User talk:Gene Ward Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

The motto of the AIW is Conservata veritate, which translates to, "With the preserved truth" This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: 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 have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp 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.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 00:57, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is this common?

Moved from WP:VP


I tested the waters in my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article by choosing something I thought would be uncontroversial--Lucy tuning. But immediately, it seems, someone changed it back, and then someone else reversed the descision. Is this common? What in the world is going on here?

It seems that the decision to revert may have been wise, I haven't had time to look fully at the changes to Lucy tuning, but it does seem this user has removed some details, whilst adding others. Could someone see if they can merge the information together, it is only a short document, just there have been several minor changes since this. SimonMayer 12:20, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Please don't do any merging unless you understand the topic. I'm a professional mathematician and an expert on musical tuning theory, so some degree of presumption of innocence may be appropriate, and to me at least (and I've mentioned this to the tuning list, where the tuning mavens gather, and it has met with approval there) it seems this article, while not on a topic of much significance, has been greatly improved by my edit. I'm afraid I've done some more work, and even added an article; but after all I think the point is to improve the Wikipedia. On the tuning list, it was suggested I take a hard line and tell people please do not change things back unless you first come there, where the experts forgather, and discuss why; but I'm afraid I am just finding out how the system works. But there is a place to find what the expert consensus is on matter related to tuning theory.


According to the page history, mav reverted the article to a previous version, but you restored your version. I'm not sure why... but not infrequently, edits from anonymous IPs are vandalism, so mav may have mistaken your edit for a destructive one. That kind of mistake is uncommon in my experience, but it may help if you create an account. -- Cyan 12:27, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What happened is that you did a bit of Most common Wikipedia faux pas #5, and deleted some text without explanation. It's generally not a good idea to do that. If you have to delete text, you should have a very good explanation. Put it in the edit summary or the talk page. -- Tim Starling 12:33, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't say that--it says don't delete useful text. I don't think I did that, but I'm afraid I did some deleting elsewhere. Is the intention to leave the pages bloated and soggy with side issues best addessed in separate articles which already exist?

Dear user, thank you very much for your interest in Wikipedia. Currently we have lots of vandalism in Wikipedia, especially from anonymous IP addresses (users without an account). Vandalists come and may make many wrong things: they delete content, they change the content to create confusion, they put innapropriate material etc. According to our quality assurance spirit and because we dont want the reader to be exposed to unverified, wrong or innapropriate information, we always keep an eye on new contributions and changes of existing articles. According to your edit: [1], it is clear that you removed some text and changed some links/text. This fact together with the fact that you don't use a registered username is a bit suspicious and because of the repeated vandalism we don't have much time to check deeply the changes.

Thanks. Nothing was suggested about registering a user name. Is it considered acceptable simply to register my own name?

According to the page history: [2], it seems that you didn't put some "Summary text" explaining your changes. The Summary textbox is located underneath the textbox where you make changes to the article's source code. If you remove some text, please write in the Summary textbox why you think this text should not be included. For example: "I removed some text for duplication avoidance reasons since the info is already contained in a linked article". If you change a link write something like: "This link is more appropriate because...". If you add some new text, it would be very useful and beneficial if you could add external links to websites that can verify the new information you add, and write in the summary that this info is verifiable by other websites or some book etc. It would be very nice if you could open an account and a username. If you need any help, please contact me on my talk page. I will have a closer look at your edit and the previous one to see whether I need to do some merge or change, but I don't know enough on the subject so somebody who knows more may like to do some factual verification and review. Peace. Optim 12:52, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I thought the point was that someone who did know about the subject--in this case, that would be me--could remove factual errors add/or add important information. Does everything need to be justified in detail? Who is going to check it? What does one do about bad writing? If I think an article needs major surgery (and I'm afraid some clearly do) should I put the matter to the talk board for that article, and if I do, will anyone read and reply?

I could give a summary, but I am wondering if more is implicitly being asked here.

Gene Ward Smith

If you know something about the subject, you should know enough about it to be able to increase the length of the article rather than decrease it. Instead of removing some content now with the intention of adding more later, just delay deleting until you have time to add. Consider it a courtesy to our weird culture. If you must delete content, you should mention it in the talk page and in the edit summary. It will be read, but don't be surprised if no-one replies. -- Tim Starling 13:50, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

If you know something about the subject, you should know enough about it to be able to increase the length of the article rather than decrease it.

I could. I didn't know the idea was to pad articles as much as possible.

Instead of removing some content now with the intention of adding more later, just delay deleting until you have time to add.

WHere did you get the idea I removed content?

Consider it a courtesy to our weird culture. If you must delete content, you should mention it in the talk page and in the edit summary.

