User talk:Woodstone/Archive 3

Lucas numbers irrelevant to Fibonacci numbers?
In response to "21:55, 10 January 2007 Woodstone (Talk | contribs) (remove irrelevant comparison to Lucas numbers, breaking the flow from statement to roof)" from Fibonacci number:

I believe that comparing Lucas numbers to Fibonacci numbers is very relevant. If you believed that it broke the flow of the section at that point why not move it somewhere more appropriate and not remove it?

The formulae for generating Fibonacci and Lucas numbers from phi are almost identical making a comparison very relevant in my opinion. Danielklein 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Several references to the Lucas numbers were already present in the article. At that particular point mentioning them again did not have additional value and indeed broke the flow. &minus;Woodstone 14:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't address my concerns, merely repeated your opinion. There are currently only two references to Lucas numbers, as there were when I made my edit. My edit was above the other two references meaning a first time reader of the article would not be seeing it "again". You don't think that mentioning that the two sequences can be defined by almost identical formulae has value? I certainly welcome any suggestions for including this information without it being summarily deleted. Currently the first reference is irrelevantly under the subheading of Common Factors and the other reference is under Generalizations giving it only the importance of a curiosity. Lucas numbers give added insight into Fibonacci numbers and this fact is not stressed as the article currently appears. Maybe I could add a section on points of interest between the two sequences without you deleting it as "irrelevant"? If you can't already tell this experience has soured me on contributing to Wikipedia but I am hoping to pull something positive out of it. Danielklein 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary
This > | don't help much! Hiya - can you check your s/ware as inserting strings ain't so good! Pedro | Talk  21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how I can check that. It used to work fine. I just press the "rv" button in the popup when hovering over "diff" in the watch list. &minus;Woodstone 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutch phonology
Ok, I can live with it that you claim e should be transcribed as &#603;, although this implies using the same symbol for e and ei. Well that is in some &#8216;local dialects&#8217;. I happen to speak such a &#8216;local dialect&#8217;, along with another 6 million people. In Flemish, e is more like &#230; then like &#603;, and ei is &#603;. It is not a diphthong. So please think about how these facts can be merged into the table.

On the same account: I suppose you pronounce natie as /natsi/, but again, along with 6 million others, I pronounce it /nasi/, so indeed t can be pronounced /s/. Hamaryns 12:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion we should limit the table to the dialect described as "algemeen nederlands" (formerly ABN). If you insist, we could add a column for the main Flemish dialect, but this might open the door to including many other dialects as well. &minus;Woodstone 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no accepted standard. The &#8216;standard&#8217; in Belgium is different than the one in the Netherlands.  Thus I think it is licensed to have both.  I think it would be useful to have a separate page for Belgian Dutch, as there are separate pages for Received Pronunciation and General American (and for a whole lot of other English dialects, for that matter).  The problem is that the chart I was editing then should be copied there and that the titles would be unfair.  POV in my opinion (:-)).  I guess I have to bring this to that page&#8217;s talk page. Hamaryns 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch grammar
I don't like your way of edit-summaries at Dutch grammar. You claim to change je wilt into je wil(t), which is a correct change, but at the same time you state that Dutch only has two genders (which is completely incorrect)!

I wouldn't mind this if it were a minor edit, but when you change important things like that you should at least write this in the summaries, because you know people are going to be mad about this!

Govert Miereveld 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked back and you are right. Somehow I unintentionally changed a segment about genders as well. I cannot reconstruct from the history log how it happened, but I suspect I reverted to an earlier version and overlooked that there were several changes involved. Anyway I apologise. Not relevant here, but many dialects of Dutch do not have three genders anymore. &minus;Woodstone 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK for me

Govert Miereveld 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden Ratio
I think you reverted my edit of the definition of the golden ratio. I changed it because the first sentence in the article defines the golden ratio in a very ambiguous manner. "The golden ratio... expresses the relationship that the sum of two quantities is to the larger quantity as the larger is to the smaller," is not clear, and further explanation is not provided until the proof section of the article. This is not beneficial at all to someone who is trying to look this up for the first time.

