User talk:Elroch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Elroch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

Contents 1 Mathematical beauty 2 Two different edit counters 3 Style tips 4 Definition lists 5 "It's proved that TPC is true if Riemann Hypothesis is false" 6 Compass and straightedge 7 WAREL RfC 8 Truncating the truncatable 9 Welcome to VandalProof! 10 Thanks 11 VandalProof 1.2 Now Available 12 name change of article Edward Seykota 13 Trends in stock markets 14 One Userbox alternative 15 User green energy 16 Intutitive definition of Plane 17 Correction to Article designation for definition of Plane 18 Help with Ed Seykota article 19 Elephants 20 Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais 21 Mathematics CotW 22 Anti-carcinogens

[edit] Mathematical beauty

I have changed "almost all physics since his time" to "all modern physics". I didn't want to imply that all post-Galilean physics had a mathemtical basis, but that is certainly true of modern physics. Incidentally, I see from your user categories that you live in Herts - we may be almost neighbours, as I live in Hertford ! Gandalf61 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two different edit counters

There are two different edit counters, one by kate [1], and one by me [2]. I copied the initial look of Kate's, which is why they may look confusingly similar, but they do have different features (mine is the one with more graphs, Kate's is more helpful if you misspell someone's username). --Interiot 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style tips

Hello, and welcome! A remark. Per the math style manual, variables should be either italic, like this: x, or in math tags, like this: x. I will now fix this at orientability. Thanks, and I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page about the font issue. Thanks for your work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition lists

The semi-colon - colon setup is for making definition lists:

A

The first letter

B

The second letter

etc. When I made the changes it worked fine, but it seems the parser has changed since then. ed g2s • talk 12:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It's proved that TPC is true if Riemann Hypothesis is false"

Well, it's possible that s/he was mixing this up with another statement (but I regard this as unlikely). It goes like this. Consider the statements

• (A) for all (pi is the prime counting function), and
• (B) there are infinitely many "prime k-tuples" for any "admissible" k-tuple.

What I mean in (B) is that e.g. there are infinitely many twin primes, there are infinitely primes p such that p+4, p+6 are both prime, and more generally for any k-tuple, there are infinitely many of that k-tuple which are all prime, unless the k-tuple is "inadmissible", which means there is some "obvious" congruence condition which rules out all the members being prime. (For example, p, p+2, p+4 is inadmissible, because at least one of them is divisible by 3). Both (A) and (B) sound like pretty reasonable conjectures.... but it turns out that (A) and (B) are incompatible. Unlike WAREL, I have a reference! ("On the incompatibility of two conjectures concerning primes", Hensley/Richards, 1972). I haven't actually read it though, but I remember one of my professors talking about it some time ago. My money is on (B). And I guess it's vaguely possible that (A) has something to do with RH, since both are concerned with large-scale distribution of primes. But probably not :-). Dmharvey 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a very interesting result but, as you say, almost certainly completely unconnected with WAREL's mysterious proclamation. :-) Perhaps he misunderstood some non-notable publication on arxiv. Elroch 18:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compass and straightedge

Please comment. John Reid 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You raised a number of issues on the talk page and I broke them out here. I'd appreciate more suggestions from you, particularly about graphics. John Reid 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replied. John Reid 01:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAREL RfC

I've filed an RfC against User:WAREL. I listed you as a person who had attempted resolution with him, but it was called to my attention that it would have been better to let you add your own name if you were interested. So I've removed you from the list. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truncating the truncatable

Hi Elroch, thanks for your kind comments on my talk page. I am watching the Prime number article quite closely, because I think it is an important topic that should be brought to featured article status eventually, but it requires a lot of cleanup, reorganisation, etc. My contributions to the truncatable prmes was only a drop in the ocean... Cheers, Schutz 19:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Elroch! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi

Thanks for expanding the entry on pseudocompactness

Vipul

Vipul 13:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

[edit] name change of article Edward Seykota

Hello fellow futures trader...