What "content" did I remove, pray tell?

The changes to the article did add information, but also removed information which this user thought was unnecessary.

I removed misinformation, and explained what the tuning is in a way which seems to me clearer. I also added the single most important piece of information about the topic, which must be included in any article if it is to make sense, namely, that it is a meantone tuning. What actual information is now gone?

The revert therefore also removed information (and added the original information back). I don't know enough to judge whether the longer version or the shorter version is better. I'm guessing neither did the reverter, or they would have combined both sets of information rather than simply reverting. Onebyone 15:38, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Welcome, Gene. Thanks for your contribution. Yes, it's very common indeed. It can be a bit off-putting the way it works here, many people do shoot from the hip. They almost deleted one of my early articles six minutes after I created it and while I was right in the middle of adding the content, and then put up all sorts of rationalisations for the ill- (I suspect un-) researched comments they'd posted explaining their actions. And vigorously defended each other.
Hang in there. It's well worth it once you get over the steep learning curve that confronts newcomers. Well done finding the Pump, and if it's too hostile here feel free to post on my user page.

Thanks for the offer. Yes, it does seem like merely knowing your subject and being able to write about it isn't quite good enough around here, but I don't want to cause trouble with my edits.

On the topic of the article, IMO the two conflicting descriptions need to be merged into a single article for the moment.

Why? They say the same thing, only the way I said it is far more clear. Merging will merely produce confusion.

There may be several versions of the "Lucy Tuning", and Wikipedia shouldn't take a stand as to which of them deserves the name.

There are *not* several versions of Lucy tuning. If there were, I would have said so. What does exist are numerous versions of meantone tuning, of which this is one.

We'll just report what the experts say. That's unless there is a very strong consensus, among all users of the term not just the experts, and there's some doubt in my mind as to whether this exists. If it does, that's stage two. For the moment, we should list both mathematical explanations, with appropriate disclaimers. Andrewa 15:43, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's quite frightening that the opinion of Wikipedia users is considered more important than that of experts in the field. That means the Wikipedia is nothing more than a complex excersise in vanity publishing, and not an encyclopedia. Elde 18:31, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I suppose the justification is that it is quite hard to define, let alone verify, who should count as an 'expert' in any one subject. Note also that Andrewa only said "users of the term", not "users of the site"/"Wikipedia users", as you inferred. Generally, in my (albeit limited) experience, someone posting to an article's talk page and sounding like they know what they are talking about will usually be believed until proven otherwise. In other words, an expert can come along and justify factual corrections if what they say holds up to scrutiny. The final point being that the Wikipedia concept of Neutral Point Of View suggests that a commonly held opinion is worthy of mention even if demonstrably false, as long as it is labelled as such. Or that's my interpretation, anyway. - IMSoP 20:04, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Another way to deal with deleting chunks of articles without scaring people is to move (i.e. cut and paste) the objectionable section to the article's talk page. There you can explain what was wrong with it, and other interested parties can read the removed section and your reasoning without having to delve into the edit history of an article. Fabiform 15:46, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's a thought--move it to the talk page, and explain the problem you find with it. Should this be done with matter (and it is out there) which is plainly erroneous?

I think you will find that as a logged-in user, your contributions will generally be taken more seriously than as an anonymous contributor. When removing even mis-information, if it's not blatant nonsense, it's usually worth explaining your deletion in the talk page. Also, if you can work out from the history list who contributed the misinformation, it's probably worth tracking down that person and leaving them a message on their user talk page that something is up. Feel free to ask experienced wikipedians (on their respective user talk pages or by email) if you are in doubt how best to raise an issue. It's all a little tricky and the lines aren't certain. Again, just realize that an anonymous person flat-out contradicting precious content is usually vandalism, which is why your text got jumped on, probably by someone not expert, just assuming he/she was reverting vandalism. -- Jmabel 18:47, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

[edit] Welcome, again

Gene, I hope your initiation here wasn't too horrible, and apologize for your being dealt with a little harshly (while I haven't kept up on the entire discussion, it looks to me as though we as a community were not very welcoming). I just wanted to extend a friendly hello from someone here, and explain what I believe happened (though it looks like others have done so).

Thanks for the friendly hello. My initiation is still on-going, as the same page which was the very first I edited now seems to be involved in an edit war, for which I don't know the standard proceedure, if any. I suggest taking the matter before the experts, which seems only reasonable. I also think people ought to say why they made the changes they do, as I did.

We have a lot of trouble with anonymous users disbelieving that we will actually let them edit content. Often they'll go to a random page and delete text (or blank the entire article and insert the word "poopy", if not something less intelligent than that). Then they leave and don't fix things. I'm afraid it makes those of us committed to a quality encyclopedia too nervous about anonymous users, especially when text is deleted. Usually additions can be judged more easily than deletions: I can't explain why. It's a problem we are still attempting to deal with: your case is one that a lot of us will have to consider, and I thank you for not just leaving, but staying and explaining your position.