In specific, I think it needs to be introduced as the constant which represents the common ratio that must occur if the defining conditions are met.


 * The sentences you added were already there a few lines lower. So they just introduced a duplication. If you want to be more specific in the first paragraph and and talking about a constant instead of a relationship I would not object, but I do not think a formula is appropriate in the first definition. &minus;Woodstone 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good now, I hope? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.197.232 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Fine. &minus;Woodstone 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur
Thanks, I guess that's the correct way to do that. Although I can't read it. Should it also be out spelled out "Mar-tan Bro-door" in there, I mean how many people know that IPA? Quadzilla99 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to describe the sound using English spelling, since several of the sounds in that name never occur in English. With the given form and some peeking around on the net it should be possible to get a handle on how it is pronounced. In Wikipedia, click on the IPA lead before the name, then find the symbol you are trying to pronounce, click on the symbol and on its page you will find a link to a soundfile. Not really quick, but doable. &minus;Woodstone 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess I could record it in a playable audio file like some articles have done. Thanks again for answering so promptly! Quadzilla99 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero
Oops - my bad. I should read more of the context (certainly more than the diff) before RVing edits. My apologies... Stannered 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. Occasionally it happens to me too. That's the good side of wiki's: many eyes are watching. &minus;Woodstone 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Interchange (road)
I removed the explanation of a "roundabout interchange" as this type of junction now has its own article. I've restored the link to the new page (while this time keeping the explanation). Is this better? --GCarty 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok now. But the separate article hardly contains more information. So what is the added value? &minus;Woodstone 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

js
Woodstone:monobook.js won't do nuffink - I have deleted it. What you should be editing is user:Woodstone/monobook.js. -- RHaworth 10:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ok thx &minus;Woodstone 10:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bar (unit)
I have reverted your edits on that article. The bar is a unit that predates the SI system, and is traditionally defined as 1,000,000 dynes per square centimeter. While the bar is equal to 100,000 newtons per square meter, that is not its official definition, as the bar is not an SI unit. Andros 1337 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The official brochure of the BIPM recognises that the bar is not an SI unit, but defines it as 0.1 MPa. So you are at least partially wrong. However, it is not important to me and I will leave you be. &minus;Woodstone 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Query
You said, "It is not at all uncommon in wikipedia to gather an overview on the satus of a proposal by voting." I was wondering where you got the impression that this was the case, because WP:POL and the very template used for proposals explictly state the exact opposite.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not right for one person to block an ongoing discussion process if evidently many others are willing to participate. &minus;Woodstone
 * I'm not blocking an ongoing discussion process. Note that I explicitly asked for discussion. I'm encouraging discussion by removing a needless polarization. I asked for comments, other people have only asked for a yes/no vote. The former is more constructive, the latter tends to ignore third options and/or compromises.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I had asked explicitly asked for comments as well as an opinion. It looked like we were coming closer to a solution than in the previous discussions. By collecting the reactions we may be able to come up with an improved proposal. &minus;Woodstone 12:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments before making a kneejerk response. I have quite elaborately explained why making a binary vote on this is a bad idea, and cited several policies and guidelines that support this view. All you've said to the contrary is a straw man about stifling discussion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how (logically) archiving a discussion in mid course can contribute to a good exchange of ideas. &minus;Woodstone 12:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop repeating that straw man. Asking for discussion rather than a vote is precisely what contributes to a good exchange of ideas, as opposed to a bad polarization of ideas.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the wording has changed between two "votes", this obviously cannot be designated as a vote :) Sarenne 12:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my initial impression, but this whole debate started when a user pointed out that my comment on the subject was invalid because it didn't contain a bolded "support" or "oppose" word.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new guideline for binary prefixes
It looks like it's currently at 10 support to 2 oppose. Congrats :) Fnagaton 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fibonacci citation requested
An editor has requested a citation for an edit by you  saying it is more common to include F0 = 0 as a Fibonacci number. Google searches indicate both forms are common but that starting a list at 1 is more common on the web:. PrimeHunter 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

hoomank
[[User:hoomank|hoomank (talk)]]

Hello. I noticed the comment on infinity being the state of "being greater than any other number." I think there are some issues with this defintition so I wonder if you've considered the two following arguments.

