User talk:JRSpriggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pointers:
Category:Ordinal numbers, Category:Cardinal numbers, Category:Set theory, Category:Root-finding algorithms, Category:Proof theory, Category:Mathematical logic, Category:General relativity,

ordinal number, ordinal arithmetic, large countable ordinal, ordinal notation,

Constructible universe, implicational propositional calculus, harmonic coordinate condition,

User_talk:Oleg Alexandrov, User_talk:Jitse Niesen, User_talk:Trovatore, User_talk:Arthur Rubin, User_talk:CMummert,

Maxwell stress tensor, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, Peace of Westphalia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, InuYasha, User talk:MathPhys/WikiProject Relativity

Resources:

• Category:Wikipedia help, control-shift-R reloads, Werdnabot (talk • contribs)
• Help:Displaying a formula,
• The five pillars of Wikipedia, How to edit a page, Help pages, Tutorial, How to write a great article, Manual of Style, Wikipedian, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, math style manual, Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page,
• Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
• edit summary, WP:LEAD, WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Introductory material, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages
• See PlanetMath project, the section on set theory if they have any articles you may copy to Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:Missing science topics which may inspire you to create new articles
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics if you like to do clean up work.
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics#Logic, Category:Mathematical logic stubs
• http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Participants
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism,Template:TestTemplates, Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, /V

Contents 1 Zero Sharp 2 Brent's method 3 Finding multiple roots 3.1 how to merge 4 Math formatting 5 Answer two months latter 6 Inaccessible cardinal 7 cc 8 Translational motion doesn't contribute to heat energy 9 Merge of ultrafilter lemma 10 Beth numbers 11 Ineffable cardinal 12 Photon in the box 13 Thanks 14 <insert name here> operator 15 Note on talk page about 4 forces 16 Virtual particle 17 AIV 18 re: Werdnabot Timing

[edit] Zero Sharp

OK, mixing in here. There's an extra technical condition you have to add to indiscernibility, called "remarkability" if I remember right, that guarantees that the indiscernibles are "Silver indiscernibles". With that extra condition they're unique. If indiscernibles exist then so do Silver indiscernibles, and I believe you find them just by taking the smallest ordinal that's one of a proper class of indiscernibles, and then the smallest that's one of a proper class of indiscernibles containing the first one you fixed, and so on. Or something like that. See Jech for the formal statement of the condition—something to do with every ordinal being expressible as a term in terms of indiscernibles, such that the value of the term doesn't change if you change indiscernibles above the ordinal the term denotes. --Trovatore 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent's method

Thanks very much for correcting my error in the algorithm in Brent's method, especially since it was the kind of mistake that could have sat there for years without anybody noticing it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. JRSpriggs 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finding multiple roots

Hello. I saw you started the article Finding multiple roots, thanks. It is always nice to see somebody getting infected with the Wikipedia bug :) I do have some questions about the article though:

1. Why did you decide to start a new article, instead of adding an extra section to Root-finding algorithm? I prefer to have a few long articles with a couple of people working on them and correcting each other, rather than spreading out our works on many small articles (but this is partially a matter of taste).
2. Ideally, every article should be supported by a couple of references. Please add one or two.
3. I'm especially interested in references, because it is not clear to me how to compute the gcd in the presence of rounding error. If the example you give in Finding multiple roots is computed with floating-point arithmetic, then the remainder might not be zero.
4. There is a host of style issues, as explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), but those are of minor importance.

Since you (rightly) criticized my work on Brent's method, I hope you don't mind if I return the favour. ;)

Thanks again for your work, and I hope you are enjoying it.

All the best, Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in my article. I appreciate your feed-back. I responded on the discussion page for that article. JRSpriggs 12:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how to merge

