User talk:ArnoldReinhold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello, I've just bumped into your work on STU-III, Fortezza and elsewhere; thanks, great work, and Welcome to Wikipedia! You've just written two articles that I wanted to read ;-) If you're interested in writing more on cryptography, you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography helpful. Hope to see you around, anyway. — Matt 22:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I had looked at the Cryptography Project page and saw STU-III was "wanted." Not sure if this is the right way to reply. I've created an account for myself: ArnoldReinhold (copied from User talk:66.31.41.253)
Yep, I think that's the right way to reply. An easy way to sign your posts is to use a string of "~"'s; three puts your username (~~~), while four adds the date too (~~~~). Are you the Arnold Reinhold of DiceWare fame? — Matt 03:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's me. Sorry for the delay in replying. I thought when i checked "Remember my password" i'd be loggged in automagically. Guess not.

Contents

[edit] Note about WikiReader Cryptography

Hi, just a quick note to let you know about the project for a WikiReader in Cryptography; we're running an "Article a Day" scheme to polish up articles to a reasonable standard: Template:WikiReaderCryptographyAOTD. — Matt 01:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi there, I noticed your edits to the railway-related articles! Good to have another editor in that area, whether you have a passing interest or are an out-and-out "trainspotter" :-) Just some handy info:

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. You can introduce yourself on the new users page.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or contributing: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

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!

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


zoney ♣ talk 15:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and tips. I consider myself more of a raifan and advocate for public transportation.""

[edit] Category merger

Thanks very much for the merger of Train stations and railway stations, but . . . the consensus was to merge them into railway stations, rather than train stations! I might get around to fixing this at some later stage. At any rate, your effort is still appreciated. Lacrimosus 21:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked, but there were a lot more entries under Train stations, so I took that as both a vote and the path of least resistance." --agr 02:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] KW-26

Nice article on KW-26 — thanks! — Matt 09:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] EC-121

Hi there - sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but we're not able to use material from the USAF Museum website. Although hosted on a .mil server, it's explicitly not public domain (see here).

After seeing the great work you've done on cryptography topics, I'm glad to see you're interested in creating articles on aircraft as well. Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft for the project that attempts to co-ordinate these efforts, and in particular, the page content guidelines. Cheers --Rlandmann 12:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I assumed it was a US Government publication. I've posted a stub per instructions based on my general knowledge, not the USAF Museum site. --agr 13:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] KL-7

Hi, I've dropped a note at Talk:KL-7. Thanks, by the way, for your recent contribs. I've especially enjoyed NSA encryption systems. — Matt 12:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Route 128 Station

Hello ArnoldReinhold, article on Route 128 Station is very useful and well written. It was shocking to find it listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I voted to keep it, and I think Wikipedia is the better for articles like it. Fg2 11:09, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply notification

Hi! I've replied at Talk:Bombe. — Matt 16:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vernam cipher

Moved to Talk:Vernam cipher

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article security token, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

[edit] Multilicensing

I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

The above also applies to my contributions to articles on transportation topics.

Minor edits multi-licensed into the public domain
I agree to multi-license my eligible text contributions marked as minor edits, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my minor edit contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.

[edit] Category:Board game Risk

Hey, I just stumbled across this category. I listed it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, not for deletion, but for renaming. More standard disambiguation, I think, would be Category:Risk (game), as the article is Risk (game). I just wanted to let you know because I wouldn't normally list a category right after it's been created. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Here is a copy of what I posted to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: I'm the one who came up with the name. I couldn't find a clear policy nor an example of a category that used the parentheses disambiguation convention used for articles. The closest I could find in Wikipedia:Categorization is "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. Example: "Wikipedia policy precedents and examples", not "Precedents and examples" (a sub-category of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines")." If parentheses disambiguation is in fact the way to do it, I think Risk (game) should be the choice to match the article. I'd be happy to make the corrections, based on whatever is the consensus. --agr 01:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are right to point out that the parenthetical model is not as widely used for categories. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (country). Maybe we can think of something better. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Category has been renamed to Category:Risk (game). RedWolf 05:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acoustic cryptanalysis

Thanks for starting this. I'm looking forward to reading Asonov and Agrawal's paper; it's a topic that's crossed my mind a few times last year, and it's nice to see some research emerge in the open community. (My personal conspiracy theory is that the SIGINT agencies have been up on this sort of thing for quite some time...) I thought I'd also point you to the new "project digest", which notes the revision you did at Password. Thanks again! — Matt Crypto 22:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I like the project digest. It suggests to me a new kind of page I have't seen before on Wikipedia, a photo index. I'm thinking of a page, maybe called Cryptography photo index, that would have thumbnails, maybe not everything, but at least one per article containing a photo or diagram. with the thumbnails linked to the article. --agr 19:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is surprisingly difficult to get Wikipedia to link an image to an article rather than to the image description page, but other than that, I'd probably be able to coerce one of my scripts to do something along these lines (User:Matt Crypto/CryptoStats/ArticleHits included images from all the articles). — Matt Crypto
It's a nice report. What time frame do those hit counts represent? By the way, the template PD-USGov-NSA does not actually say that the item is in the public domain as a work of the US Government. Perhaps you should add the text from PD-USGov. Also, I would prefer to say that the work came from a publicly available source, rather than it is believed not to be classified. Other than public availability and lack of markings to the contrary, we have no insight as to what is classified and what isn't.--agr 22:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The hits are for a single month, October 2004. That month, "Enigma machine" was featured on the Main Page, hence the disproportionate skew towards that article and various related topics. — Matt Crypto 03:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] road-stub?