1. The section is titled "mathematical infinity" yet the definition does not apply to all mathematical systems including Calculus!

The definition given "the state of being greater than any other number" is not applicable to Calculus where infinity means "to grow without bound" -- a definition which makes sense in the context of a limit -- to see why, see point 2 below.

2. The given definition seems to run into philisophical problems.

The definition given is that "infinity is the STATE of being greater any other number"

The word "state" usually refers to something static. When we say, for example, that something is in a solid state -- we mean that the atoms at that moment, have come together to form a solid.

There is no such state as "being greater than any other number." For no matter what number you are at, there are ALWAYS numbers greater than you. Thus this state does not exist.

One defensible defintion of infinity is the calculus definition which is to "grow without bound." For instance in Calculus we say that the limit as X approaches 0 of 1/X = infinity. By this we mean that the value grows without bound as X gets closer to 1 -- but we never say that it is in the state of being greater than any number -- which is the current definition.

I am going to change the mathematical infinity section to "there are a number of logically defensible definitions of infinity." Feel free to change this sentence but please do not change it back as the current definition does not seem to be defensible.


 * Of course there are many possible definitions, but I cannot see anything wrong with the definition as a state. Something (e.g. an integral or a limit) can really have the value "infinite". That does not imply that "infinite" is a number. Even in the case of limits, the result does not "grow" to infinity, it "is" infinity. What grows is the series of the terms (or the partial sums). The idea of growing is a way of handling infinity, not necessarily the definition. In measure and integration theory and other fields, "infinite" is just an addition to the set of numbers (not part of it) to enable the making some valuable statements and theorems. &minus;Woodstone 11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with you that there are some mathematical systems where infinity can be treated as a state (for instance when the real number line is compatified). But it does not apply to all mathematical systems (for instance Calculus). I also agree with you that in systems such as Calculus appealing to growth without bound is a way to handle infinity.

Bitter insults
I'm sorry. my friend, but referring--as many historians do--to the American Revolution as the "first successful colonial war of independence" is not a "bitter insult" to our beautiful land's original inhabitants. Fact is, this seminal revolution was an inspiration to anticolonialist insurgencies around the world for the next two centuries. The tragic complexity of the U.S.A. does not come down to these niggardly arguments over semantics (already and clearly resolved among scholars); the virtual genocide of the brilliant diversity of American Indian nations goes far, far beyond this supposed "bitter insult." If you investigate the article's history, you'll note, for instance, that it happens to be me who made the Wounded Knee massacre part of the piece. Believe me, I do appreciate your point--it was not the first successful native colonial war of independence; but its significance for what it was is hardly disputed in the historigraphical record.—DCGeist 06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Null space
Hi, Woodstone

Again I disagree with your revert of the introduction to null space. It seems clear that we need an outside opinion to resolve this disagreement, so I've posted a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

Cheers, Jim 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have great trouble understanding how you could consider limitation to the matrix case a valid definition for null space. It so obviously wrong, that I do not know what to say. &minus;Woodstone 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me try to explain. The more mathematics I learn, and the more that I teach, the better I understand that starting with the most general case isn't always the right approach to explaining something.  It's true that one can define the null space of an arbitrary function, but it's not necessarily helpful, and the general definition isn't really related to the information that needs to be conveyed in the article.


 * Here's a similar example. If you look at the article on multiplication, you'll find that the introductory paragraph starts by explaining the definition of multiplication for whole numbers, and then goes on to the generalize to multiplication of integers, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, matrices, groups, and so forth.  Most of the article is about multiplication of real numbers, with a short section on groups and links at the end to articles like matrix multiplication.


