User talk:JRSpriggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost
Pointers:
Category:Ordinal numbers, Category:Cardinal numbers, Category:Set theory, Category:Root-finding algorithms, Category:Proof theory, Category:Mathematical logic, Category:General relativity, Category:Hyperbolic geometry, Category:Go

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Relativity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

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

ordinal number, ordinal arithmetic, large countable ordinal, ordinal notation, User:JRSpriggs/Ordinal notation

Constructible universe, implicational propositional calculus, harmonic coordinate condition,

Need work:
Covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism, Electromagnetic stress-energy tensor

Resources:

• Category:Wikipedia help, control-shift-R reloads, Wikipedia:Purge,
• Help:Displaying a formula,
• How to edit a page, Help pages, How to write a great article, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page,
• Special:Uncategorizedpages, Wikipedia:Subpages#Listing_subpages,
• 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, Template:Deletiontools
• 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/
• Python Wikipediabot Framework
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism,Template:TestTemplates, Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, /V, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
• random math page

Archives:

• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 1
• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 2

Contents 1 Reverting Your Reversion to Ordinal Notation 2 Mass-energy 3 replacement/collection 4 Kilogram v.s. volt 5 Prod and AfD 6 Brent's method 7 Regarding your reversions of the term "G-unit" in Gravitational constant

[edit] Reverting Your Reversion to Ordinal Notation

I understand that narrower notion might be how the term ordinal notation is used in proof theory and the like but I'm writing up my thesis right now in computability theory and I can quickly find you several references that use the term ordinal notation to refer to Kleene's O since that is standard terminology in my field. If you wish to further clarify that in SOME areas ordinal notation refers to the specific notion you mention go ahead but standard usage in one area shouldn't be deleted just because that isn't the way you use the term. Also the obviously NPOV violation about Kleene's O needs to stay out of the article.

Just what I found in 5 minutes: "Hyperarithmetical Index Sets In Recursion Theory" by Stephen Lempp "Constructive Ordinal Notation Systems" by Fredrick Gass "Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability" by Hartley Rogers. (p205)

The last one is particularly definitive as he doesn't just use the term but straight out defines what it means to be an ordinal notation, credits the notion to Kleene and the book is considered one of THE reference books for recursion theory. Logicnazi (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

F.Y.I. My thesis was on ordinal notations. I will respond further at Talk:Ordinal notation. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since your thesis was on ordinal notations, you might be able to answer the following question: can you recommend a "standard" system of ordinal notations for wikipedia to use for impredicative ordinals? R.e.b. (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To R.e.b.: Thank you for your work on articles about large countable ordinals and ordinal notations. I am not in touch with the latest developments. I worked on my thesis thirty years ago. As of that time, there was no standard set of notations. And as I indicated on the talk page, "...no scheme of ordinal notations could include notations for all recursive ordinals without also either: including some "notations" for things which are not ordinals (types of pseudo-well-orders); or being non-effective (non-recursive) and thus not being usable for communication by human beings.". This implies that no standard is possible for the larger recursive ordinals.

I get the impression from your edits that you know more than I do about this subject (except for my own original and unpublished system of notations). The best reference I have in my possession is Larry W. Miller's "Normal functions and constructive ordinal notations". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass-energy

While it is certainly your right to undo changes you think are "wrong and misleading" in general relativity, please note that the article is currently undergoing peer review, and that the change in question was in direct response to a reviewer's request. It would be very helpful if you could lay out your reasons of reverting the change on the review page. Otherwise, the reviewer might well wonder why a change that I claimed had been made is suddenly not there any more. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] replacement/collection

I saw you rephrased the axiom names at the ZFC article. Kunen does call that axiom "replacement", so there may be some confused comments on the talk page. My personal opinion is that it's a losing battle to try to use the Right Word for ZFC axioms, because the literature is hopelessly contradictory about the terms replacement/collection/bounding and specification/selection/comprehension. But I appreciate that other people may be more eager for precise terminology. Anyway, I have no plans of changing the terms back, since that would just prolong this very minor issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kilogram v.s. volt

JRSpriggs, can you help me out here? Note the first paragraph of the Kilogram article, here. Of all the SI units of meausure, those last few sentences of that paragraph don’t mention the volt because I left it out on purpose and left a short editors note explaining why—the kilogram appears once in the numerator and denominator of the formula describing the volt (V = ^W⁄_A). Random832 changed it after concluding (erroneously I believe) that the volt would be affected by a change in the kilogram. Well, as you know, a volt is defined by the BIPM as a W/A. Here’s a short nutshell of it all.