Thanks for writing some articles on the MBTA stations. One minor thing - you should probably tag them {{rail-stub}} rather than Template:Tl road-stub. --SPUI (talk) 12:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, with the navingational boxes at the bottom, I created them a while back, but I fear they're overly complex and inflexible. I've more recently been working with the NYC Subway - DeKalb Avenue and 42nd Street-Grand Central are two examples of stations with navboxes that I feel are easier to deal with. Something similar (but less complicated, due to the boringness of Boston's subway) could be done here. Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 12:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Susvolans has come up with the even better {{metro-stub}}. I need a course in remedial stub. I kind of like the nav boxes on the MBTA system with the splash of color. Indicating the terminus stations is more important in Boston since that is how many lines are refered to. In some ways, Boston is less boring in some ways because there is more inermodalism. It would be nice to include that in the navigation boxes. I tried using the templates you made, but didn't know what to do at the termini (see what I did at Lechmere (MBTA station)) and how th handle the Green Line branches. I'm happy to trust your judgement on this. --agr 15:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] welcome

AR, (legendary intials those, any connection to Villchur?)

I've noticed that we've been tripping over each other at several crypto corner articles, and I've been glad to see your contributions, for which thanks. And now that you've made it formal and joined the WikiProject, welcome.

You have surely found that we have one of the more active organizers and structure builders on the whole Wiki in Matt -- you'll find it hard to keep up. But trying builds a better WP, so it's worth it. We're making progress, I think a lot of it, and we may get where I've been trying to noodge the crypto corner eventually.

Welcome again. ww 20:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was a place to fromally sign up before. :) I agree that it's getting to be a good collection of information on cyrptography. --agr 23:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude and longitude

Do you know of any good way to find this accurately without trial and error? I typically use Terraserver, but it is often a few blocks off. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask you the same question. I had to use trial and error on 190th St. It's near where I grew up, so I know it well. I might also do 181 and 175 and the GW Bridge Bus Station using the 190th article as a template and will need the coordinates. I'll look around and report back. --agr 18:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge on Water Law and Water Rights

You put a merge notice on Water law and Water rights about a month ago, and since then there have been only two comments on the Water rights talk page, both against a merger. I'd appreciate it if you could tell us why you think they should be merged, or remove the merge notice. Thanks, Toiyabe 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

They seemed to be two short articles on basicly the same subject, one with a European view point and the other with a U.S. view point. If people want to develop the articles separately, I'm happy to withdraw my merge suggestion, but the articles should at least reference each other (and water quality as one of the comments points out. ) --agr 02:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morin surface

>>Do you know of, or have any interest in creating, a GFDL illustration of Morin surface? I'd like one for the article on Bernard Morin and maybe Smale's paradox--agr 15:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)<<

Yes, indeed: glad you asked. I have uploaded an image and added it unto the Bernard Morin article. I made that image some time ago. I still haven't made a complete version with "passage barriers", but I have the blue print and the code so maybe I'll get back into this. --AugPi 04:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer law & spyware

Hi! I noticed that you created the category Category:Computer law. If this is a subject on which you have particular knowledge, I wonder if you'd be willing to review the law section on the article Spyware? Thanks! --FOo 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AN/CYZ-10

Hi Arnold,

see this diff. At the Administor's noticeboard it has been suggested that you cite the sources you have for that article to make sure it really isn't classified information. Could you do that? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. --agr 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite

Hi, why do you remove Italy from the list? I think San Marco 1 weren't launched with the aid of others country. (sorry for my english) --SγωΩηΣ tαlk 16:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that San Marco 1 used U.S. launch vehicle, the Scout. See http://www.univ-perp.fr/fuseurop/sanma_e.htm If you have different information, please let me know.--agr 16:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fitzmas

Thanks for noting the CNET story in the debate about deleting Fitzmas. It's a valuable addition to the discussion, as a good indication that the article should be kept. I've also added a reference to it on Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005. There's a similar entry in the September 21-30 section -- a London Times article that cites a person's Wikipedia article as evidence of his importance. JamesMLane 10:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. --agr 14:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] causality and QM

Hi,

I checked out your own site. Interesting. You've been doing computer stuff forever, compared to me. I built an EZ-80 around when the Z-80 first came out, (wire wrap on perf board), and later put together a couple of "Big Board" computers (later to become the first Xerox 820s (I have the circuit boards to prove it), Kaypros, and DEC Robins). But anyway I'm writing because of the comments you put up on the causality article. I agree with what you said. But Ingham, the person who inserted that stuff, is a bright guy who reminds me of lots of my physics major cohorts who were inarticulate when you took calculus out of the picture. I suspect that he may actually have something to say, and if that is the case it should not be lost because some editors of Wikipedia are impatient and zap out anything that seems questionable to them. On the other hand I have spent 20-30 fruitless hours trying to get a separate line on what he is talking about. Others tell me it is vanilla QM stuff, but if that is the case he has even more of a problem communicating than I had recognized. I put a link to the "diff" that gives his original article after your remarks on the discussion page for the causality article. If you have time, please take a look at it and see whether it might have some "coded" sense to it. I don't like to see new contributors chewed to pieces, but that is what has happened in the last few days in response to the request for deletion that was put against his article.

Thanks. P0M 03:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Determinism#Determinism and QM --agr 17:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


And thanks again, for making about first substantive contribution I can remember. Unfortunately it may be that Ingham has gotten so frustrated that he has stopped communicating. Please ignore the following if it doesn't pique your interest. I've wasted far too much time on it already.
Here is the central point of his article, back before I started mucking around with it -- together with my comments of today:

In the measurement process, new particles, such as light are brought in to perform the measurement. If, at first, these measuring particles are described quantum mechanically, the description remains deterministic and no probabilities arise. However to get the information into a notebook or (non-quantum) computer, it must be brought to the human scale where maintaining phase coherence is impossible.