Please vote on the name change of article Edward Seykota , please vote here Talk:Edward Seykota wether you Oppose or Approve.
Thank you.
Trade2tradewell 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trends in stock markets

Hi Elroch and thank you for your comment on my talk page. The main reason why I believe that there is no solid scientific evidence for trends in stock markets are the writings of Burton Malkiel. If such trends existed, they would also have to be impossible (or at least very difficult) to detect other than in retrospect, as traders would otherwise sell their stocks at the beginning of a "downtrend". I agree with you that the question is interesting, but not that "everyone with a common sense can see" that e.g. Nikkei 225 "was in downtrend for some time". If I generate a couple of hundred Wiener processes on my computer I would also see some which appear to be trending.

To show that I am wrong and that there really are trends in markets, it would be good to start by elucidating what a trend is, i.e. defining the concept. I would argue that knowledge of the direction of the market over some time T in the past should help you determine the direction of the market tomorrow. Once a definition is in place the criteria can be tested against the Nikkei 225 and compared to the probability of obtaining the same outcome from aptly chosen stochastic processes that do not exhibit trends. Finally, this probability has to be weighed against the fact that you choose the Nikkei 225 because you believe it exhibits trends; there are several hundred stock markets in the world and with so many realisations of stochastic processes some might exhibit trending by chance even if the underlying processes lack trends.

Once again, thanks for your interesting comment. If you can prove conclusively the existence of trends in financial markets I would indeed be most interested in hearing about it. Filur 12:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You originally claimed that the non-existence of trends had been proved. Do you still assert this? Above, you claim that trends could not exist because if they did exist, traders would get in at the start of them. This is a surprising claim relying on more than one incorrect assumption. Firstly, if this was true, it would not prevent trends occuring, it would just make them happen more quickly. Secondly, this is exactly what does occur in market crashes (highly directional fast falls in a market that are short term trends by any sensible definition). Thirdly, traders have a continuum of thresholds of response, which is why trends do not occur instantaneously. Traders do respond to price: some respond in a way which makes them consistently profitable, others respond in a way which loses them money. It is the aim of a trader to fall into the first class.

You are right to point out that trends occur in random data: I have produced many such data sets and have noticed some that most people would identify as having a strong trend. I don't view the existence of trends in the market as the key thing that makes it possible to make money. The question of whether markets trend, or more precisely whether they trend more than a random walk (which we would probably agree exhibits trends with a frequency determined by probability, but is not tradable), is not the most important one. The question is whether the market will sometimes reach identifiable situations where the probability of a particular trend is high enough to make it profitable to trade. All directional traders believe this, and those that are consistently successful provide strong evidence that it is true.

One thing that makes this true is that markets sometimes become overbought and oversold on some time scale. For example, the NASDAQ was overbought according to fundamentals at the start of 2000, due to a huge preceding bull market, where traders showed little concern for conventional value metrics. The resulting correction produced a series of shocks throughout a bear market (this is why I selected this example). The NIKKEI is similar, but looking at the chart, there were two downtrends in the move down from 40,000 to less than 8,000 with a lengthy consolidation between them. The first one is the one I would choose as a key example, resulting from an overbought market (the second phase could be viewed as due to coupling to the US markets which went into a bear market from 2000). The move up in the US markets and many others from lows in 2003 could be viewed as the opposite situation, on the grounds that stocks had become attractively cheap. This ensuing uptrend was very strong for some time.