There has been dicussion of blocking all anonymous edits, but almost all of us agree that it violates the spirit of Wikipedia to throw up barriers to editing--it just means we have a trickier and more complex issue to deal with than we'd like.

How many anonymous edits actually are accepted?

I hope you will stay, long-term, to share your expertise and to help by welcoming new users more gently than it seems we welcomed you. I'm intrigued by your experience and expertise, and I know we need more gifted and intelligent editors here. Let me know on my talk page if you experience other trouble, and I'll try to run some interference: hopefully it won't be necessary! Best wishes, and again, please stick around and help us out, Jwrosenzweig 23:53, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I'll take you up on that.

Edit wars....there is no standard procedure because we are supposed to avoid them. In practice, though, we have about a hundred edit wars occurring at any given time (not bad considering nearly 200,000 articles....but still not good). If people are simply reverting each other's changes without discussion, the best thing to do is to say so on the article's talk page, and to list the article (if the edit war continues) at Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress. I generally agree that expert opinion ought to be followed....I say generally because we often then get into arguments about whether or not a given person is an expert. I don't know this subject well enough to know who the experts are, I'm afraid, though I do wish people were a little less quick to bash the idea of "expert opinion". This is a case where it can be very valuable, I think. I completely agree that people ought to say why they make the changes they do...you should point this out on the talk page of the article....sometimes it has a surprisingly real effect.
Isn't the fact that Lucy himself is editing a page on Lucy tuning a consideration? He would not necessarily be expected (and in fact, does not) keep to NPOV. Gene Ward Smith 19:24, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In practice, I would say that anonymous user edits are often accepted. Look here to note that, as of August (thousands and thousands of edits ago), anonymous contributors had added over 300,000 edits to the site. Most of these are article creations and copyedits of existing articles, but a number of them jump into existing articles to make substantive changes. I can't explain why some get jumped on....perhaps it depends who's on watch and what kind of day it's been. Thanks for sticking with us. I'll try to keep an eye on that edit war, though sometimes there's little anyone can do to stop such things...they run their course in a week or two, usually. Good luck, and happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 18:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Gene, first of all, please sign all comments with ~~~~ in the future? You do that here, but at Talk:Lucy tuning I got very confused about who had said what...it's easier to just get used to always signing. Also, though you're free to do whatever you like on the talk page, I personally get confused by replies occurring in the middle of what I've written. If you do reply in the middle, it would be easier on my addled brain if you added an additional : to indent your remarks one further, to separate them more clearly.
Now, as to Lucy tuning, you may be right that it is Charles himself, but I wouldn't speak of it as a fact. We often have suspected here that we have people writing about themselves, and it usually turns out to be some random person on the net with little or no connection to the more famous person. It is a general policy not to start articles about one's self (though you may contribute to them, and there is no policy against writing about one's own works (nor should there be, I think). Of course, one always has to operate within NPOV, as that is very clearly policy. If the article on Lucy tuning is not neutral, do what you can to make it so. If problems persist, mark it as a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, which sometimes brings in others to help. I'm afraid it's a subject so technical that most of us (even the normally intelligent and capable) find ourselves unable to contribute anything meaningful. I can barely claim to understand the article.
I hope that all is resolved soon. Thank you for working within our system to improve that corner of our site...without the area-specific knowledge of people like you, an article like Lucy tuning can live here for a long time without anyone realizing it is erroneous. If you continue to have trouble with someone you suspect is Charles Lucy, try leaving a note on their user talk page asking them to identify themselves. Sometimes it works. Sheldon Rampton is an editor here who works on articles related to his somewhat well-known work, but Sheldon has (though not scandal-free) managed to retain the respect of almost all of us for attempting to be neutral about his own work, and he is generally quite successful. Perhaps Charles Lucy (if it is him) will adapt to the environment here as well. We can only hope. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mentoring re: Edit Wars

Gene, sorry it took me a while to respond. You left your note on my user page (User:Jwrosenzweig) -- so you know, user pages are usually just places for people to post things about or for themselves. Notes are usually left at talk pages, like User talk:Jwrosenzweig. I'm much better at responding promptly to those. :)

