User talk:DYLAN LENNON

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 05:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fujiwara's theorem

We had a discussion about this theorem at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The ugly theorem and the outcome was that it should not get an article. In fact, you contributed yourself to that page. I am afraid that it will not do to create the page again under a different name. If you think that the theorem does deserve an article here, then you should propose that the deletion be undone at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, but be prepared that you need some arguments. Sorry. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Oleg Alexandrov 03:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Oleg Alexandrov 04:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dylan. I do mean it. Would you mind providing an edit summary? Just remember, you are not hte only one in here, and edit summaries are a curtsey to others, explaining what you are up to. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stern's result on perfect numbers

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but where did you get Stern's result from? First, I wondered which Stern this is, but now I think that this actually follows immediately from Euler's result, which says that an odd perfect number is the product of a number of the form 4n + 1 and an odd square (which is also of the form 4n + 1). What do you think about it? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary ...

... baby. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glyn Harman

Hi. There seems to be missing in the theorem on the Glyn Harman article that you created. What does t(x) stand for? I can think of one possible interpretation, but I'm not sure it is the correct one.

At the very least, please tell us where you got the information from. We really need this. Pretty please :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masato Tomobe / Japanese lit

Everyone has their favorite authors and poets, but this Tomobe guy doesn't seem to be in the same class as Soseki or Mishima. CES 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real business

Hi Dylan. I have a comment about this addition of yours to real number. First, what do you mean by "decimal representation", is it positional notation? If so, it is not unique, as there is the 1=0.99999...9.. issue. If you mean something else, a link would be very much required, and if you have any, even references. Anyway, I removed your contribution for now, pending further clarification. You can reply here, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes,your right.However, I am talking about infinite decimal representation. 1 is represented as 0.9999.. there. DYLAN LENNON 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Although I am very doubtful who has the first person discovering an infinite representation. For that reason I will remove that person's name from the authors. (Actually, I believe that remark better go in positional notation, it is more relevant there.)

And Dylan, please, one thing which you never learned. Please explain your edits. It is little effort, but please understand, it is important. People must know why you wrote something. So, please, learn this, use an edit summary. It matters, it is useful, and it takes little effort. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However, I think it has to be in the real number section. It's the property what the real number has and not what positional notation does.DYLAN LENNON 21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. I reworded your contribution to integrate it with the paragraph before. And I truly don't think it is worth mentioning who proved that, the result is rather elementary and easy to show. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not easy to show. Why do you think so?DYLAN LENNON 13:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, assume that there are two representations:

$x=a_0.a_1a_2a_3\dots \times 10^k$

$x=b_0.b_1b_2b_3\dots \times 10^k$

with $0\le a_i,\, b_i\le 9.$

Drop the $10 k .$ Drop any leading digits which are equal, so assume $a_0\ne b_0.$ Assume $a 0 > b 0$ (the case $a 0 < b 0$ is done in the same way). Then, because $0\le a_i,\, b_i\le 9,$ we have

$x=a_0.a_1a_2a_3\dots \ge a_0.000\dots = a_0$

and

$x=b_0.b_1b_2b_3\dots \le b_0.9999\dots = b_0+1.$

But $a_0\ge b_0+1$ because $a 0 > b 0$ . So:

$x=a_0.a_1a_2a_3\dots \ge a_0.000\dots = a_0 \ge b_0+1 = b_0.9999\dots \ge b_0.b_1b_2b_3\dots =x.$

Therefore, all these numbers must be equal, which implies

$x=a_0.a_1a_2a_3\dots = a_0.0000\dots$

and

$b_0.9999\dots = b_0.b_1b_2b_3\dots$

so the only two different representations is one with zeros and one with nines. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But it wasn't easy, was it? I thought it might help some people to let them know that Professor Yokogawa has the easiest proof so far. DYLAN LENNON 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth mentioning Professor Yokogawa's name. This is an elementary result, which probably any good high school teacher can prove. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit at real number

Dylan, please take a look here, and read the text above and below that. Your addition is out of place, it interrupts an existing discussion.

Also, if you notice, the issue of archimedes property is dealt with later in the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You will be banned from ja.wp

DYLAN LENNON,

perhaps, you will be permanently driven out from japanese wikipedia. Now,it votes on it, and a lot of agreements. (Nobody opposes.)

We were not able to stop mischievous of you who happened one after another. I feel sorry to become such a situation in people of en.wikipedia.

Good bye, DYLAN LENNON.--Schildt.a 15:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations.