This language seems subject to many different interpretations. He may have something in mind like the Heisenberg's_microscope thought experiment. If so, he is saying that a gamma-ray photon and an electron and a microscope with a piece of unexposed photographic film at the place where the image is focused are all in a closed box, that one has "quantum mechanically described" them, and that when the photon hits the electron and bounces to where it shows up on the film then everything is perfectly "deterministic, and no probabilities arise." (Carrying this idea back to the article on causality where this stuff all got started, that would presumably mean that what happens when one bounces a gamma ray off an electron is all deterministically causal, no dice throwing God involved.) But the experimenter has "the information", presumably because s/he had the original "quantum mechanically described" data and can calculate from there. Now it sounds like he is saying that the next step is that this known data must be "brought up to the human scale" -- which is going to sound to the average well-informed reader as though the experimenter does something to the "mystical data" (my mystified attempt to describe it) to make it understandable by non-physicist or non-mystic readers. He gives a clue to what he is probably really talking about by mentioning the loss of phase coherence, but I've never been able to get him to clarify this passage. I think that means that he believes that physicists (and maybe physicians) can understand it and that the average reader can be properly ignored, but I'm probably being cynical, which is why I've resisted saying any of this so directly before.

Because the classical approximation does not conform to the uncertainty principle, it contains information that the quantum system, which does conform, cannot supply. This non-physical information is generated randomly.

To me this sounds like either of two things that we talked about freely as undergraduates trying to get the answers in the back of the book: (1) waving the magic wand, or (2) supplying the fudge factor. The classical approximation (to what? to the real answer?) contains information. But it must really contain "information" that doesn't exist because it has to be created by a random number generator of some kind. It's almost as though he thinks the experimenter has replaced Einstein's dice-throwing God.
If classical physics were an adequate model for this situation, one would fire gamma ray photons in fairly rapid sequence that would hopefully light up any electron that happened to drift into the microscope's field of view, occasionally that would happen, and one could track the electron as it drifted across the microscope's field of view, judging its x and y coordinates by successive black spots on the developed negative, and perhaps even getting the z coordinates by some sort of auto-focus device on the microscope that would keep a log of how it racked the microscope in and out. To me, the photo-chemical reactions that occur in the photographic film count as physical events and as providing information about the real world, but I am not sure what Ingham would say. In the classical version I would not say that these spots are "generated randomly." I wonder if Ingham thinks they are "generated randomly" under a correct QM description. But I am grasping at straws.

In addition phase information in the quantum description cannot be represented classically, and is lost.

I guess I am a helpless literalist, but to me this statement fits in the general category of the magician who says, "Now you see it, now you don't." I think Ingham is anthropomorphizing terribly. I imagine that he is trying to express something entirely different, but what he says I must interpret as there being "phase information" sitting there in the quantum description of the experiment that he has thusfar not even really described, and then for the benefit of poor mortals somebody come along and puts it into classical terms. (Like what, x, y, z, t...?) Then having done that the phase information is dumped into some quantum waste dump somewhere in the void.

One of Messiah's examples is measuring the position of an electron with light. If the light's wave function is not know and included in the system wave function, the predictions are of probabilities, because the light photons exchange unknown amounts of momentum with the electron.

I think I found Messiah's description of Heisenberg's microscope, I, 143, and it is perfectly straightforward and comprehensible, even to me. It has nothing to do with the mystification in Ingham's account.
I am wondering if I am missing something in the above quotation. How much is he assuming is not known about the photon? Its frequency? Its direction of travel from source to electron? Conceivably one could calculate an impact for a gamma photon on a straight-line course and actually have a bank shot by an ultraviolet photon. I think that if so little were certain I would call any calculation a guess not a probabilistic prediction.
Anyway, if the contrary were the case, if the photon's wave function were known, would that make the predictions not probabilistic? To me he appears to be saying that if one knew enough about the photon, the electron, and the rest of the apparatus, then one could predict in a non-probabilistic way where the photons would show up on the detection screen (photographic film). He sounds more like Bohm than Messiah to me.

So, it is the requirement for extra information, beyond what is specified by the uncertainty principle, in a classical description that is responsible for the probabilities.

It could be that all he is saying is that if Δx * Δp >|= h, then when we state a value for x or for p we have to say something like x±d or p±d'. But I don't think so.

From this point of view, this information does not describe reality.

I suppose it is perfectly obvious to Ingham what "this information" is supposed to refer to. Whatever it is, is he saying that empirical observations of the form "In this run of the one at a time electrons through a double slit experiment, hits were recorded at p1,p2,....pn" do not describe reality? According to my limited command of the English language, it would seem so.

The experimenter is simply "asking more from one poor little electron than it has".

i.e., "An electron does not have a position and we insist on giving it a position"?

A Cal Tech grad student, or maybe it was U Cal Berkeley, told me his stuff all makes perfect sense, so hopefully it is my English that is at fault -- or maybe not. P0M 18:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Just to be clear -- the real question is how, if Ingham has a point and knows what he is talking about, should what he is trying to say be put into words that a bright high school student can understand? (It doesn't have to be comprehensible to me, just to the average well-informed reader.) P0M 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the short answer to your question is that we have to rely on the Wikipedia process. If someone has a clearer explanation, it can go in one of the articles on QM. If other editors don't think the explanation is superior, it will be edited out. Note what it says at the bottom of the edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." If Mr. Ingham is discouraged by this, there are other places to publish his views. For example, I have a screed on Bell's inequality on my home page [1] that I probably would not submit to Wikipedia. --agr 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome H. Lemelson

Thanks for your last edit in this article! --Edcolins 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:cryptography

Category:cryptography is getting too big. I'd suggest a project to move articles to sub categories where possible and maybe add some categories as necessary. Perhaps trim the text on the category page too.--agr 18:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it needs sorting out. The thing that puts me off is that you can't edit categories directly; you have to change tags on each individual article, which makes it cumbersome to maintain. Maybe there are bots which can help? — Matt Crypto 11:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MacBook Pro

I just checked out your recent edit to MacBook Pro. You state that the DVD burner is dual-layer read but only single-layer write. I have no firm evidence one way or another but it was my impression that the drive is actually a dual-layer writer. Are you sure that it is actually only single-layer? --Yamla 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for now. I just talked to Apple at MacWorld. See my comments in the discussion page.--agr 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Very interesting and a little surprising. Maybe I'll sit out this round and pick up the next round when they've brought back some of the features. Oh, who am I kidding? If I had the money now, my order would already be in. I've never had the need for dual layer, not with the media as expensive as it currently is.  :) --Yamla 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I got the sense that they accepted these limitations for now to get the product out for a MacWorld announcement. They way one Apple person put it to me was that that the MacBook specs "do not commit" to the ability to write dual layer. Another said these are "first generation drives".--agr 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Classified information

Thank you. I've responded at talk:classified information. — Instantnood 23:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Milky Way Edits

Yea, I knew that when I wrote it, but was in a hurry and wanted to get something in as a place holder. Look again now to see if that is better and let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Try that. WilliamKF 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation in New York City

Hello Arnold - I noticed your work on transport-related articles in New York. Transportation in New York City has been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diceware

Could you take a look at the diceware page? There has been a neutrality challenge, to which I responded by toning down one comment. There is also a section added a while back that I think is incorrect. I marked as disputed, with an explanation on the talk page. I am reluctant to edit it however as I clearly have a personal interest in the matter. I think it would be best if someone else maintained this page. --agr 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As you've no doubt seen by now, I've edited it some. I respect your integrity in avoiding editing the article yourself, but by all means add to the talk page liberally! — Matt Crypto 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your help.--agr 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Arnold!

I just saw your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography and got curios who you are. So I clicked some links and got very happy when I discovered you are the CipherSaber guy! So I just wanted to pop by and say hi and tell you I like CipherSaber very much. I used to use it as an example for my customers/students when I taught crypto in the industry here in Sweden back in 1998-2000 and I still use it as a nice soft start for any programmer that wants to learn crypto. --David Göthberg 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Glad you find it helpful. Fell free to edit the article.--agr 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonization of Mercury

Wow -- sources in less than four hours after I put up the tag! Thanks so much! --M@rēino 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:System 3 punch card.jpg

"Zorch it's a System 3" ? 68.39.174.238 09:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was at this demo and I wanted to try out the keypunch and I had to type something... --agr 10:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My lapse at punch card thickness

I just tapped the wrong buttons when coming up with 0.018 mm for 0.007 inch.

Obviously, 0.007*25.4 gives 0.18 mm.

Thanks for the prompt correction. --194.226.235.251 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --agr 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WP:SPACE!

Hi ArnoldReinhold, thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization!

Have fun with it.

[edit] Wikimania

And good to see you signed up for help with Wikimania... are you interested in helping with anything in particular? +sj + 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in Cambridge. What would do you need done here?--agr 14:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1130

Hey Arnold - the fr link does not show?? IBM 1130 page KymFarnik 07:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's seems ok today.--agr 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IGES

Hello, Arnold - Thnx fer starting the IGES page ... it's provided me with beau coup opportunities to avoid doing Other Things the past few days. :-) Have a better one! -=DAH=- 2006-04-11 22:43 (EDT)

Thanks, where did you work on IGES?--agr 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote IGES translators for Applicon (back in the MDSI days), and supervised the off-site contractors who maintained the Computervision translators. I was also the IPO IGES Project Manager for Version 5.0 back in the 90s. How did you come to write the initial article? Dennette 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I worked at Computervision from 1975 through 1979 and was involved in the early meetings that started IGES. I was responsible for coming up the name (I still have the notebook).--agr 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for improved phrase

AR, Your phrasing improved my attempt at password. Thanks. But I still think the point made is questionable; not inaccurate -- just somehow off topic. Poor narrative or something. Still pondering it. ww 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you are concerned about. Hashed password storage is quite common and the hashes are often sent over the Internet for authentication purposes, giving an attacker an easy way to check large numbers of guesses. So it is still a big problem.--agr 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for fixing up my bad edit here. I just realized today the mistake I made.

Cedars 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIRTH OF AN UNWANTED IBM COMPUTER

I attempted to send the HTML file, but got the following error:

 ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- 
 <reinhold@world.std.com>

Is there some other way I can send it to you? -- RTC 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

areinhold {yeoldatsign} alum.mit.edu--agr 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norm Coleman

I did not violate the 3RR; I did not make four reverts. By the way, I am not 141.153.114.88, the anon user who reverted the page today. 172 | Talk 04:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've been limiting myself to 3 all these years. This stuff does get a bit childish.--agr 04:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes reverts are necessary because there is a clear conflict between correct edits and incorrect edits, and the interests of the encyclopedia stand above the standard process guidelines. I am a professional historian, trained in circumscribing relevant information from an always endless array of data. I have no doubt that the story on Wikipedia is an irrelevant self-reference, perhaps interesting trivia to Wikipedia editors, but irrelevant to people interested in reading a serious encyclopedia article on a member of the U.S. Senate. 172 | Talk 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR rule makes it quite clear that substantive edits, even if they are obviously wrong, are not exempt from the policy. It is designed to prevent edit wars, which is what seems to have happened here. I would point out that the section in question is titled "Coleman in the media" and there is no dispute that this story was widely covered at the time. It think it can easily be distinguished from the "Senator Opens Shopping Center" type of story. Wikipedia is now a major cultural phenomenon. The introduction of the semi-protection policy made the front page (top of column one) in the New York Times this Saturday. It is a common truism that the best test of ethics is what you do when you think no one is watching. I wouldn't vote against the guy in a general election over this, but in a primary where there were two candidates I liked, it might well sway my vote. This deserves to be part of the record. I'd like to move this discussion to the Coleman talk page, if that's ok with you.--agr 11:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisoure restorations