All work on wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL license, which ensures that the work is always free to be edited and copied. This license is a cornerstone of the way that wikipedia works. One of the stipulations of the license is that all authors be credited. This is accomplished on wikipedia via the "history" function. Copy-paste edits are tricky, because they kill all authorship information. Nevertheless, copy-paste edits are sometimes necessary. The accepted method for dealing with this is this: when you do a copy-paste merge, you must mention in the edit summary where the text comes from. Doing so ensures that anyone who needs to can follow the trail of edits and see the author of the original text. The ability to track edits in this way is a legal requirement of the GFDL, so merges which are not done in accord with this principle must be reverted. I note that in this edit (where you carry out the merger), you merge and mention the source article. Thus your actions are within the terms of the license, and your merger is done correctly. I will suggest that, although not required, it is convenient if you wikify your edit summary (thus instead of an edit summary of merge in text of "Finding multiple roots", you could have used an edit summary with a text of merge in text of [[Finding multiple roots]]). This is a matter of convenience, not a legal requirement. It seems to me that your merger meets the legal requirements, and so is perfectly acceptable. For more information, visit Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you look at Talk:Root-finding_algorithm and go down to the section on "Merger with the 'Finding multiple roots' article", you will see that I explain how to get to the history of the old article. JRSpriggs 07:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the past, when I have performed mergers, I also merged the talk pages. It seems to me to be quite disorganized to have a single article with many different relevant talk pages. Thus I think it could be preferable to also merge Talk:Finding multiple roots into Talk:Root-finding algorithm. Nevertheless, there is no policy which dictates that this must be done. It is simply my own personal preference. Feel free to ignore it. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lethe, I took your advice and merged the contents of the talk; converting "Talk:Finding multiple roots" into a redirect to "Talk:Root-finding algorithm". I also added direct pointers to the histories of "Finding multiple roots" and "Talk:Finding multiple roots" at Talk:Root-finding algorithm. However, when I tried your suggestion of putting a pointer into the edit summary there, it did not work because the pointer was redirected back. JRSpriggs 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not react on all your merging activities because you are doing very well. Yes, the link to Talk:Finding multiple roots in the edit summary redirects back, but if you want to go to that talk page, you can follow the "redirected from …" link on top of the page which you get when clicking on the link to Talk:Finding multiple roots. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know that I could get back to the redirect that way. That will be helpful. JRSpriggs 10:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Math formatting

Hi JRSpriggs. Thank you for the additions at Newton's method. I did some formatting there, using math tags, <math></math>. They are available on the toolbar at the top of the edit box. One should use either that, or html tags. So for example, variables should always be italic, either ''x'' or <math>x</math>, but never an x by itself (compare x vs x vs plain x). Just a tip. You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer two months latter

from your comment in cardinality, its my initials... cjrs... Cjrs 79 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccessible cardinal

Re the countability/uncountability of inaccessible cardinals: I am not an expert on set theory, but at least the online sources I could find with google (e.g. Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics, PlanetMath, several others) define inaccessibility without the requirement for uncountability. Could you provide a reference to convince me that the definition of inaccessibility with uncountability is "more standard"? — Tobias Bergemann 10:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For me, the main point is that I would have to keep making exceptions every time I talk about inaccessibles, if I defined it to include aleph-null. JRSpriggs 10:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but an encyclopedia should report about inaccessibles as they are most commonly defined in the relevant literature. However, your references below are good enough for me. Sorry for belaboring such a minor point. — Tobias Bergemann 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mathematical Logic" by Joseph R. Schoenfield defines inaccessible (on page 304) in a way which requires them to be uncountable. On pages 208 & 209 of "Simplified Independence Proofs" by J. Barkley Rosser, he says "Some people hold a firm conviction that some inaccessible cardinals exist ..." which implies that inaccessibles are uncountable since the existence of aleph-null is not controversial. Suppes defines them to include aleph-null, but he also includes 2 as an inaccessible, which is ridiculous. JRSpriggs 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Tobias Bergemann 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cc

From Talk:order (group theory) Ahhhhh. I see. I have forgotten how to distinguish capital and small letters.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  :) Thank you. --VKokielov 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have another question, if you have the opportunity. I understand that there are groups of infinite order in which every element generates a finite subgroup. Would you offer an example? But only if you know it at once; I don't want you to construct it for me. The algebra book says Z_p[x] is one like that, but I don't know how to read that symbol. --VKokielov 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That notation means the set of polynomials with coefficients in Z_p. So for example 2x³ + x², and remember that the coefficients are regarded as numbers mod 3. This polynomial has order 3 in the additive group, as does every other element in the group. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are taking p = 3. JRSpriggs 04:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --VKokielov 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translational motion doesn't contribute to heat energy

• JR: Please see Thermodynamic temperature: Discussion Thermodynamic temperature discussion page. Greg L 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I understand now what you intended. I've responded in the discussion page. Greg L 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of ultrafilter lemma

Thanks for fixing the double redirects there. It completely slipped my mind that there might be pages that redirected to it. CMummert 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beth numbers

You wrote:

Notice that for any cardinals κ and μ, there is an ordinal α such that

That's true in ZF, and in ZFU+AC, but not necessarily in ZFU, and it's not obvious. Perhaps rephrasing and/or citation is in order. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. JRSpriggs 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineffable cardinal

Ineffable cardinal is considered to be a topic of number theory. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add it to the number theory category, go ahead. But I think that having more than one targeted stub is excessive. JRSpriggs 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photon in the box

Please do not pass judgement on things that you clearly do not understand. Try reading the modern treatment of "mass" in relativity. Until you understand, please abstain in making decisions. See here, fresh from Harvard:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch11.pdf

Have a look at chapter 11.8.....