DYLAN LENNON was blocked with an expiry time of infinite in ja.wp.log

In seeing the series of behavior of you, even if it is elementary mathematics, it might be impossible that you understand mathematics. --Schildt.a 08:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Omega Function?

Um, what are your recent additions about odd perfect numbers about and what do you mean by the Big Omega function? JoshuaZ 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had the same question, so I reverted your edits. Please be more considerate to your fellow Wikipedians and take some time to explain your edits. Don't remove a redirect just because one guy calls a certain function Ω. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking about this slightly more, the use of &Omega to denote the total number of prime factors, counting repetition, seems somewhat common. Its used that way in Hardy and Wright, and other standard number theory textbooks. It might not be unreasonable to have an article on the "total number of prime factors" or something similar which mentioned this, as well as giving certain standard results about it, such as how the avergae and normal order are both

loglog n

. JoshuaZ 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. In that case, I guess both uses should be mentioned on big Omega function. However, just blanking out the redirect, as Dylan has done another time now (diff), without giving any explanation, is out of the question. The capital omega is also used as explained in asymptotic notation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the redirect makes more sense. &Omega is used for many minor things. The resulting disambiguation for the term would be hideous. JoshuaZ 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Omega function and Axiom of Archimedes

Hi Dylan. Thank you for adding the reference to initial value problem. I am not sure the result is that important, but I guess it does not hurt. I hope you can live with the compromise at big Omega function. I often have trouble figuring out what you mean. Anyway, it was good that you wrote something on Talk:Big Omega function.

Now, regarding to Axiom of Archimedes. You said that Axiom of Archimedes contains something that is not in Archimedean property. Could you please tell us what, as I couldn't find what you were talking about. Also, why don't you just add this fact to Archimedean property? Surely, there is no need to have two articles about the same thing? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

I have placed a tag on the article Shohé Tanaka, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I did this because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Shohé Tanaka is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Shohé Tanaka. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Also, I've reverted a number of your wikilinks to not quite related topics. If you can explain them, you may put them back.

~~Also, I've nominated Hiroshi Haruki for deletion. This isn't a speedy delete request, but you've had 5 months since creation to add more information.~~

-- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI. ja:User:DYLAN LENNON has been banned from jawiki. Tietew 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that on the history of this talk page before he blanked it. But I have no special privileges. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the nomination, but what is there is barely an assertion of notability. If you didn't have anything else to say, you shouldn't have said anything. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

DYLAN LENNON (talk • contribs) is now WAREL (talk • contribs). Melchoir 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Division ring

Look at talk:Division ring and talk to me instead of just reverting. I'm pretty sure I understand Swedish and Catalan etc. better than you do. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is this vandalism?

this edit looks like vandalism to me, removing all the interwikis. For that and for reverting that article, I ban you for 24 hours. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

DYLAN was also causing trouble at the same time at division ring, see above, and I think (not sure) this was while he was still blocked as User:WAREL. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

See User talk:WAREL#Petition.

Also, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WAREL and state your view on the matter. I unblocked your User:WAREL account so that you can comment (I did not unblock this User:DYLAN LENNON account though).

This request for comment is the last attempt by the community to get you to get along well with others. If that fails, the next step may be a permanent ban on both of your accounts. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finite field

DYLAN, this edit of yours is incorrect. While a field is not the same as a division ring, a finite division ring is the same as a finite field. Please comment at talk:finite field. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And please do not revert, as you will be blocked. If you are right, we will listen to you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wedderburn's theorem

Dear DYLAN, since you seem interested in Wedderburn's theorem, I have an idea for something useful that you could do. There is an article that explains the proof of Wedderburn's theorem on PlanetMath (http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=3627). We don't have that proof explained (even a short summary version) on wikipedia yet. If you are interested, you could make an article on wikipedia that explains the proof. You could pretty much copy the planetmath version across if you like. I think if you did a good job of this, it would be a sign to the other editors here that you are serious about wanting to help. Dmharvey 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please continue to comment at talk:finite field. It takes a lot of talk to get to an agreement sometimes. :) That's how things work here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please comment more at talk:finite field. And for the n-th time, do not remove the japanese link. It just gets put back. By reverting all the time you make people pay no attention to you, by using the talk page you make people think you actually may have a point every now and then. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This account is indefinitely blocked

WAREL/DYLAN LENNON, Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WAREL and all the instance of improper conduct documented at User talk:WAREL and User talk:DYLAN LENNON I block you indefinitely. The block is currently being reviwed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef block of WAREL/DYLAN LENNON. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James P. Jones

A tag has been placed on James P. Jones, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Diez2 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/y/l/User_talk%7EDYLAN_LENNON_e72a.html"