I had a problem with one of the titles. Left a note at your Wikisouce talk page.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've listed the ones that might conceivably be of interest on the Math project page for discussion. --agr 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not much of a wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to edit stuff. I saw you added some info on expansion plans to NYC mass transit. There is a large MTA proposal to expand Metro-North. It's not actually within NYC (it would be a line from Sullivan Airport to White Plains to Stamford, Conn.) but it is the MTA. I can't find an article on it anywhere in Wikipedia. There is a link to the feasibility study. Do you think this is worth having anything about? I'm not sure what the project's current status is. http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/planning/ths/trans_hudson_study.htm

[edit] Just a note of thanks for Diceware

I came across your (off-wiki) Diceware page some years ago, and have used it ever since. It was the first sensible instructions on making a password that I'd ever seen. Much thanks. If I can be of any assistance on-wiki, please let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. --agr 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1460 redirect

Changing the redirect was a better fix. Thanks

[edit] USS Edson

The source was 1969 in aviation. See: Edson, Boston and Point Dume incident Vietnam, 17 June 1969)). It was missing on the Friendly fire page and on USS Edson (DD-946). I added it. - Pernambuco 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I found an Australian site about the incident here: [2]. USS Boston was a heavy cruiser decommissioned in 1970. Dan D. Ric 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The Australian site says it happened in 1968. I changed the Edson and friendly fire articles and added the HMAS Hobart to the later. Any reason not to fix the 1969 in aviation article (move it to 1968 in aviation)?--agr 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columns 73-80 were reserved ...

Don't agree, left some comments in the talk page for the article, hope you will look at them.

Also looked at your home page. I sat for many hours at a 650 console, it was a "personal computer". Read ""Silk & Cyanide" some years ago - enjoyed it and it was a surprise. Your comment about the British wanting to appear stupid to the Germans - was just reading in one of the Enigma books where, early on, Donitz was concerned about code security (they had read a British naval code message about the radio direction finding of two submarines meeting - but the submarines hadn't actually met yet!) Similar logic to yours actually followed - if the British were so dumb about codes that Germans could read their naval code, then they couldn't possibly read Enigma) tooold 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the punch card article.--agr 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plug-board control panel

Looking at plug-board, "control panel" is shown there as an alternate term for "plug-board" so using the two together reads like "I saw a cat cat". IBM manuals all use "control panel" so "[[plug-board | control panel]]" might be more appropriate than "[[plug-board]] control panel". And plug-board is likely wrong in saying the terms are alternatives, I'll have to do some research. "plug-board" described a physical object, "control panel" describes function. Thus "control panel", describing their function and the term IBM used, seemes more likely the term to use, even with a hidden link to plug-board. 69.106.232.37 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

More: I think of "computer" as short for "internally stored program computer". What early internally stored program computer had it operation directed/controlled/... by a control panel? (Not fair to count the control panels in card reader/punches, printers)

The Columbia Computing History, which seems your source, is not consistent on removable control panels. On the Control Panel page it says 1928. On the Tabulator page it says Type 3-S 192x had removable control panels, and it says the Type 4 was introduced in 1928. It would seem that either the 1928 date is wrong or the tabulator type is wrong. Possible to ask the Columbia person?

"Proper wiring of a control panel required a knowledge of the electromechanical design and timing of each machine type." Definitely not! The control panel presents an abstract machine and you have to know that abstract machine and its timing. How that abstract machine is implemented doesn't matter. In that respect, it's no different that driving a car, or writing a computer program. I wired interesting 407 panels for the IBM Service Bureau and for the US Army Personnel Research Office without ever knowing the electromechanical design of the 407. I knew there were relays, cams, and a lot of other stuff, but I had no idea about the design - only what what was presented to me on the control panel.

"holes or hubs" Not sure what you mean, that hubs is an alternate word for holes? that panels have hubs or they have holes? Some control panels have holes, some don't. As I recall, when I changed "holes" to "hubs" (because "holes" was wrong for many panels) I looked at the IBM manuals and they consistently used "hub".