Of course practical short term traders seek small trends within such huge trends, but I think I have rambled enough for now. Elroch 02:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Userbox alternative

A while back, I devised what I think is an interesting way to express interests without Userboxes, templated or not. They are User Interest Lists. They allow for freedom of speech on User pages, while eliminating the social networking that creates dangerous currents of conflict on WP. They are slowly catching on as you will see from the short but growing list of users using them. (There's also no rule saying you can't use both boxes and the list!) Go have a look and give me your feedback. Thanks! - Nhprman 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to something new, although to be honest the main reason I have any interest in userboxes is as a way to share nice graphics. It's great to meet someone here from such an interesting corner of the world! Elroch 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User green energy

Before i saw the talk on Jimbo's Page i have been subst the template using WP:AWB. Only 55 more pages to go. Sorry if i'm doing Irreversable Damage but as we say

If you cant Keep it Subst it

--E-Bod 02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is a far more sensible way to implement the policy against userboxes of certain types than deleting them. I am pleased to have made use of (my derivative of) your replacement for the userbox. Elroch 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intutitive definition of Plane

Hi ElRoch,

I thought I would consult someone before editing it in. I picked you at random. I would like to know if you would agree. I intend to add to Line 2 of article Plane the following:

"Intuitively it may be visualized as a flat infinite sheet of paper" of zero thickness (add italicized text)Subhash 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to Article designation for definition of Plane

Read Plane (mathematics) instead of Plane

Subhash 16:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggested wording is an improvement. Elroch 00:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Ed Seykota article

There is an improvement drive for the Ed Seykota article; you have contributed before. I am requesting your help!
Trade2tradewell 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elephants

About a month ago you removed some population figures because you said they were unreferenced. I was slightly confused by this as both numbers are referenced in the footnotes (272,000 in 2000 - http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/html/cites.html and 400,000-660,000 in 2003 - http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2001_2005/press/afele.pdf) Makgraf 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful observation. Looking back at the version I edited, I failed to notice that footnote 2 contained 3 separate references. However, there is a more fundamental problem with these figures. While they can be referenced as estimates of elephant populations, it is completely implausible that the 2000 and 2003 estimates are correct. It is clearly not credible that the world population of elephants increased by between 50% and 100% in three years. Elroch 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Elroch 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't see you'd written here. The difference between the 2000 and 2004 figures is because there have been increases in Botswana, Tanzania and Zimbabwe; more elephants are entering protected areas where surveys and conducted and a larger area was covered in the 2004 survey. Makgraf 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas -  uriel8  (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics CotW

Hey Elroch, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-carcinogens

Hi Elroch how're you?

I will probably end up removing your entry to anti-carcinogen for several reasons. One the article is about anti-carcinogens not carcinogens. Secondly you haven't stated what chemicals cause cancer. What do you mean by 'some chemicals must'? Carbon monoxide is a known carcinogen, smoking will always have a cancer risk attached to it. However there is a lot of evidence out there that smoking cannabis does not lead to cancer. http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070417/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071226004546.htm

Dr. Donald Tashkin study proves how marijuana doesn't increase chances of lung cancer at all. A whole interview with the doctor is on youtube, just type "marijuana lung cancer study" or you can find the article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F83414B7F0000

I could put all that crap on the article but what's the point? The article is about known anti-carcinogens, there is little point in talking about the carcinogenic activity of carbon monoxide and placing the blame on that carcinogenic effect on smoking cannabis. Are you aware you can vapourise or eat cannabis and cut out smoking altogether. Cannabinoids are not carcinogens.

Also some links you may be interested in.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n0... On this video filmed in 2006, Dr. Robert Melamede, Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado, explains how the body's Endo-Cannabinoid system (and plant based Cannabinoids as suppliment) kills cancer cells and inhibits tumor growth. Refering to 1974 U.S.government-sponsored study when THC was found to slow growth of cancer cells http://projectcensored.org/publicatio... and to recent research in Spain finding that THC stopped brain tumors in rats and protected surrounding nerve tissue, demonstrating neuroprotectant aspect of Cannabinoids. PDF of Dr. Guzman's research: http://americanmarijuana.org/Guzman-C... Refering to "Homeostatic Regulation" of several body systems by Cannabinoids, Dr. Melamede concludes that Cannabis is indeed a "Miracle Drug", also recommending hemp oil as excellent source of EFAs the body needs to fight disease. View Dr. Robert Melamede at 2004 Cannabis Therapeutics Conference: "Holistic Biochemistry of Cannabinoids" http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... Dr. Guzman will be at the 2008 Cannabis Therapeutics Conference this April. More info: http://www.medicalcannabis.com

And a short video by Robert Melamede of the university of Colorado. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg Supposed (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your views, Supposed. It is true that there is published work that disputes that smoking cannabis causes cancer. However, an unbiased review of the literature finds considerable support for the view that it probably does, which is not surprising, given the cocktail of active chemicals it sends straight to the lungs. Of course this is quite separate from the evidence that use is associated with other respiratory diseases, and the very solid evidence that it causes mental disorders (which is likely to be due to the main constituents). As a result there is is little point in my opinion discussing the medical benefits of smoking cannabis, as the side effects alone are too serious. The chemicals in cannabis are a different matter, but it seemed important to not allow readers to be given the impression that there is evidence of overall benefits to health from smoking cannabis, which appears to be wishful thinking by some partakers. However, your statements refer only to the individual chemicals, so this is not really necessary.

Perhaps more significantly, the article is about "anticarcinogens", not about anti-cancer drugs, which is the application proposed in a reference you proposed. The term "anticarcinogen" is not very widely used, but it more commonly (and correctly) used about agents that prevent the causing of cancer, rather than about chemicals that act against cancers and precancerous cells. I take the blame for having expanded the introductory definitions rather too broadly. Elroch (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Elroch no problem. I would like you to find evidence though that the actual chemicals in cannabis cause cancer. Lastly "the very solid evidence that it causes mental disorders (which is likely to be due to the main constituents)." This is not true. There is certainly not solid evidence that consuming cannabis causes mental disorders, the jury is still very much out on this. However just as with cancer, the media tend to exagerate the research which links the two together whilst ignoring the evidence which says it does not. A good starting point, is to consider how the international rates of schizophrenia and related mental illness have barely changed since records began. If cannabis caused schizophrenia we would be seeing an epidemic of schizophrenia because cannabis use has increased over the last 50 years. I believe these rates are also lower in Holland where cannabis has been dercrimilinised. Note also that CBD is an anti-psychotic and second only to THC in the composition of cannabis. *Cannabidiol One of the main psychoactive components of cannabis. A recent study has shown cannabidiol to be as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating schizophrenia. [3]Supposed (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Searches on pubmed.org make it very difficult to believe that chronic smoking of cannabis does not cause a wide range of health problems [4], unless one is predisposed to believe otherwise, due to some motivation to favour cannabis. I consider myself neutral, as I have no particular bias. Some of the components of marihuana may well have therapeutic value in carefully chosen doses, but regularly breathing in the cocktail of chemicals as smoke causes several well-documented health problems. General respiratory problems arise from regular breathing in of any kind of smoke (even cooking fires in primitive societies), and the unlikely idea that marihuana has magic components that avoid any such problems are wishful thinking [5] (Dr. Tashkin points out the dangers other than lung cancer) [6]. There is solid evidence of increased risk of certain cancers associated with smoking cannabis. Theories that those predisposed to such cancers are inclined to smoke more marihuana instinctively (but it it does not succeed in reducing their risk) are far-fetched to say the least. [7][8][9] [10]

And you probably noticed that the scientific American article that you referenced, which carefully selected Tashkin's one negative finding, referenced another article showing a fourfold increase in depression among cannabis smokers, in line with findings for the use of other drugs that stimulate the pleasure centre of the brain directly. [11]

Perhaps slightly more relevant to the article on anticarcinogens is the point made in [12] that there is as yet no evidence cannabinoids having anticancer effects in humans, (only in vitro and in mice), and points out some effects of cannabinoids that are detrimental to cancer sufferers.