Now, is there still an issue regarding edit wars? My general advice is always to attempt to avoid them--everyone has their own style here, and my style has been to always try to slow things down, leave polite notes even to the very rude, and trust that others who see what's going on will understand that I am the one being patient and careful. It doesn't work for everyone, but it's been great for me. I've only had one occasion in which I had anything like I'd call a conflict with another user, and it was eventually resolved (as far as I know) with essentially no edit war. Are there specific problems you're facing? Is there a page (or pages) I should look at to see what trouble you're having? Is the "mentoring" you spoke of a request for me to tell you how to avoid edit wars, how to conduct them, how to escape them, how to win them....? Just let me know. :) I hope I'm not too late to help in preventing trouble. Jwrosenzweig 21:05, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Kenneth

I very much appreciate your attempts, unsuccessful though they might be, to talk some sense into Lord Kenneth; the things you've said, some of which I've tried to tell him before, are lent much more credibility when they come from someone like you. Do you think you could weigh in on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lord Kenneth? — No-One Jones (talk) 14:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth

User:Lord_Kenneth in talk mentions quote you're full of **** all... here unquote. Unworthy for lordship, methinks : ) Sincerely, irismeister 13:46, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

[edit] Weierstass's elliptic function

Hi Gene, welcome and thanks for your contributions in the math area. In a successful attempt to prove my utter ignorance, I left two questions for you at Talk:Weierstrass's elliptic functions. Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] scientific method

GWS, Have just blundered across you on a WPians list and was intrigued enough to look around.

I'm sorry that your introduction to WP was as it seems to have been. A thick skin, some detachment, and following MT's advice to first count ten and then swear like a longshoreman is perhaps best. The WP is a place where all are hostage to all and not every experience is salutary.

You might consider scientific method and (briefly!) the Talk page (and some of its (recent) archives) for an example of a longer extant controversy(ies). You are likely to see why I made the suggestions I made above. On the other hand, you may -- given your studies and interests -- be able to make some sense of some of the controversy. Some significant portion of it has escaped me. If you plunge in, perhaps you will be able to bring enlightenment to all.

Anyway, a belated welcome to WP.

ww 14:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi Gene Ward Smith,

It is nice to have a knowledged maths person here, so i sincerely hope you're not put off by some people or events here. I like your contributions, but may i point you to Category:mathematics and its sub-categories?

Categories are a mechanism to group articles together, so that someone researching the topic can find them more conveniently.

In order to add an article to the category Mathematics for example, you add [[category:Mathematics]] to it. The article appears in the category automatically. If you want to link to a category without putting the article in that category, you type [[:Category:mathematics]] .

I really don't want to critizize you, if all this was about most other topics i'd simply put the article in the right category without a fuss, but i'm bad at math and really can't guess to which sub-category that stuff should go. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have further technical questions.

best regards, Lady Tenar 23:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Please provide an edit summary. Thanks! Hyacinth 23:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Musical set theory

Would you care to elaborate more on the (dis)connection between set theory and musical set theory? For instance, why tuple, rather than sequence? Feel free to respond in the article itself, as hopefully I/others can write a better introduction to "musical set theory" and the current introduction can become a section which clearly explains the differences. Hyacinth 23:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, you're edit looks great, and I don't want my above question (or the request above it) to appear as criticism in any way. Hyacinth 23:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ribet article

Hello. A couple of points about the Ken Ribet article. Firstly, the accepted WP convention is to use the most common name; and I've never heard him called 'Kenneth' (admittedly it's 20 years since I last met him). Second, it looks to me that you made a cut-and-paste move, which is not considered good - better always to use Move Page.

Charles Matthews 19:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Takagi existence theorem

In a fit of overzealousness (Ew! Not a word!), I thought that that article merited deletion when it didn't. I quickly attempted to clean up my mess, as I realize now that I was in error. I don't recall ever marking up the talk page, though. EDIT - OOOOOOH! Now I see why I got yelled at. I managed to look at the talk page and thought it was the actual article. *slaps himself* I'll go remove that now.

Sorry,

Mo0 06:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Infinity" edits

Salutations Gene Ward Smith,

I think your edits to infinity, especially your most recent ones, are a vast improvement over what was there before.

I have a few concerns though about your edits and with what you wrote on the talk page, that I'd like to discuss with you.

In your first round of edits, you deleted large amounts of content with no discussion and without the benefit of a consensus. This is widely considered to be a violation of Wikipedian norms of conduct. It is also important to be especially careful about deleting content. If it is wrong, then it's generally held to be better to fix it. If it is out of place, then it's generally held to be better to move it. Being a relatively new Wikipedian, perhaps you are not aware of this.

Also, I don't think it is helpful to call lysdexia's edits "vandalism". His edits were no more "vandalism" than yours were. As I said above your edits would be considered by many to be contrary to established norms, but I don't think they would qualify as vandalism. Nor, in my view, were lysdexia's reverting your edits vandalism. He was merely trying to undo what he and many wikipedians would consider to be inappropriate edits.

