User talk:Aleph4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 16:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Hannerism

I put the POV tag on the talk page of Hannerism because I wasn't positive the article constiuted POV. I wanted people to come and determine if the article is POV or it's just inherent. At least that was the plan. I'm not sure it worked...on the other hand, you did look at it. Does it look like POV? RJFJR 00:51, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah Öcalan

Was merged with Kurdistan Workers Party, the vandalism comment is inaccurate. I am re merging it, thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My vandalism comment was accurate. There were many edits on this article, so you may be confusing my edit with somebody else's. In the modification [1], the anonymous User:85.98.38.241 replaced several paragraphs of text with the words "?????? if you make shite, i (as a kurdish person) will fuck your mother.". This was clearly vandalism, so I reverted it in [2].

Thanks for informing me about the merge. -- Aleph4 14:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kristallnacht

Can you please read my comment on Talk:Kristallnacht. Thanks -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 15:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] holomorphic function

Hello. It is rather odd to write [[holomorphic]] function rather than [[holomorphic function]] since holomorphic is, as common sense would suggest, a redirect page pointing to holomorphic function. Michael Hardy 19:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the word "holomorphic" (without it the statement in Multiplicity was not 100% correct), and on second thoughts wikilinked it. But I agree that [[holomorphic function]] is even better (by an epsilon). -- Aleph4 11:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kempler

Kempler video is now translated, be prepared for an attempt to delete tha will probably succeed. The killers friends' are in abundance in wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kempler video (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics pages

Hi There,

I was looking through some of your edits on mathematics pages, and found what I believe to be factual errors. I can see you've studied mathematics, so I was wondering if you could justify them:

In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, you write, "The Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory (ZF) together with the axiom of choice (AC) are the standard axioms of axiomatic set theory. ZF+AC is usually abbreviated to ZFC", which seems to me to be paradoxical. Does this sentence imply ZF includes AC or not?
In Euler's identity, you wrote that "pi is always constant". What about hyperbolic spaces? I believe that is what the original author was attempting to include, the fact that the ratio represented by pi varies depending on the curvature of space we are in.

—Sean κ. + 12:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Aleph4's answer:

Thanks for pointing out that my formulation in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory was unclear. I hope that I have clarified that now. ZF does not include the axiom of choice; ZFC does. I also think it is generally agreed that ZFC is a better or more natural foundation of "all of ordinary mathematics" (I don't like the formulation "ordinary mathematics", but at the moment I am not bold enough...) than ZF is. (I will write more at Talk:Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory if necessary.)

Concerning Euler's identity, I wrote this at Talk:Euler's identity in May 2005:

The current version of the article says $π$ is a constant in a world which is Euclidean, or on small scales of non-Euclidean geometry otherwise, the ratio of the length of the circumference of circle to its diameter would not be a universal constant, i.e. the same for all circumferences).

While the "otherwise" part of the sentence is true, it does not talk about

π

at all. You could as well define

π

to be the infinite string 3.14159..., and then claim that

π

is not constant if you use hexadecimal numbers. The string 3.14... does not define

π

if you interpret it in hexadecimal, and the expression "ratio of circumference..." does not define

π

if you talk about circles in a non-Euclidean plane.

I don't think that

π

is used to denote the ratio circumference:diameter in a situation where this ratio depends on the size of the circle. Anyway, remarks about the "value of pi in noneuclidean geometry" belong to pi or Talk:pi. Whether our universe is Euclidean or not is completely irrelevant to the value of pi (except for history, motivation, etc).

--Aleph4 14:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the article says "number pi" not just "pi". Cool beans. —Sean κ. + 14:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sincerely

You are an asshole. why did you delete my page? whatd it ever to to you? put it back. jackass.

Please ignore the comments from this IP, this is a shared computer at a school, we have no quarrel with you. Thanks. 207.236.151.102 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for deleting the page by the writer of the preceding obscene comment, I've been trying to get it deleted for a while. I'll probably go to you for help with this vandal in the future; I unfortunately know him personally. Nihiltres 17:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what page you are talking about. I cannot delete pages, as I am not an administrator. I can only suggest pages for deletion -- you can do that too. --Aleph4 10:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on algebraical quantity