thanks, 69.106.232.37 06:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Still more: when I left the "1906 Earthquake" comment, I was only hinting for a source. I've added the source. 69.106.232.37 06:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IBM's writing in the 50's and 60s was admirably precise and consistent in style, but IBM often developed their own terminology using words differently from everyone else. Computers did not have memory, according to IBM, they had "storage." Control panel is another example. To most people, control panel has a different meaning, a work surface with meters, knobs and switches. Same with "hub." Hubs were holes on all the machines i saw. What were the exceptions? Wikipedia has a style too. We write for a general audience and if you want to use IBM jargon, it needs to be explained.
From the article IBM was the largest supplier of unit record equipment was IBM and this article largely reflects IBM practice and terminology. (That sentence needs help) That sentence has been in the article for a long time and makes sense. IBM terminology is the terminology most people know, relates to the sources (manuals) most commonly available.
control panel: "to most people" but this article for a specific technology. A pie is something you eat, or something left by a cow. Depends.
I'm all for using IBM terminology, but we need to explain it to our readers. I doubt there are many people left at IBM who would know what a control panel hub meant.--agr
Hubs: The 407 was 1949, with holes. 402, 077, 552 had the other kind of panel: panel was solid, with contacts on the back for all connections. The jumpers were inserted into contacts on the front side. Probably a change after WWII. And IBM could have changed the control panel style in machines still being manufactured without changing model numbers. I had made a number of edits to accomodate both styles.
The 402 panel in the photo has holes. But I'll take your word for it that there was another style. The solution is to include a few sentences explaining what 'hub' meant in this context. --agr
ENIAC and other early computers were wired. To define computers as stored program devices cuts out much of the early history. And the use of plug boards in IBM 700/7000 I/O devices deserves mention, even if just to point out that their wiring was almost never changed.
This is really related to a question I asked recently. What is it that should be included in this article? Never mind the one-of-a-kind monsters like ENIAC, many (lots of?) IBM 650s were only card machines (no tapes,no disks). So we should include the 650s, right? Ah, I asked the question in relation to the UNIVAC 1005. And if we include those machines, then we should include the IBM System/3, right? I think the scope of the article should be Unit Record Processing, 1890-1945. It's about using those machines, something we haven't even gotten to yet - so far we've only been defining the machines -- to do useful work. The article needs a scope statment -- at the beginning! I advocate that ENIAC, 650s, 1005s, computer system components, ... are out-of-scope.
I'd been meaning to respond, but hadn't gotten around to it. In general when we are talking about technology eras, there are always examples of stuff that crosses the boundaries. Often they are quite interesting and worth a mention because they illustrate that the way forward is not always so clear at the time. In the case of the 1005, vs 650, I think the key issue is the unit record model, which was centered on the punch card as the primary storage medium. While it is true that many 650s were card-only, that was primarily due to cost. They were mostly used for calculation and punch card output was the cheapest option. Often the cards were simply listed on a nearby 407 and then thrown away. Some may have been used in the EAM work flow for calculations too complex for 407s, say insurance rate computations. But i believe the 650 was clearly part of the computer age. The 1005, however was a niche product marketed to organizations who were still using punch cards as the primary storage medium and did not intend to change, but wanted something better than a 407. 1401's by contrast were intended to move customers to mag tape as the primary storage medium. That was the big paradigm shift. After that punch cards were simply a data entry tool. So I'd include the 1005, with an explanation, but not the 650.--agr 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the knowledge needed to wire control panels, you know more than I do. I only had a brief experience with them. But there was a specialized body of knowledge that deserves mention, involving the timing of the machine. You could not just plug wires into any pair of holes. Feel free to come up with better language than I used.
I had deleted an earlier sentence as being only the hard way to say "You have to know what you are doing". Isn't it obvious that if the control panel directs the machine, or the power plant, or whatever, that you have to know what you are doing?
Never assume anything is obvious. Explain. Remember most of our readers do not remember when homes did not have computers.--agr
Finally, as to 1928, your point is well taken and we should change it to "the 1920s" if we can't get clarification.--agr 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you wrote "Type 3.. 1920s". If you delete the Type 3... part then the sentence has to be correct (its either the model or the date that is wrong, we don't know which, and you are already safe with the date).
OK.
Thanks for tolerating me 69.106.232.37 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's great to have someone with more knowledge working on these articles. Just remember who we are writing for. --agr 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Accounting Machines (EAM)

Was a commonly used term. Noticed that you 1st changed it to "Electronic ....", then edits swiching between "Electronic" and "Unit record". Can we put it back, as it was, please. (I'll try to list a source here) Thanks, 69.106.232.37 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Electric is correct (I just watched the film loop from the ext refs). My other concern was changing the name from one sentence to the next implies we are talking about two different things. Again, we need to be clear.--agr 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBM 650, more

(I'd rather keep adding at the bottom than inserting comments that might be overlooked).

See [3]. Announced in 1953, tapes and 407 added in 1955. The original 650 was a pure unit record machine.

From the unit record equipment article: Data processing consisted of feeding decks of punch cards through the various machines in a carefully choreographed progression. (did you write that?) That sentence captures what I think the article should be about, what would provide value to readers. How did we do it before computers? Computers erased that "choreographed flow"; computers just read it in and produced the answers. Unit record equipment/processing/accounting is interesting because of that flow between individual machines, each machine capable of only a simple task, sort, merge, sum & print. How that accomplished all that it did is amazing.

There is no value to a list of machines that read or punch cards, might just as well see the list of IBM Products.

btw, did you see my recent addition to punched card, that in 1937 IBM was producing 5 to 10 million cards --- a day!

thanks again 69.106.232.37 18:35, 13 October 2006

[4] page 11 has the old style contral panel. Zoom in, there are labels in the circle figure. And just above the circle, the text describes each hub as making contact. 69.106.232.37 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Scope is, for me, the overriding question.