As for the content of your edits, as I said above, and on Talk:Infinity, I like, for the most part, what you've added to the article, but I'm concerned about some of the content that you deleted. For example I'm not convinced (yet!) that all the mathematics should go. I think this should be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached.

Also, you may not have noticed, but after lysdexia reverted your original edits, I added back your "Use of infinity in Physics" section edits, with some additional edits of my own. You have now eliminated all of my edits. Was this intentional? If so would you mind telling me what you found wrong with them? Reverting edits without discussing why tends to make people unhappy.

It's great to have another math PhD, contributing to Wikipedia. There are several professional mathematicians working on wikipedia, by the way, three good ones that I know are: AxelBoldt, Charles Matthews and Michael Hardy. I myself, have a PhD in categorical topology, as well as "a background in philosophy", so we should get along famously ;-)

Paul August 06:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


I don't know how to correspond other than by editing this page, so here I am. You wrote "In your first round of edits, you deleted large amounts of content with no discussion and without the benefit of a consensus. This is widely considered to be a violation of Wikipedian norms of conduct." However, we are told "be bold", and it doesn't take much boldness to see that removing material which is simply wrong is a good idea. Can you point to one single sentence in the introduction I removed which has any value? If so, we could talk about restoring that content, but if not, what would be the point in worrying about it? I think a concrete discussion focused on "You removed X, but X actually made sense and you didn't replace it with Y doing the same job" would be where to start.

  • Also, I don't think it is helpful to call lysdexia's edits "vandalism".

I wrote a lot of good stuff and he took it out, and replaced it with what I regard as garbage. Why is that not vandalism? In any case delicacy with my manners went out the window when he introduced the adjective "stupid".

  • For example I'm not convinced (yet!) that all the mathematics should go. I think this should be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached.

It is impossible to have an intelligent philosophical discussion of the concept of infinity and ignore mathematics, so this is a red herring.

  • Also, you may not have noticed, but after lysdexia reverted your original edits, I added back your "Use of infinity in Physics" section edits, with some additional edits of my own.

I didn't think I eliminated your edits, so I'd better check. Certainly, that was not my plan.

  • It's great to have another math PhD, contributing to Wikipedia. There are several professional mathematicians working on wikipedia, by the way, three good ones that I know are: AxelBoldt, Charles Matthews, Michael Hardy. I myself, have a PhD in categorical topology, as well as "a background in philosophy", so we should get along famously ;-)

Good! I've not made as many contributions as AxelBoldt or Charles Matthews, but mine are pretty substantial by now. Gene Ward Smith 07:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hi Gene Ward Smith,

Thanks for responding to my post on your talk page. I've copied your response (above) to make it easier to follow the discussion.

Yes we are told to be bold, but sometimes what one editor thinks is "simply wrong" another editor thinks is "a lot of good stuff", so we have to work together here by striving for consensus. We can discuss specific X's removed and/or replacement Y's, but much of my concern has to do with process.

For example your edit of 19:14, Oct 16, removed the following:

[edit] Use of infinity in mathematics

In mathematics, infinity is an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number. [3]

  • This definition is wrong, and in particular "unbounded quantity" makes no sense. The substance was retained in the discussion of infinity in real analysis.

A distinction is made between different "sizes" of infinity because it can be shown that some infinite sets have greater cardinality than others. Georg Cantor developed a system of transfinite numbers, in which the first transfinite cardinal is aleph-null (\aleph_0), the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.

  • This was rewritten and retained.
All of the text in this section was deleted by you on Oct 16th (see: edit history) leaving this version of the article [4] correct? Your edits on Oct 31st added back this content. My concerns were about edits of Oct 16th. Paul August 20:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

The modern mathematical conception of the infinite developed in the late nineteenth century from work by Cantor, Gottlob Frege, Richard Dedekind and others, using the idea of sets. Their approach was essentially to adopt the idea of one-to-one correspondence as a standard for comparing the size of sets, and to reject the view of Galileo (which derived from Euclid) that the whole cannot be the same size as the part. An infinite set can simply be defined as one having the same size as at least one of its "proper" parts.

  • Again, this was not removed, it was edited.
This was removed on Oct 16th, it was edited and added back on the 31st, correct? (see above) Paul August 20:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thus Cantor showed that infinite sets can even have different sizes, distinguished between countably infinite and uncountable sets, and developed a theory of cardinal numbers around this. His view prevailed and modern mathematics accepts actual infinity. Certain extended number systems, such as the surreal numbers, incorporate the ordinary (finite) numbers and infinite numbers of different sizes.

  • Ditto.

Our intuition gained from finite sets breaks down when dealing with infinite sets. One example of this is Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

  • Didn't change a word of this.