Hello. I hope you were not affected by my remark on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algebraical quantity that you should have contacted the original author of the article. You already did more than usual by listing it on RfC and I'm grateful for that. I do think that you should've tried to contact the author, but I should have told you that (semi-)privately here. Sorry for that, Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. The reason I did not contact the author was that I (subconsciously, perhaps wrongly) concluded from the style of the article that the author did not know math well enough for a fruitful discussion. Aleph4 12:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] afd on lazytown cast member

did you nominate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jodi_Eichelberger as an afd? if so i'm confused why you then voted to merge. {{merge}} would have been more to the point. Nateji77 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry, my mistake. I changed the template. --Aleph4 16:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

there's couple of these, and no non-duplicate content beyond the birthdates. but since i have no idea what lazytown is... Nateji77 17:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio

Can you please remove your copyvio for the listing for Eric Corey Freed? He gave me permission for the text, and even gave me some additions.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.170.55 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please sign all your comments on talk pages, using 4 tilde signs: ~~~~. Please read the "possible copyright violation" notice on the page Eric Corey Freed, in particular points 2 and 4, and you will know what to do.

(Note also that pages that non-notable people put here about themselves are often deleted as "vanity pages". I am not claiming that Freed is non-notable, nor that he is notable.) --Aleph4 11:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Aleph4

I have sorted out your dispute re Stiltskin, if you have any more questions please contact me

Best Regards

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TessaSturridge (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] m&n's

The use of ndashes for mutiple-person names is supposedly standard or up-&-becoming that. "Just following orders", I guess. There's some discussion here:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Endashes.

I did not know how to check for reredirs except to use the "what links here" tool. Is there a better way? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wrzeście (PKP station)

Hello. This article is about Wrzeście near Lębork, not near Słupsk. The second village do not have a railway station. CCMichalZ 16:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

understood, thanks

[edit] Your reversion of Gödel

Comment on my reversion by User:Pce3@ij.net moved to Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems. --Aleph4 11:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Luther-Smith

hi I'm robert luther-smith; i own all the copyrights on my pages...please put it back on-line!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Luther-Smith (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. I added a "copyvio" notice to the page Robert Luther-Smith because it seemed to violate the copyright of arthouserecord. If the page arthouserecords is published under Wikipedia:GFDL, the best way to make that clear would be a notice on the arthousepage itself.

Please be aware that many wikipedia editors (including myself) think that it is not appropriate to write wikipedia articles about oneself. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography. --Aleph4 11:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Sockpuppets...

I removed the text for privacy reasons, it was being displayed on Google and it's irrelevant since the issue is now sorted.

[edit] Axiom of Symmetry

The changes you made state that if "countable" is replaced by "cardinality less than kappa" then there is a contradiction outright. That is not true. Kappa could be aleph 1 and the continuum could be larger than that. In such a model, the axiom is true (it is equivalent to the original axiom) and so there is no contradiction. Perhaps you should consider putting it back the way it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.182.155.215 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to clarify my edit to Freiling's axiom of symmetry, see also Talk:Freiling's axiom of symmetry#smallest non-zero set. -- Aleph4 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleph4?

$\aleph {\aleph_0\atop \aleph_0}<{\rm max}((2^{\aleph_{0}})^{+}, \aleph_{\aleph_{4}})$

Why is it Aleph 4? Can you tell me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernard the Varanid (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A proof can be found in Shelah's papers, but also in the following papers:

M. Burke and M. Magidor, Shelah's pcf theory and its applications, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 50 (1990)
T. Jech, Singular Cardinal Problem -- Shelah's theorem on $2^{\aleph_\omega}$ , Bulletin of the London Math Society 24 (1992).

But if you want to know why it is aleph4, and not rather aleph3, aleph2, or even (what some people conjecture) aleph1 -- I think that nobody knows, so far.

--Aleph4 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durbin

Turns out it was Durbin who made that definition up (well-order &c). I knew there was something fishy about it. (John Durbin, Modern Algebra, an introduction)

[edit] Stylistics

Thank you for helping me write the Wikipeadia article for ‘Stylistics (linguistics)’.

I think that I got the hang of things – in the end.

I’ve now finished my contribution – give or take the odd minor correction.

I hope to be able to contribute to your project again. I did feel that this entry deserved a fuller explanation.

As for the biographical note, no, I did not write this (but my agent did). I just pasted it in.

I fully accept your guidelines and will, therefore, edit it to a form consistent with your standards and style.

I do feel, however, that a brief entry about my work and credentials should be available for scrutiny, but please feel free to edit accordingly.

Thanks again for all your assistance.

Brian Lamont 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/e/User_talk%7EAleph4_fa50.html"