User talk:Gandalf61/Archive2

Chaos/Bios

Hi Gandalf, I wrote response to your question on my talk page Lakinekaki, I don't know how to put a date!

Hi Gandalf, I asked you a question on the chaos theory talk page, and will appreciate your answer.Lakinekaki 07:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, that is a reasonable action! I agree with your correction/clarification. Lakinekaki 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All or almost all?

The words "almost all" added to the the article Mathematical beauty imply that there are areas of physics which do not have a mathematical basis. I am not aware that this is so: could you be more specific? If these two words were added to be careful not to overstate the facts, but on due consideration there are not any known counterexamples, they whould be best removed. Elroch 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

Hi Gandalf. I sometimes forget that the other guy can't see my body language or hear my nonverbals. It was quite reasonable for you to get what I wrote (about you not speaking for me) as unfriendly and aggressive. I'm sorry about that, because that was not my intention. It was meant to sound assertive but friendly. My skills failed me. Then to argue the interpretation in open forum (or at all) was not particularly good manners, so that's another wake up call for me. Thanks for the lessons. Go well. JackofOz 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Number theory

Hi. The second paragraph on the etymology is out of place - get into the general areas what number theory is about instead. Is it limited to integers? Is there no number theory about complex numbers, etc? They way the intro is stated it makes it seem as if NT is a misnomer for integer theory. Its just not clear on the generalities. -Ste|vertigo 14:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Its an editorial issue, not a math issue - be explanatory. -Ste|vertigo 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fibonacci prime

Are you even going to respond to my reply? You have been clearly wrong so far, and now suddenly cannot respond because you have no excuse for your mathematical inferiority, for which you now must realize. I did'nt want to become a wiki code guru, in fact Visual Studio is challenging enough, so do not impose your wishes that I conform to standards that do not exist, but only in your mind. The Fibonacci divisors section you created, should be moved back to the Fibonacci number page, except the GCD(Fp,Fn) part. This will be included in the Fibonacci prime section no matter what you think about it. Divineprime today

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cut-the-knot P-adic analysis Deduction theorem Bohr–Mollerup theorem Theory of equations Method of exhaustion Hénon map Jacques Hadamard Pronic number Bifurcation theory Modular function Number system WCWM Hilbert's program Lens space Algebraic integer Thomas Hales Discrete spectrum Sphenic number

Cleanup Circumcircle Effective results in number theory Professor's Cube Merge Partition function (number theory) Contact (mathematics) Reductio ad absurdum Add Sources Orientability Serge Lang Random walk Wikify Probability interpretations Great Wall Youth Orchestra Steve DeVito Expand Evangelista Torricelli Poisson integral formula Russian School of Mathematics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Grave concerns about Bios theory and User:Lakinekaki

Hi, I see you also find reason to doubt the claims made by the author of this article. On the talk page I have listed my objections to the first paragraph and have also drawn attention to the fact that Lakinaki is not only apparently the sole author of this article, but is also in real life one Lazar Kovacevic (BSEE, University of Belgrade) of Chicago, who apparently is employed at the very organization which is actively promoting "bios theory" (sic)! I find this very troubling and am seeking comments on what to do about it. ---CH 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fibonacci number

Hey, thanks for helping out with Fibonacci number! I hope you don't think I'm giving you a hard time; it's just that I've seen plenty of examples of people trying to link the Fibonacci numbers to unrelated things, even on Wikipedia. Melchoir 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Circular number

The source is already in the article. I also found the term defined in an encyclopedia from 1728, and numerous other dictionaries and encyclopedias since then. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 15:08

Re: Mandelbrot set

You wrote: I notice you placed a wikify tag on Mandelbrot set. Apart from the style issue that you mentioned in your edit comment, do you have any other specific reasons for tagging the article ? If so, perhaps you can list them on the article's talk page. Your concerns are much more likely to be addressed if other contributors can see exactly what they are. Thanks. Gandalf61 08:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen any response to the above request. Personally, I can't see why the article merits a wikify tag. Unless you can explain your concerns, I think I may just remove the tag. Gandalf61 09:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond/was unclear, I haven't checked in a few days :P. I glanced over the whole article briefly, and I noticed things like the structure of the references section (which is non-standard), words in some sections that are bold (which shouldn't be), and headings that are of the wrong level (=== instead of ==). Again, sorry if I wasn't clear, I will repeat some of these things in the article's talk page (or I'll fix them myself :D ). Thanks for the messages and your interest! J. Finkelstein 16:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking responses on Mathematics ref. desk

(Discussion moved from KSmrq talk)

I noticed you blanked out my response to "Proof?" on the mathemtics ref. desk. That seems very rude to me - how would feel if someone went around blanking out your responses ? A much better approach would have been to put your concerns on my talk page, and ask me if I would consider re-writing my response. I understand all about "do your own homework", but notice that my response does not give the questioner a full solution, because it does not give him the simpler equation that results from making the two substitutions - he has to work this out for himself. Gandalf61 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. First of all, KSmrq commented out your reply, he did not delete it. So he's not making it impossible for the interested user to read your solution, rather just delaying that event. I think that perhaps this mitigates the rudeness factor. I note that KSmrq has spent time telling answer-people not to post solutions, and telling question-people how to ask smart questions. He also tends to give long thoughtful educational replies to elementary level questions of the kind that I can't be bothered to answer. In fact, I look forward to reading KS's replies, even when I already know the answer. The point is, I think his refactorings make the help desk a better place, and he should be allowed some leeway. As for whether your reply was too close to a complete solution or not, I have no opinion myself, but I agree with KS's intentions in general. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf61, I appreciate your concerns, and am very reluctant to remove any comments — including deliberately provocative and nasty ones — from a typical talk page. The guidelines for the reference desk are different, because its intent is different.

It is a juggling act for all of us to know how much to say and how much to withhold when the question has all the earmarks of homework. We do no favors to anyone by providing cut and paste homework solutions. We harm the questioner by teaching them that cheating is acceptable and works better than learning to understand and reason. We harm those who would prefer to offer substantive help and education by inviting a flood of more homework questions.

In this particular case, I felt that your post crossed the line. It went beyond teaching and assisting, though it did some of that as well. Also, it was premature, since it did not allow the questioner to try the previous suggestions and either succeed (good) or fail and return to ask for further assistance (also good).

As lethe points out, rather than deleting your post I commented it out with a remark about my concern. I do wish that you had done something to respond to that concern. For example, I would have been less troubled by a post that said only something like:

• "Try substituting x = a−1, y = b−1 to get a simpler equation in x and y."

That would be a hint that demanded more manipulation and insight. Instead you proceeded to solutions, leaving only a trivial backsubstitution. It's not quite a blow-by-blow proof (for integers), but it's so close as makes little difference.

Changing your words was not an option; you wrote them and you signed them. Leaving the words visible to provide a solution was also not acceptable. I don't see that a note on your talk page would have been better than leaving the note where I did, where you were sure to see it if you were interested.

I appreciate that you wanted to be helpful and share your insight, and I do not wish to stifle that impulse.

If you can suggest a better way to proceed in future (without leaving the answer visible), please do. --KSmrq^T 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)