It is worth mention that the infinite cardinal numbers (relating to set theory) and the infinity commonly encountered in algebra and calculus are two completely different concepts. In algebra and calculus, 2∞ is not technically a number, but taking a limit yields 2∞ = ∞. Real numbers are not used to measure the sizes of sets, so ∞ can be used for any quantity that grows indefinitely at a limit. The corresponding statement in set theory is that 2ℵ0 > ℵ0 because the former term is uncountable, while the latter is countable. Exponents in set theory are not the same as regular exponents in high school mathematics, the former using cardinals or sizes and the latter using ordinals or amounts, and ∞ is not the used or treated same as aleph null.

  • This repeated stuff already discussed, and was removed as redundent. The discussion of exponents in set theory was irrelevant to the topic.

[edit] "bounded" versus "unbounded"

In mathematics, the term bounded is use to designate a set whose elements in a container of finite size. More formally, the set Z = \left \{ z_1, z_2, z_3, \ldots, z_n \right \} is said to be bounded if there exists at least one point c (center) and a positive real number r (radius) such that the set U_r \left ( c \right ), where U_r \left ( c \right ) is the set that contain all the points than are less or equal to distance r from c, in both directions, contains all the elements of Z; Z \sub U_r\left ( c \right ). Z is unbounded if, for any c and any r, U_r \left ( c \right ) does not include all elements of Z.

  • This is wandering off the topic; if something like this is to be included, it should be much more concise.

This is the mathematical way of answering the riddle, "How long is a piece of string?" by showing that the [imaginary] string has a length shorter than a[n imaginary] string of longer length.

  • This is just bad.

For the above definitions to make sense, we have to have define what we mean by distance, We must define a metric to be in metric space. If it is not, the terms "bounded" and "unbounded" are meaningless. However, the term '"infinity" is meaningful even without a metric.

  • Again, metric spaces are off-topic.

These definitions of bounded and unbounded are the same, regardless of whether point c is part of Z, or whether or not U_r \left ( c \right ) is exactly equal to Z.

It can be easily shown that

  • If a set is finite, it is bounded.
  • If a set is unbounded, is infinite.

However,

  • If a set is bounded, it is not necessarily finite. For example, a segment is bounded but has an infinite number of elements.
  • If a set is infinite, it may not be unbounded.

If a set is bounded, we can define a diameter of the set:

diam \left ( Z \right ) = Max_{z \in Z, y \in Z} d(z,y)

Where d(z,y) is the distance between z and y in set Z. We take the maximal d(z,y) returned after considering all permutations of z and y.

The diameter of a set is always a positive real number or zero, if the set is bounded. It can be zero if and only if the set is empty or has only one member.

If the set Y is unbounded, we can write diam \left ( Y \right ) = \infty but it must be understood that this is only a convention for stating that Y is unbounded. It does not literally mean that the diameter is infinite.

  • This isn't a very good discussion, but the main thing wrong with it is that it is off-topic.

[edit] Calculus and mathematical analysis

A very common use of infinity is in calculus and mathematical analysis, for example:

  • \lim_{t \to \infty} \, f(t) = 0
  • \int_{0}^{1} \, f(t) dt \ = \infty
  • \int_{0}^{\infty} \, f(t) dt \ = \infty
  • \int_{0}^{\infty} \, f(t) dt \ = 1

The article isn't about freshman calculus, even if that is where a lot of this discussion seems to be coming from. This is included to the extent it needs to be in the real analysis stuff.

Infinity is not part of the set of real numbers; \infty \not\in \mathbb{R} and cannot be used in places where a real number can normally be used. For example, a - a = 0 \ \ \forall a \in \mathbb{R} is true, but \infty - \infty = 0 is undefined. Over the mathematical explanation and by logic, arithmetic operations, those based on counting, are undefined for infinity within arithmetic mathematics for expression and solution. But within logic the statement \infty - \infty = 0 is also true; however, infinity not being bound produces indeterminate solutions wherein a 0 or any other solution may be or already is true if the expression is defined, which is an arbitrary task. This explanation is absent from any maths level treatise of infinity.

  • This could be worked up into a discussion of the arithmetic of infinity used as a symbol for a limit, but as it is it isn't up to snuff, and is misleading at best.

There are only few cases when you can consider ∞ as a regular number. In these unusual cases, you are in the so-called extended real number field, denoted by \bar \mathbb{R}

  • Good link, but needs editing. "Regular number"?