I agree that the "choreographed flow" of punch cards is what the unit record era is all about and that is what the unit record equipment article should be about. While I am sure there were exceptions, i don't believe most 650s were part of that choreographed flow. see [5]. Tape and printing options were available not that long after the 650's introduction. Off-line 407s were available for printing card decks from the beginning. Remember that in most organization that leased one, a 650 was the first computer anyone had ever had access to and people were just learning what they could do. As users realized the power of computers, applications mushroomed. Note the picture at the IBM 650 apps page of an FAA installation in 1959 that had disk drives and remote terminals. The successors to the 650, the 1620 and the 1130 were also available in card-only versions. No one would think of them as unit record machines. By contrast, the 1005 was specifically intended to be inserted into the "choreographed flow" of cards. Thanks for the addition on '37 card production. That should help readers understand that punch cards were a major technology by then, --agr 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
We've a curious kind of agreement, neither of us thinks the 650 should be included, we disagree as to why. If we agree on "choreographed flow", and it seems we might, that excludes the one-of-a-kind monsters and computer system component card/read punches. And we can both list the obvious machines that should be included: keypunches, sorters, collators, tabulators, calculators. We can probably agree to include card to/from punched paper tape, even card data transceivers. It's almost IBM machines 001 through 649, less the 305!
How about:
This article describes unit record equipment, and its use, of the kind whose development began with Herman Hollerith in the 1880s and continued into the 1950s, that were generally available. These machines were electro-mechanical, built with relays, gears, and cams. Beginning in the 1940s electronic components were introduced into some calculators; those calculators have been included where the calculator's program was external (on a control panel or card(CPC)).
"generally available" to exclude all one-of-a-kind, special (crypto) machines, etc. That draft excludes Data Transceivers, thats ok with me - they were a very late development anyway. Or they can be included by specific statement. 69.106.232.37 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Minor edit to draft 69.106.232.37 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should clarify which article we are talking about. For the unit record equipment article, I agree that the choreographed flow of punch cards defines the subject. I don't see a need for adding the text you propose (though i do think this entire discussion should be moved to Talk:unit record equipment.) The plug-board article is another matter and i don't see any reason not to mention their use in early computers and I/O devices. It makes the article more complete and adds interest and does not add significant bulk.--agr 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You're easy to agree with, a nice skill you have. Yes, other than unit record machines used control panels and their inclusion in that article should be easy.
My draft was my attempt to define the boundary as to what is, and what is not, to be included in the unit record equipment article. It's ok for you & I to agree that an original, card only, 650 doesn't belong but what about the next person in the Wiki world that wants to add the 650 or the System/3 or whatever his favorite machine? I really want to bound it at gears, cam, & relays. The transition machines, the 650, the Univac 1005, etc, might well fit within the choreographed flow, but they aren't needed. I want to point the article at 1920s, 30s, 40s data processing. For me, unit record equipment is the equipment of that time. Defining unit record equipment as any machine that reads/punches cards adds no value -- just call them punched card machines.
An alternate approach might be to define Unit Record Accounting (it may have been called that, there was also EDPM - Electric Data Processing Machines, ADP Automatic Data Processing). That is, define something, then state that the machines used to do that are unit record equiment!
Do you think the article needs to be bounded? Suggestions as to how?
thanks again.69.106.232.37 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point that if stuff is left out someone will eventually try to add it. There is no infallible way to bound an article on Wikipedia. Pretty much everything works by consensus. Probably the best thing to do here is to add a section on the transition to computers. --agr 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article caught my eye History of computing hardware (1960s-present) -- BOUNDED. Further, in getting Punched Card and Keypunch to their current state, I had moved everything about them out of Unit Record Equipement - my style is to get it said once, and correct. That left holes in unit record, comments made about it not being an outline, etc., that you & others had to fill in given the current document structure. But those fill-ins don't add any knowldege about the topics. How's this for a plan: do sorters, tabulators, reproduce & summary punch, collators, statistical, ... one article each (like Columbia Univ Computing History). These articles are like the keypunch article, complete including all models, refrence manuals, everything. For example, the current 513, 514, 519 articles get combined into reproduce & summary punch, only redirects left in their place. Now there is no machine detail left for the unit record equipement article. Change (move) it to Unit Record Data Processing, 1890-1949. So the machines are bounded by article titles and the Unit Record ... article text is about the choreographed flow, bounded by dates. 69.106.232.37 07:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Wikipedia articles are intended to be read by ordinary readers. They should tell a story. Its normal for an article to provide a summary of a relevant subject and then link to a more detailed article on the subject itself. thus the World War II article will discuss Pearl harbor, even though there is a lengthly article on the subject. History of computing hardware (1960s-present) is something of an exception. There is too much material for a single article on the history of computing so it was continued to a second article and using a date as a separation is natural. In general you can't expect to play traffic cop on Wikipedia, deciding what goes and what stays. If there is enough material on specific types of unit record equipment, we should have separate articles. Even so there should be summary info in the main URE article. I also see no need for a 1949 cutoff date. People who want to know about URE should get the whole story in one place.--23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CharlieCard

AR -- Thanks for incorporating the new MBTA info into the CharlieCard article today; I know I should have done that in addition to deleting the straight quote from the website, but I didn't have the time. Geoff.green 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would be nice if Wikipedia had a naming convention for Computer hardware articles

In particular, for the case of only one vendor, VENDOR or trademak, then MODEL. Like IBM 604 or UNIVAC LARC (which I just changed, it was just LARC). When moving I make a comment about conforming names (in the LARC case it was the only UNIVAC computer without a leading UNIVAC) but I feel somewhat vunerable to reverts and wouldn't be able to do much about them.

In cases with multiple vendors, such as VAX (DEC VAX ?, COMPAQ VAX ??, HP VAX ???) allow anything; any of the vendors or none. I think just VAX is the current article. Thanks 69.106.232.37 07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So VAX is probably best left as is. There are areas where special naming conventions have been established. I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Early computers which seems to be inactive. I think the discussions we are having should be moved there. Maybe we can spark some interest. --agr 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hello Arnold

I really forgive you for your canceling my great work of editing the overwiew chapter of "trigonometry", originally intended to sum up - in few lines - the whole basic trigonmetry of the plane (at its conceptual level) - icluding the reader's ability to easily conclude (by arithmetic tools only) all of the possible trigonometric identities. Again, I forgive you, but why did you do that with mistakes and inaccuracies?

No doubt, you have improved my old version by adding some important information, mainly. by mentioning the spherical trigonometry (my old version hinted at that, when - on purpose - I avoided mentioning the word "euclidian", and by mentioning the word "traditionally").

However, you have done it with too many mistakes or inaccuracies, e.g:

1. Your fatally imperfect definition for the cosine (remember that every side in the triangle is adjacent to more than one angle).

2. Your little mistake of spelling, when you wrote "these function" at the end of the section beginning with the words "the reciprocals".

3. Your misleading sentence at the first section (before the "contents"), where you have written: "particularly triangles in a plane where one angle is 90 degrees", which may lead the reader to the wrong conclusion that the words "where one angle" refer to the word "plane" adjecent to them, not to the far word "triangle".

4. Your inaccuracy at the first section (before the "contents"), where (on one hand) you have mentioned the spherical trigonometry (thank you), but (on the other hand) you have omitted the crucial sentence (included in my original version) which leads to the great difference between the geometric treat and the trigonometric treat - regarding the right triangles. Really, the reader has to be aware of this crucial difference when he reads the overview chapter about trigonometry!

5. Your decision to omit the word "real" when referring to the angles, and to omit the word "positive" when referring to the hypotenuse (I have worked much on these two little words for achieving my original goal - see above in my first section to you).

6. Your (legitimate) decision (on one hand) to mention the (quite marginal) cosecant etc., but (on the other hand) to omit the (much more useful fruitful fertile productive ) cis function!

7. Your decision to omit from my overview the trigonometric laws, e.g. law of sines etc.

I will never claim that my version is perfect, nor that i'ts clean of mistakes. But I prefer my old more accurate version, despite its little heaviness, than your shorter version which is full of (little) proplems.