 * I'm not sure what area of math you've studied where the term null space is commonly used for nonlinear functions, but I can assure you that this is not the predominant use of the term. Look up null space on Google or MathSciNet and you'll see what I mean.  When prompted to define "null space", most mathematicians would define the null space of either a matrix or a linear mapping.  In the interests of clarity and accessibility, it makes sense for the article on null space to focus primarily on the null space of a matrix, with links to articles that cover more general settings. Jim 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gini Coefficient
Can you please explain your logic in deleting my contribution 158802816 on disadvantages of using the Gini Coefficient? Many thanks.ToddRamsey 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If a large group of low skilled people immigrates to a country, the inequality of income goes up. That reflects in the Gini Coefficient and that is exactly what it is supposed to measure. How is that a disadvantage? &minus;Woodstone 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right in the strictest sense. But a primary common usage of the Gini is as a measure of fairness in a country.    A country with a high percentage of low-skilled, low-paid immigrants is not necessarily less fair than a comparable country that does not accept immigrants.  "It is sufficiently simple that it can be compared across countries and be easily interpreted. " is listed as an advantage.  Since people use the Gini as a measure of fairness, it is a disadvantage of the measure that it cannot be "easily interpreted" to "compare across countries" when the immigration variable is considered.  It does not make the measure worthless; but it is a disadvantage of the Gini.  Perhaps instead of deleting the contribution you could suggest alternate language?  Thank you.ToddRamsey 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gini coefficient is not supposed to not measure "fairness", just "equality". If people use the wrong interpretation that is their problem, not the problem of the measurement. Opinions on what is a fair distribution differ widely. It hardly makes much sense to state explicitly that it is a disadvantage that wrong interpretations are possible. &minus;Woodstone 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From Problems in Using the Gini Coefficient: "The Gini coefficient should be interpreted as measuring effective egalitarianism; ...". A country that accepts immigrants could be equally egalitarian (as defined in Wikipedia) as another country, but have a higher Gini coefficient. Perhaps my contribution would be appropriate in the "Problems in Using" section?ToddRamsey 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch alphabet
Cheers for the corrections at Dutch alphabet, I missed those.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

nmi or NM for nautical mile
Hi Woodstone. Just a short note of thanks for your support, and to say that I too would prefer to see nmi adopted as standard over NM. It seems a logical extension of mi for the mile and is the preferred abbreviation of the IEEE. In general, though, I find I encounter much less resistance when I change nm to NM in individual articles, compared with nm to nmi, especially where a navy or air force is involved somewhere. I am curious to see how others respond. Thunderbird2 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA English vowel chart
Thanks for adding the links, Woodstone. We're almost ready to go live. kwami 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I undid about 10 of your last edits. I had an edit conflict while clearing up the markers. I could not figure out how to get it back in order preserving your edits. &minus;Woodstone 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked out my damage to your edits and it seems quite minor; it looks as if you were cleaning up the mess I made with unpaired "big" tags at the same time I was doing it in a different way. We still need the links for many of the vowels. I cannot find a page containing them. They are hidden in a picture in the vowel article. I will leave it alone for a while now. &minus;Woodstone 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

revert of Note
Hi

I'm quite surprised about your revert. It seems you didn't understand the problems and didn't see what i wrote on the talk page. I don't understand all of your edit summary "remove duplication, restore order; not all use H i.s.o B". There was no duplication. The top part explained the Anglo-Saxon system, and the bottom part the German + northern European one. The current situation is simply incorrect.

1) No one in any country uses Bes. The name for what is called B flat in English is B in the system using is/es suffixes.

2) Since the name B for B flat requires the name H, it is not possible to list the names in the is/es system in the top part of the chart where the name of the seventh is B. The is/es system can only be presented where i placed it, underneath the German (= northern European) names including H.

3) It is misleading and incorrect to make a difference between Germany and northern Europe because it is essentially the same system. (The only differences are spelling differences, Ess etc., and that Heses (B double flat) is called bb in Finland.)

4) There was no reason to remove the following:

''This system is based on the letter H representing the pitch class represented by B natural in English, and the letter B replaces B-flat. In this system, there is an exception: for B♭♭, Heses is used instead of Bes, which would be what fits into the system but is not used.''