After you read, you will understand that you reverted to an incorrect and outdated view of things. If you are a scientist, you will hopefully understand.....Ati3414 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are a fool who thinks he knows what he does not know. I am quite familiar with both special and general relativity and have solved the equations of general relativity in some cases. I know what I am talking about and you do not. JRSpriggs 05:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are getting abusive demonstrates that have run out of logical arguments. Try reading the recommended chapter, it is standard fare in universities nowadays, it may have been some time since you studied the subject and things have changed.Ati3414 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JR, please keep your cool. Ati3414 will quickly exhaust community patience and be banned; there is no need to risk sanctions yourself. Ati3414, for your part, I'd just as soon you didn't keep your cool; you can work out why for yourself. --Trovatore 05:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Il Trovatore, I suggest that you take your frustrations with the new view, try reading the chapter from the current curriculum at Harvard: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch11.pdf , have a look at 11.8

or Cornell: http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~cew2/P209/part11.pdf or MIT, or Stanford.... Ati3414 05:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trovatore: Thanks. I will try not to do anything rash. I just felt that someone had to confront him with the facts of the situation.
Ati3414: You may not understand why you are wrong, but I suggest that you desist from promoting views that clearly conflict with the overwhelming consensus of editors here. JRSpriggs 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, but he just moved it from my userpage, some IP user posted it and he thought it was funny =D --mboverload@ 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I saw a moment later when I looked at your user page. Why have you not replied to my messages on your user page about you "correcting" words to the wrong spelling? JRSpriggs 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] <insert name here> operator

Are you aware that you did not move μ operator (originally mu operator) back to its former name, but rather to the nonsense μu operator? -- EJ 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I thought I put it back correctly except for a problem with redirects. I do not think that a name with an actual mu in it is even possible. What proof do you have? JRSpriggs 05:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just click on mu operator, you'll see "Μu operator (Redirected from Mu operator)". All Unicode character are valid in article names (well, almost). -- EJ 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the redirect problem. There is a redirect with the same name as the article which is taking precidence over the article and then redirecting you to the article. I cannot fix that. I asked User talk:Oleg Alexandrov to fix it. We will just have to wait for him or another administrator to do it. Blame CyberSkull for vandalizing the article in the first place. JRSpriggs 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, wait. I know what happened. When I move the article back I just added a "u" to the title after what looked like an "M", but it must have been a capital mu "Μ" instead. JRSpriggs 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, that's what I am saying. In fact, you couldn't move the article back, because it is impossible to overwrite an existing article by a move (it has to be deleted first, which requires an admin), and the redirect created by the first move counts as an existing article. -- EJ 06:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried again but it did not work. Now I really do not know. Is there a way to see whether a character is a capital M or a capital mu Μ? JRSpriggs 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Use a font where they are distinguishable, or look at the URL (where non-ASCII characters are encoded by % escapes). If "tried again" means you tried another move, it cannot work for the reasons above (the redirect has to be deleted first). -- EJ 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oleg just fixed it. But according to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, "If the destination does exist, but it only contains a redirect without any history, the move will still work — the designers of the MediaWiki software recognised this as a special case in which no information will be lost if a move is performed.". Therefor, I thought that the redirect at Mu operator would just be overwritten. JRSpriggs 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, I was mistaken on that point. Presumably the history was non-empty after all the changes, as per "This is especially likely to happen if there is a history of moves from one name to another." Anyway, all is good now. -- EJ 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on talk page about 4 forces

I have some concerned about some of the remarks you made about 4-forces in the article on "special relativity". Rather than interrupt an active edit session, I've put my concerns on the talk page.Pervect 07:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual particle

If virtual particles were unobservable by their very nature, they wouldn't be physics. They are very much part of physics, if they didn't exist then QED wouldn't work properly; and the observables there would be different.

So they have been detected, photons and electrostatics are both detectable, it's complete nonsense.WolfKeeper 07:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. They cannot be observed INDIVIDUALLY (as single quanta). They have COLLECTIVE effects which are observed. JRSpriggs 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Hello. Thanks for keeping a check on vandals. Please note that WP:AIV is only for ongoing cases of vandalism. Before listing a vandal here make sure that "The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning". Some of the vandals you have listed recently have not edited since some time and some not since their last warning. Take note of this next time. And keep up the good work. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Werdnabot Timing

Thanks for that! Randfan 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)