• V = ^W⁄_A
  
• W = ^J⁄_S = J·s^–1
  
• J = N·m
  
• N = m·kg·s^–2
  
• The second and the meter are the other SI base units (the ampere being the first) but I won’t bother with them since we all know what they are and they are immaterial to this discussion.

Thus, we can define the volt in all the following equivalencies:

V = ^W⁄_A = ^J·s–1⁄_A = ^{(N·m)·s–1}⁄_A = ^{(m·kg·s–2)·m·s–1}⁄_A = ^{(m·kg·s–2)·m·s–1}⁄_{K · 2 × 10^–7 N} = ^{(m·kg·s–2)·m·s–1}⁄_{K · 2 × 10^–7 (m·kg·s^–2)}

My conclusion of course is that since the newton (and therefore the kilogram) appear only once each in the numerator and denominator, the value of the volt is unaffected by changes in the kilogram. Details are here on Talk:Kilogram and my full reasoning is here. Can you help me out here? Greg L (my talk) 00:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To Greg_L: From briefly looking at the talk page, I think that you have already realized that you were mistaken. The Ampere is proportional to the square-root of the kilogram. Thus the Volt is also proportional to the square-root of the kilogram. Sorry. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prod and AfD

Actually, it may make sense to have all three {{db}}, {{prod}}, and {{AfD}} on the same article. In Dwyer function, I brought the AfD because an editor was disputing the prod, and might actually have gotten around to removing it. But, if you want to remove the Prod, I really can't object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We both believe that that editor did not want the PROD to go forward and cause deletion on Friday. Apparently, he failed to remove it because he does not yet understand our system. And he was making attempts to improve the article in the hope of saving it. So I removed the PROD for him.

I also feel that having more than one of those templates on the article at the same time is an abuse of the process. People have a hard enough time understanding even one of them. Being confronted with two or three simultaneously just makes it more difficult for them to figure out what they should do. And why waste people's time with an AfD until the PROD is gone? Anyhow, doing both seems like double jeopardy to me. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to have the entire Wikipedia:walled garden on approximately the same schedule. The professor went to AfD, so I felt his function should also. Note that, although created by the same author, the equation is being protected by a student, so he might not be aware of the other article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your desire to finish this process, but my reservations remain about multiple templates. By the way, could it be that the professor and his student are the same person? Especially since both are named "John". JRSpriggs (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. They seem to have different writing styles, and the student has a personal web site corresponding to the name of another co-author of one of the papers. If they're the same, then it would seem there's fraud going on outside of Wikipedia in the related sites. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one's photograph is of an middle-aged man, the other of a teenage boy. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brent's method

Hello, Could you please take a look at a question I asked on Talk:Brent's method? Thanks a lot for your help. laug (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my answer there. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your reversions of the term "G-unit" in Gravitational constant

I have the page on my watchlist and noticed this slow-pace semi-editwar and would like to point out that perhaps discussing the changes with the IP address would help to either stop this from happening or come to agreement of it's addition. And also, please remember that if you revert the user more that three times in 24 hours you are liable to be blocked (WP:3RR) and that civility is a must.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the 3RR rule and I am nowhere near violating it in this case. I have only reverted that change twice and the second reversion was more than 42 hours after the first. Do you have any evidence that that "G-unit" is actually used to mean "gravitational constant"?

It just seems like vandalism (and possibly spam advertising the G-Unit band) to me. Notice that (so far at least) user 152.1.53.8 (talk · contribs) has only two edits to his name, both to the same effect. This is common among a certain class of vandal.

By the way, I have not said anything uncivil to him; I just reverted him with "rvv" as the edit summary in the first case and no edit summary in the second case. You are mistaken in thinking that I was uncivil to you earlier. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also aware that your two reversions are spaced far apart, my idea was that the vandal would attempt to perform that addition more that four times in a day and you would revert it, thus violating 3RR and potentially getting yourself blocked. A quick Google Books search turned up a few mentions of the term [1] (but this is probably just coming from the term G being paired with unit, not necessarily making it a colloquial) which may explain why this user tried to add the term to the article. I know that you have not been uncivil to this user, but sometimes when editors become frustrated, they can take their anger out on the newbies and bite them. In regards to your response to me on gravitational constant, the past is past, but please keep in mind in the future that what may not be perceived as an insult to yourself, may be perceived as one by the recipient ("Please do not edit articles which you know nothing about" may seem like a simple request to some [Me] but to someone with a hot head, it may be seen as an insult to their intelligence because you have made such a statement on one edit alone).  Atyndall93 | talk  02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As you say, these examples appear to be merely accidental — a "g" followed by a "unit" having no connection to each other. And they have no relationship to the gravitational constant in any case.

A truthful and relevant comment should not be construed as an insult.

However, unnecessary "advice" or "corrections", especially if mistaken, may be insulting. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)