5) The second sentence of the following current text is incorrect in its context since the letter H is always used when the suffixes is/es are in use:

''Another style of notation, used in Germany and Scandinavia but rarely used in English, uses the suffix "is" to indicate a sharp and "es" (only "s" after A and E) for a flat, e.g. Fis for F♯, Es for E♭. Sometimes, especially in Germany, the letter H is used instead of B natural as in English, and the letter B replaces B-flat.'' --Espoo 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Bes is in common use. There are two systems using the "is" and "(e)s" postfixes. A regular system with B and Bes and a variant using H and B instead. The northern European countries generally use either of these systems, with the "H" variant dominant mainly in Germany. The southern European countries tend to use the dor-re-mi system. English speaking countries use teh sharp/flat notation. The sentence about Heses was imcompresensibly formulated and not essential, so I removed it. &minus;Woodstone 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a professional musician who has lived and worked in the USA, Germany, Austria, and Finland. You are completely wrong in claiming that Bes is used in any of those countries. I also know that this is true of Sweden. I have Sohlmans Musiklexikon (Stockholm) in front of me, and it has no mention whatsoever of Bes. It has hessess (Sweden), heses (Germany), bb (Finland), B double-flat (England), si double bémol (France), si doppio bemolle (Italy). Your source http://www.solfege.org/Solfege/ScaleNames is a wiki and not what is considered a reliable source according to WP policy. It is simply wrong. Where have you seen Bes in use or in a reliable source? --Espoo 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That you personally haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have many music sheets in my possession with chord symbols using Bes. I will make a photo and show you. Anyway it is certain that two systems are in use, and that should be reflected in the article. &minus;Woodstone 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

sound links
Hi Woodstone,

I wanted to add soundfiles to the IPA chart. I got Template:Spoken to work just once, and ever since then it takes me to the icon graphic rather than playing the file. Since we'll have dozens of these, I wouldn't want 'help' and 'info' links or a great big button for each one. Any suggestions? kwami 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The smallest one I know is template:Audio-nohelp. Perhaps we can strip it further. I was looking at the various templates for IPA display, but it is rather messy. IPAeng, pronEng, IPA2, pronounced. And IPA_hover is also still there lurking. The small pop-ups I get for IPA strings, give a rather incomplete list of symbols. It needs some straightening out. &minus;Woodstone 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some experimenting creating a suitable template and see here some result:
 * , showing as: (i) Speakerlink-new.svg  [ a ]

Click the loudspeaker for the sound, click the text for the reference.

&minus;Woodstone 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I shortened it still further, to display only the icon for the sound file, plus the text for the article link, so we're not repeating ourselves. kwami 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw only the speaker symbol and the IPA string, with a pop-up for help (containing in last version also a listen link). I don't like the popup now of the audio filename, perhaps we can replace the name with a text. In the IPA key article we can put the reference to the help file Media help in the intro. &minus;Woodstone 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we remove the popup? I don't want the "listen" link. It's redundant and takes up a lot of space. kwami 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably best. For me, in my last version before your edit it did not show a "listen" link in the page (only in the pop-up). Did you see it statically in the page? But I'm trying to get rid of the pop-up with the audio filename. Can only test by really saving the template. &minus;Woodstone 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Test away. And yes, using clubs for the icon, each cell in the IPA chart displayed "♣(listen)[ x ]", whereas in my version it only showed "♣ [ x ]". But one of your later edits the redundant "listen" link disappeared again. kwami 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alignment looks a bit sloppy now with some sound files missing. Now we know (well ... guess) how to modify the template, we can also reserve a separate column for the active loudspeaker symbol. &minus;Woodstone 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how I envisioned it at first, but I went along with your trial link. It doesn't bother me enough to change it. kwami 21:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

about massage
Hi, i later noticed that very few google results for "Persian massage", this could well be a hoax :) Thanks for removal.. Achilles.g (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thai translation
Hi. I see you are interested in the Thai language. I have a favor to ask. Can you translate this: User:Rlevse/sandbox into Thai, in Thai font? If not, do you know someone who can?

It will end up in a Thai version of this page: Thanks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but although I speak some colloquial Thai, and can read the essentials, I cannot write formal text. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know a wiki user that could? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at "Category:User th-N" (I don't understand why this cannot be linked as ). You might try User:Manop. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll try it. You link to a cat without making your page a part of it by doing this: Category:User th-N — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)