I hope that you soon repair what have to be repaired! If possible - please do that today (if you can).

Have a wonderful day, and receive a smile.

Eliko.

I have corrected items 1, 2 and 3. Thank you. I am sorry but I do not agree with the rest. Wikipedia is written for a general audience and introductory material should be written at a level appropriate for them. Your version was not. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#General_Comment_about_Math_articles_from_a_non-mathematician. More technical matters are covered later in the article and are not needed in the overview.--agr 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again, hello Arnold

Unfortunately, you have not corrected all of the mistakes: e.g:

1. In my third comment I discussed the words: "these function". these two words had appeared twice in the same section: once at its beginning, and later - at its end. You have corrected the first time, not the second one!

2. Another mistake - having still remained in your current version - regards my first comment about the cosine: Your definition ignores the fact that every leg is adjacent to more than one angle! The word "shorter" you've added before the word "leg" - did not solve the problem! Also pay attention to the clumsiness of that definition: "ratio of the shorter leg adjacent to the angle to the hypotenuse"... Hadn't you paid attention to the problem?

3. I'm sure you did not understand my fourth comment. Every definition must hint at the uniqueness of the defined term. So, just as you can't define "Trigonometry" as the topic dealing with "things" - because it's not the uniqueness of "Trigonometry" - since also Biology deals with "things", so you can't define "Trigonometry" as the topic dealing with "right triangles" - because it's not the uniqueness of "Trigonometry" - since also Geometry deals with "right triangles".

4. I'm also sure you did not figure out my fifth comment. Adding the words "real" and "positive" - adds almost nothing to the text, but adds very much to the accuracy, and mainly enables one to define the trigonometric functions for negative angles too, as well as for angles bigger than 90 degrees, by letting one pay attention to the possibilty of negative legs, as well as to the impossibility of negative hypotenuse. I add just two words to the text, and gain very much for the completeness of the definition of the trigonometric functions! Do you really think most of readers of "Trigonometry" in wikipedia are not aware of the negative numbers? Or of angles bigger than 90 degrees? This is an intelligent audience, not as you have hinted! Note that it took me about two hours of deep thought after having decided to add (in my version) these two little words "real" and "positive". How much did it take you to decide to cancel them?

5. I'm also sure you haven't comprehended my sixth comment. When one reads the mathematical topics in wikipedia (like "homomorphism", "topology", "euler's formulas", etc.) one realizes that their authers have assumed their readers have a mathematical knowledge above that of the regular audience. Also the readers of "trigonometry" must have a mathematical knowledge above that of the regular audience. If you think they must know about the marginal function of cosecant - at the early phase of reading the overview chapter, then I think that at this early phase they must know also about cis function, because this fruitful function, with its non-geometrical definition (canceled by you), summerizes the whole planar trigonometry, thus enabling to receive at once all of the trigonometric identities. This crucial fact, having a philosophical significance, must be exhibited at the introduction - defining trigonometry, not at the technical chapters mentioned later.

6. By the way, It took me about 60 hours of deep thought - to edit my version of the overview chapter. A considerable part of that time was invested for deciding what should be included and what should be excluded. How much did it take you to edit your version, and how much did it take you to decide what in my version should be canceled?

7. Again, have a good day, and get my second smile 4 you.

Eliko.

I have edited the article in response to your points as wells as comments on the article's talk page. However, I must disagree with your suggestion that "the readers of 'trigonometry' must have a mathematical knowledge above that of the regular audience." The other examples your give homomorphism, topology, euler's formulas, etc.) are more advanced, college-level, topics, and even with those articles we should still strive to make the article introductions accessible to general readers. Trigonometry, however is a more elementary subject, something generally taught at the secondary school level. It is essential that we make the entire article as easy to follow for general readers as possible.
If you have no objections, I would like to move this entire discussion to the Talk:Trigonometry page, so other can participate. --agr 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encryption

Arnold, when you reverted obvious vandalism in Encryption, you also reverted my "machines such as the Bombe were invented" which is historically correct. Try clicking on Bombe. I'm restoring it. Greensburger 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I was trying to undo several layers of edits and had made a mental note not to change yours, but I slipped up. --agr 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centeris

I saw that you deleted some of the information on the Centeris Wiki. As our page wasn't intended as an advertisement or any form of it I am interested in knowing how you came to the conclusion of this? Software companies such as Microsoft have various sections as well as Samba which describes their product. You erased the fact that we created partnerships with Microsoft, IBM, HP, Red Hat, and Novell as well as the VC partners. If this is a user based encyclopedia this is simply information about the company, NOT advertising. Please explain.

I didn't delete anything, I just added a cleanup tag. See [6] Others made appropriate changes that made the article read less like advertising copy. Please take a look at Wikipedia policies on the matter.--agr 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homotopy groups of spheres

Good point, its done. I've been working a bit on the history, but I'm missing some and there is some confusion over who actually introduced the notion of a homotopy group. Any help apreciated. The articles also on Wikipedia:Good articles/Review at the moment. --Salix alba (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I reverted your Apple I changes

Please note that I reverted your changes to Apple I as they described drawbacks that were relevant for the period. No computer back then had internet access. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs).

Which hobbyist computer at the time had graphics or sound? If they existed, they should be cited. Also please sign comments.--agr 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about your tongue image

Hi! I found the picture of a tongue on one of your pages (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tongue.agr.jpg). I work for a retail cigar company, and we're designing our next catalog, and this image is perfect for one of our pages. Can we have permission to use it? Thanks! Galsmiley

You have my permission.--agr 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User warnings

Hi. Regarding this edit: When leaving warnings for users, it's generally best to substitute the templates. For example, instead of using {{test}}, use {{subst:test}}. Cheers, Chovain 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/n/User_talk%7EArnoldReinhold_b09f.html"