User talk:Bjcairns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to comment on anything here! Cheers, Ben Cairns.


Contents

[edit] Tips

Hello Bjcairns. I'm glad to see another person contributing to articles on probability.

Two pointers:

  • There's no need to write [[dogs|dog]] , because writing [[dog]]s has the same effect.

Michael Hardy 01:41 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi from me too :)

I've replied to your kind message on my talk page, by the way... but here are some links to help you get started...

Have fun :) Dysprosia 03:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Dysprosia. I really appreciate the helpfulness of Wikipedians -- I am currently trying to re-learn all the wiki-tricks that I've forgotten in the last few months, so I may well have to take up your offer and ask a few questions some time. Ben Cairns 04:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Desargues' theorem

Hi. Thanks for your work on Desargues' theorem. Michael Hardy 20:32, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem :) If you have anything else that needs converting like that, just let me know. Ben Cairns 21:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, how about Image:DesarguesHouse.pdf. That can be used in the same article. Michael Hardy 02:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done! Ben Cairns 04:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Probability

I think your probability textbook idea could work. It will be a lot of work though. Michael Hardy 02:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. At this stage, I don't want it to be a lot of work as a textbook, but rather a "guide to learning probability from the Wikipedia for people who want to learn probability from the Wikipedia". Thus, I wouldn't suggest that anyone supply the missing parts just to have a complete table of contents. Horse before the cart, and all that. Ben Cairns 04:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect (Logistic map)

Hi Kevin. Good to see some engagement with my recent addition to the Logistic map article. However, I stand by my original text. I think that it is in fact true, but I take what may be your point -- it is not entirely clear on the whole story.

What I had written was meant to say that if we had perfect knowledge of the system and its initial state, then in principle we could know every future state -- I mean this in precisely the sense that it is deterministic. Of course, if we were measuring a system or using a digital computer to calculate the future states, then we would have imperfect knowledge or we would fail in practice to accurately calculate future states. But, perfect is, well, perfect, and immeasurability has nothing to do with it.

I'll make the change to what I meant, and try to incorporate your edit as well to make it clearer. Ben Cairns 02:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

perhaps you misunderstood my argument. it is philosophical in nature. if the word "perfect" is to have any meaning it must have information content with respect to an interpretive system; it must provide a method of distinction, such as the distinction between "perfect" and "imperfect". Any system of distinction so posited would prove to be susceptible to the logic that i stated in my argument on the logistic map page. If it is not susceptible - it it is not susceptible to any system, then it has no meaning - then it is an unevaluated construct.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as "perfect". There is always only "perfect in respect to" some criteria which is considered primal.
If, on the other hand, as the logic you wrote on my talk page seems to imply, you mean only that you are constructing the meaning of the word "perfect"; that if one can predict the future state of the system, then one has perfect knowledge, and not the other way around - if you mean only to say this, then it is meaningless to say that your definition meets its own criteria, as it is meaningless to say that "if a jghalg is neccessarily blue, then blue is neccesarily the color of a jghalg". This statement also tells one nothing about the nature of the color blue. Just as an analogous statement about "perfect" and "logistic maps" tells one nothing about the nature of logistic maps.
Furthermore, to have "perfect knowledge" (which is ontologically impossible and therefore completely absurd) by your definition, one would have to be able to predict the outcome of the logistic map forever, which is longer than the logistic map itself would be around, and longer than the "knowledge" would be around.
If, however, the knowledge is "around forever", is "static", then it stand in no casual relation to anything, because it not caused by anything nor does it effect anything, and therefore it is immeasurable and meaningless; it has no correlation to anything. It is a symbol without identity.
I hope that's enough. -Kevin Baas 2003.12.10

In response to your reply on my talk page, I think we agree philosophically about the impossibility of obtaining perfect knowledge about something, but that does not make the concept of perfect knowledge meaningless. I think that the word "perfect" as I used it would be understood by most of the Wikipedia's readers as meaning what I intended it to mean, and moreover the contrasting point about the impossibility of perfect knowledge in practice has been made in the article. However, in response to your comments, I'll have a go at defining "perfect" more clearly.
--Ben Cairns 23:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like what you've done to the page. I think I"ll alwys have a problem with whateveer sentence contains the word perfect, but you don't have to bother fixing it. Just to be clear, I am disagreeing with perfect in principle, not just in practice. Please don't try to define the word "perfect". That's laughable. -Kevin Baas 2003.12.10

Thanks again for your comments. You have an interesting view on 'perfect' -- and I'm happy we can agree to disagree. Ben Cairns 22:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Olduvai theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Olduvai_theory&oldid=1775035

You said the following about the above revision:

Possible copyright violation.

How is that possible? The article stated:

The two paragraphs below are quoted from the abstract of the paper in which this theory was introduced.

Also, the paper that introduced this theory does not have a copyright notice on it.

This has no relevance to the development of that article; I was just curious as to what constitutes a "copyright violation".

[edit] Admin nomination

Hello. Aside from the ongoing discussion at talk:Bayes' theorem -- I noticed that you are not an administrator but I think you ought to be. I will nominate you if you wish. You may reply here or on my talk page. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wile, thanks; I greatly appreciate your offer. Wikipedia is the single greatest thing on the Web, so it is with great reluctance that I must decline. I'm currently in the last year of my doctorate, and my contributions have been, and most likely will be, somewhat sporadic—I can scarcely believe it myself, but my list of contributions is remarkably short for the time I've been here. :) Perhaps in a year or so! Cheers, Ben Cairns 22:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).
No problem, let me know if you change your mind. As ever, keep up the good work. Btw I will respond again on talk:Bayes' theorem but I'm trying to think up a suitable intro section that will make everybody happy (or at least nobody unhappy). I promise not to let it slide for 6 months again. 8^) Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 09:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote "featured article candidate" above; I meant "featured list candidate". (Does that change your vote?) Michael Hardy 02:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics

Hello. Because of recent edits to the list of lists, the question arises: whether you vote or its accompanying comments should get updated? Michael Hardy 00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Hi,

I saw that you worked on the Boole's inequality article and I was thinking that maybe you'd be interested in the False discovery rate article. I wrote most of it, but I'm sure there are mistakes, so maybe you could review it somehow. Tony 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logistic map source code

Hello Bjcairns. I just saw a notice of yours at images associated with the logistic map article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logistic_map_scatterplots_large.png)

Are you still planning to include the source code there? I see the last change was in 2003... Would it be possible for you to paste the source code on my talk page even if you're not going to put it with the image? (Matlab is okay, not yet familiar with Octave)

Would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!  ;) Scribblesinmindscapes 05:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical Physics

Hey Bjcairns, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I recently saw/rated Abel's theorem keep up the good work and feel free to comment in the talk page's shiny new Mathematics box

[edit] Brisbane meetup

Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: In Discussion
Last: February 10, 2008
This box: view • talk • edit

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Giggabot (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane meetup invitation

Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: In Discussion
Last: February 10, 2008
This box: view • talk • edit

Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC).