$-th partial sum is $$s_n = 1-\frac{1}{n+1}$$, based on the fact that "writing out the first few terms and the last few terms" of the sequence yields that result. The section "A pitfall" gives an example of how applying this method (i.e. rearranging the terms of the series) without the necessary hypotheses of convergence can lead to incorrect results. Before rearranging the terms you'd need to state which hypotheses are verified.

What I was thinking about as an alternative is the following demonstration by mathematical induction:

A demonstration
Basis:

for $$n=1$$:

$$ s_1=1-\frac{1}{n+1} $$

$$ \left.\left(\frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{n+1}\right) \right|_{\mbox{for}~n=1} = 1 -\frac{1}{n+1} $$

$$ 1-\frac{1}{n+1} = 1-\frac{1}{n+1} $$

Inductive step:

for $$s_{n-1} = 1-\frac{1}{n-1+1} = 1-\frac{1}{n}$$:

$$ s_n = s_{n-1} +a_n = 1 -\frac{1}{n} +\frac{1}{n} -\frac{1}{n+1} = 1 -\frac{1}{n+1} $$

This shows that $$\forall n \in N_0:\quad s_n = 1-\frac{1}{n+1}$$

Only now can we justify that (since given a formula for the general partial sum it is possible to compute the value of the series as its limit for $$n\to\infty$$):

$$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2+n} = \lim_{n\to\infty} s_n = \lim_{n\to\infty} 1-\frac{1}{n+1} = 1 $$

Stefano85 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only real issue that I have with putting this into the article is that fully proving the sums are by induction. Something I don't want to put in the article.  As far as I am concerned, the method of differences is still quite a rigorous proof, and in order to incorporate this idea, I would simply put:


 * This result can also be proved by mathematical induction.


 * into the article.


 * Why don't you try editing the article at my userspace itself? Perhaps it would make it slightly easier for me to understand what you are saying (I am only an A-Level student).  Alternatively, you could contact User:Michael Hardy or User:Oleg Alexandrov, two of the people who have helped me on this article, and get their views.


 * And, welcome to Wikipedia.  x42bn6   Talk  08:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 08:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

LDOCE
I have added a "" template to the article LDOCE, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.—greenrd 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Associazione Volontari Italiani Sangue
A tag has been placed on Associazione Volontari Italiani Sangue requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Dmwiki (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have saved this article and greatly expanded it. fish &amp;karate 11:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks Fish and Karate. I was too busy lately and did't have time to keep an eye on wikipedia.
 * It's no problem - thank you for the kind words! :) fish &amp;karate 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Associazione Volontari Italiani Sangue
At the time I saw the article on Special:Newpages and tagged it, it was extremely short with no references or citations to secondary sources establishing notability. It's fine now now that it's been improved, and I probably pulled the trigger a little quick. Sorry. TheMolecularMan (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alpha test (company)
A tag has been placed on Alpha test (company) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2009 (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) 19:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dickens charles listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dickens charles. Since you had some involvement with the Dickens charles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question)  21:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Pcworld" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pcworld. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Narnia lewis" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Narnia lewis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)