User talk:Archmagusrm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Black hole

I can't really blame you for not being able to find the relevant information where more derivations had been done. I'm not sure if there is any better way to organize the links, or not.

Sorry if I came across as offensive or condescending or hostile - basically, I was trying to give you some of the feedback you asked for, and get a feeling for where you were coming from.

If you can come up with a way of organizing the article to make the related articles easier to find, I'd say go for it, but read up on some of the reasons for why things are done like they are now. I'm fairly new here myself, so far what I've read on the topic is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#.22See_also.22_line_or_section

Right now, people get hit with one HUGE list of links. If the "see also" were organized by section, it would be focused. But I'm not sure I like the idea of deleting the master list of "see also".

I guess I'm suggesting master list of "see also's" plus indvidual "focused" references in each section, where only really relevant & important stuff gets linked twice. Where really relevant & important is left to the individual editor :-)

Anyway, that's my $.02, and a belated welcome to wiki...

Don't worry about it at all. The scenario I was thinking of was somebody reading the mathematical theory section and wondering why. Of course, this level of curiosity would logically result in clicking the links (at least, it normally does for me). And I agree with you, reading of the various links found in the article will explain more in detail.
Your idea of "see also" links on a per section basis is also quite good. I invision there being a list of comma separated links after each section. Sort of like this:
See also: User:Pervect
Archmagusrm 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Hello!

This is in response to your comment on the Mathematics discussion page. In 1979, Ayn Rand published a book called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Part of that book is an essay by Leonard Peikoff called "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" in which he rejects the false dichotomy between the two views. Here's an excerpt of what Rand wrote about it in another book ("For the New Intellectual"):

In "For the New Intellectual" Rand describes the two camps as: "those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)---and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists)."It was those who abandoned reality, or those who clung to reality by abanding their mind.

You can find a lot of discussion on the topic around the net. I got the above quote from this forum page: http://objectivistcenter.org/cs/forums/212/ShowPost.aspx

I read your user page though and it appears that you quite a lot on your plate as it is! Hope you do well at Brown. I lived in RI from 2001 - 2004. capitalist 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD and BCE/CE

In response to your remark on Confucianism recarding BC/AD vs. BCE/CE: This is a well-tread topic in Wikipedia, right up there with abortion and British vs. American spellings. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras for the offical policy; there are a number of areas in the "Community Portal" section discussing other ideas on how to handle this--those would be a more appropriate place to engage in discussion on this topic than individual article talk pages. HTH --Marlow4 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stephen Wolfram

The SPIRES date of April 1975 is the date Wolfram submitted the preprint; the *publication* date in the Australian J. Physics is some months later, when Wolfram was 16. Obviously the distinction in this case is not very important, but in principle it could be. I submitted a short story to the New Yorker when I was 15, proving I'm a child prodigy; they just never published it. (Well, not really, but it illustrates the point.) It's the publication in a refereed physics journal at an early age that is noteworthy, not the mere date of composition -- it could, after all, have been a presumptously-titled science-fair project. 137.82.188.68 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)