User talk:Alexb@cut-the-knot.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

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

(Dobro pojalovati, priyateli! :) Thank you for your fixes at inscribed angle. Oleg Alexandrov 21:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hi

Hi Alex, it is good to see such an illustrious contributor over here at WP, even if most of your edits are to add external links :) Anyway, I noticed in one of your edits a mention of new math. New math was fantastic; I learned set theory and boolean algebra when I was ten, and I think its absolutely shameful that its not taught today. As far as I can tell, you can teach the cyclic group Z/3Z and modulo arithmetic to seven-year-olds just fine, but the teachers do not understand the concept :( oh well. You wouldn't happen to have any suggested math curricula that could be taught to grade-schoolers? Something that would have homework exercises in it, a teacher's guide, something I could take to my school principal to discuss? linas 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Linas, hello. I, too, liked the way mathematics was taught under the new math umbrella. As a mass undertaking, however, the new math was bound to fail, as will fail the current NCLB policy.
In its generality, the statement like As far as I can tell, you can teach the cyclic group Z/3Z and modulo arithmetic to seven-year-olds just fine can't be correct, because implicitly it relates to all seven-year-olds, not to some or even to many. I do not believe in that this is possible. And teacher's innumeracy is only a part of the problem.
No, I do not have a curriculum to recommend. I would not even think of a one-fit-all approach.

Best, Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 13:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farey, continued fractions

By the way, I have some stuff over at my website, [1] dealing with Farey numbers, continued fractions and fractals in general that I think you might enjoy. Its mostly written at a college math skill level, but I think it illustrates connections to fractals which seem to be rarely if ever mentioned in the pop lit. For example, the Koch snowflake curve is isomorphic in a certain sense to the Stern-Brocot tree. This last bit is illustrated in the chapter on the Takagi Curve, in the section called 'the de Rham construction'. Presumably you'll spot immediately why this is just the Stern-Brocot tree, if not, one of the other chapters covers this. linas 14:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You have a remarkable collection of ideas up there that is definitely worth exploring. I'll seek an occasion to do so.
Best, Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 13:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Bandwidth woes

I saw your bandwidth complaints on the AfD. I may be able to offer mirroring, if you are interested; however, I would like to know how many GB a day of bandwith you are dealing with (I can offer a GB or two, but beyond that would get in trouble myself). linas 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Linas thank you. I truly appreciate your offer. But the episode you refer to happened years ago. The bandwidth is not a problem any more.

I am sorry for the time discrepancy: never looked for messages at wikipedia, noticed yours just today, 29 March 2006.

[edit] square root of 2

At [2], why do you attribute to Tom Apostol a proof that you say appears in a 19th-century book? I know I read exactly that proof in about 1980 in some old book, which I think attributed it to an ancient Greek (I don't remember the name of the book; if I find it, I'll let you know). Michael Hardy 22:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: At http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml, if I could have just clicked on some "discuss" button on the article page, I'd have posted this there. But the forums you've got seem more complicated than that. Michael Hardy 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found it: The Calculus: A Genetic Approach, but Otto Toeplitz, English edition published by the University of Chicago Press in 1963, original German published by Springer-Verlag in 1949. Toeplitz seems to suggest, but I don't think he explicitly says, that this is an ancient Greek proof. I've shown this to many people during the '80s and '90s and told them it was an ancient Greek proof, after I read it in Toeplitz's book, so I was surprised when I saw it published in the Monthly as a novel argument. Michael Hardy 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Michael, I do not have access to the book, but I've checked The Enjoyment of Mathematics by Rademacher and Toeplitz. There are two proofs of the fact that correspond to #5 and #1 on my page. Are you sure that in Toeplitz's book it's #6 and not #5. Many thanks. Alex

I don't understand #5, unless it's just #6 with an insufficient number of words to make it clear. I'll take a look at Rademacher & Toeplitz. Michael Hardy 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference is int that the graphics in #5 is just an illustration. You do not need it for the sake of the argument. In #6, the graphics is in fact the argument. The construction, i.e., the presence of the arc makes what is claimed obvious.
Alex 23:50, 14 August 2006 (EST)

[edit] Golden ratio aesthetics: Request for source

Dear Alex: Could you please cite a source for the material you added to Golden ratio? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alex: Thanks for getting back to me. While I was posting the above note to you, another editor (an admin) deleted what you added for lack of source. So we will need a source citation to include it. Also, we are trying to stay away from speculation (it leads everywhere except to knowledge), except in the "false sighings" section. Finell (Talk) 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

[3][4][5]Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with links to (cut-the-knot.org | search current). Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Femto 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was able to send email to one of the fellows. The other one appears too swollen to allow any communication. I am ashamed to be somehow related to the organization in which the two hold a membership. AB 10:20 pm (EST) 12 Dec 2006

See also the case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cut-the-knot.org.
You may ask Hu12 to rescind the last warning, since you hadn't have a chance to react to the milder warning first. Though fact remains that most of your contributions consist of adding links to your own site, which is strongly discouraged per Wikipedia's external link guidelines. Add content instead of bare links and you will be a very welcome contributor.
By the way, each Wikipedia user has a talk page through with they can be contacted. Femto 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've rescinded the last warning. As Femto has stated Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply Link readers to your site for the useful facts. You're here to improve Wikipedia, I would assume -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of session data

That happens to me sometimes, also. With my browser, I just go back, my previously prepared text is there, then submit again. That or sometimes I hit "refresh" from the page where it tells me I have a loss of session data.

Your mileage may vary, depending on the browser you use. --A. B. (talk) ("the other AB") 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)