In limit analysis, we can make statements which include the theoretical case that we almost put infinity in the place of a real number, for example \lim_{x \to \infty} \, \frac{1}{x} = 0. This states that as x continues to grow in magnitude (tends towards infinity), 1/x becomes closer and closer to zero (tends toward zero). The limit case, 1 / \infty = 0 is undefined; however if x was the largest finite value known to us, 1/x would be the closest finite value to zero known to us. Here, "undefined" means that the solution is not in the set of real numbers; this only repeats the axiom that infinity is not a number.

  • Is a discussion of limits carried on to this extent relevant to the topic? It's not "limits", its "infinity".

Limits do not literally consider the case of x=∞ If the definition did include ∞, the properties of the definition change, and some properties that were valid before may no longer be valid. For example, when you extend the definition of integrals, you get improper integrals. Without fully understanding this and correctly assessing the consequences of using infinity in place of a real number, error and paradox may occur. For an example, see the explanation of why the mean of the Cauchy distribution is undefined.

It is important to note that not all limits, series and integrals are convergent.

In the usual ordered real number field, it is common to distinguish between +∞ and -∞.

  • Ditto.

Can't you see that, even if some of the above is less than perfect (which I think it clearly is;-) removing such a large amount of content without discussion might upset the many editors who may have collaborated in writing it?

  • Good point, but this got dumped in after I made my edits, and without regard to them, and I did not create that mess. Why was my edit allowed to be butchered, but I am under an obligation to deal with a lot of stuff, much of it irrelevant or badly written or even wrong? All of this greatly expanded the size of the article but didn't really add much that was relevant and correct.
Perhaps I've made a wrong assumption. Looking at the edit history, I've assumed that your first edit to this article occurred on Oct16. Is that correct? If so then this did not get "dumped in after" you made your edits. This content was present in the article well before Oct 16th. Did you perhaps make edits before the 16th under a different user name? Paul August 20:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, in my opinion (an opinion shared by many other editors) if content has any value at all, it is better to try to fix or move it rather than delete it.

  • And this was not done with my edit.
you know what they say about two wrongs not making a right ;-) Paul August 20:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are you really saying that all of the above is "simply wrong", has no "value", makes no "sense" and that you regard it as "garbage"?

  • Sorting out the good and bad would be a bit of a problem. Easier would be to try to add more on the same topic but more concisely and correctly, but I am not sure that addresses your concerns.

I am pleased to see that in your recent edits you have reincorporated some of the deleted content above, often improving on what was there before. Perhaps other deleted content might also be profitably reincorporated? I would be happy to be specific if you are interested in discussing this any further ;-) I would like to help in any way I could ;-)

Also if you wish to construe what lysdexia did as vandalism fine, but then don't you see that, by the same token, what you did above might also be construed in the same way? I was just trying to convince you that, just like it is unhelpful for lysdexia to use the word "stupid" the use of "vandalism" might also be unconstructive. (see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what most wikipedians mean by that term, you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Wikilove) I'm not trying to defend lysdexia, some of his actions and remarks (IMHO) have been less than than polite. But if you are simply trying to get back at lysdexia, by "responding in kind" please notice that calling his edits "vandalism" and "garbage", can be seen to tar with the same brush, the five dozen or so other editors who have worked on this article, like me ;-) Was that your intention?

Paul August 17:10, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Science of value

Gene, Would you kindly clarify for me as to how ordered fields help avoid the objections to placing infinite cardinalities in the denominator of a number?

I've since read your entry on Hyperreal Numbers, and now I understand. So skip this question. I would like your comments, though, on the next que.

Also with regard to this quote I paraphrase here from you: A standard argument against the idea that the number of properties of a thing can in any meaningful way be enumerated is that new properties can be defined in terms of old ones. Would you please explain what you mean by that last part about new properties defined from old. How does that work? Thanks in advance.Simplebrain 19:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might check the Wikipedia article on Bleen for one famous example. I took this discussion from email from an expert on value theory, by the way.

This discussion is disputing "a straw man" -- since value scientsts don't go about enumerating properties. They are interested in the art of naming, so Nelson Goodman would get attention along with menu designers, journalists (like Walter Winchell), and other writers who have a flair for combining concepts into neologisms. I do have, Gene, some items to point out on the topic -- and then some questions to ask:

I'd like to correct a couple of factual inaccuracies in your article. Professor Hartman died Sept. 20, 1973. The festshrift in his honor was published in 1972. Those distinguished scholars that paid him this unique tribute were indeed showing support for him. Granted, they were not value scientists: they were philosophers. One of the exceptions is Albert Ellis, who practices psychotherapy--not that much any more, since he is now over 90--he did engage in applied axiology. His student, Dr. Leon Pomeroy, is now the Chairman of the Board at the Hartman Institute for Formal and Applied Axiology. This Institute was set up in Hartman's honor. Does every philosphy teacher get a festschrift? Does every professor get an Institute? He was invited to be a guest professor at both Yale and at M.I.T. Do bad philosophers get invited? He was given the lifetime post of Research Professor at The Univ. Of Mexico, which meant he had privileges that other teachers don't get. He was made first President of the Society for Value Inquiry. He was commissioned by UNESCO to survey the status of worldwide work in Axiology, and they published his "AXIOLOGY AT MID-CENTURY." It beats me how such a font of pure nonsense as you make him out to be gets all these honors by his peers. Another contributor to the VALUES AND VALUATION book is the Chairman Emeritus of the Univ. of Tennessee, John W. Davis who did do research within Hartman's frame of reference; he is no longer in active practice, due to illness.

I would be interested to know, Gene: Do you consider medicine to be a science? If yes, exactly when did it become so? Did it have math in it at that time? What about Political Science? Is that a science? How about music theory, (including the notational system, the scaling, etc.? How would you rate that as a system? Hartman frequently makes an analogy of his theory adding a dimension to the appreciation of values, as following a performance with the score in your lap may do for music appreciation.


"A DVD remote control which has too many button on it" is a concept that a value scientist would categorize as a Transposition of Value. This concept has a cardinality symbolized by: V-V; [V ranges over n, or >=aleph-null]. It's value, algebraically, is: 1 over V-to-the-V, or a mere fraction of value. The words "too many" indicate to the analyst a disvalue. You read about this in THE STRUCTURE book, I'm sure. A disvaluation is taking place in the very act of naming this remote control. Verbal disvalues are translated into the Algebra of Value -- and into the value calculus -- as transpositions. Hartman explained this in careful detail in his paper, "The Measurement of Value," and later incorporated it into his magnum opus. So while you were using that illustration to make a point about enrichment of value, we in this discipline interpret it as a fragmented value, worth little, confirming within the theory -- and its rules of interpretation -- the same conclusion you reached about it independently, via observation.

I'd very much appreciate a response from you on these points, as well as comments on the following.

By the way, in my book, TRENDS TOWARD SYNTHESIS: The Moral Philosophy of Robert S. Hartman, I had the identical critique you have in the article in re those formulas resulting from adding and multiplying fair, bad, good, etc. To this date they are inutile and make no sense. However, to be fair, Reiman and Lobachevsky's geometries were around for years before Einstein made use of them, as perhaps was the Tensor Calculus. Hartman's output may some day be interpreted in a meaningful way. It is a fallacy of logic to leap to conclusions about their never being used, and thus are "nonsense." Never is not a scientific attitude. And is it right to find one or two flaws in a long book and then smear the entire work with a brush?

Of course he is not being taught in conventional philosophy courses on philosophical axiology! That doesn't surprise me. New paradigms face the history of first being rejected as "weird," then becoming so very standard and conventional, and finally, most everyone claims that they thought of it first! Thomas Jefferson ridiculed the idea of the Eirie Canal ever being built, and I'm sure you can supply no end of other examples of people who scoffed at what later was commonplace. So why is that part of your evaluation in the article?

And does it make any sense to you now as to why a 'Dear John Letter' situation is worth less than the 'taking literally' what was meant to be a metaphor? It struck you as sheer nonsense, at first glance. And I'm sure you grasp what that illustration about Xmas shopping is all about? -- the emphasis upon shopping may be perceived by some as a disvaluation of what Jesus of Nazareth stood for.

Isn't Dr. Hartman at all be be commended for the breakthrough definition of "good" as being a quantifier of qualities, in the sense that "all" and "some" are quantifiers?

On all these issues, I'd really appreciate an answer. Simplebrain68.23.162.70 02:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] AMA Request for Assistance

Hi! My name is Wally, and I'm an advocate from the AMA. I noticed on the AMA site that you submitted a request for arbitration during late November (on two counts, as a matter of fact) and to the best of my knowledge it has not yet been answered, nor has any answer been recorded. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of making contact. I wonder if, at this point (given the lack of timeliness to our response, and I beg your pardon for it) you still wish to seek our services in the two issues you mentioned. If so, please note that on my talk page and I'd be happy to take your case(s) and begin investigating them. Hope to hear from you soon. Wally 22:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cubic equation

We are having some problems with this article, as explained on Talk:Cubic equation. Could you please have a look and see if you can help us out, since you worked a lot on it a couple of months ago? Thanks, Jitse Niesen 20:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarski's axioms

There seems to be an error on the page you created for Tarski's axioms; in particular, the Axiom schema of completeness seems to say that one subformula is allowed to use y but is not allowed to use y. Any chance you could clear that up? Thanks, Cwitty 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High Fantasy

I realise your ambition, but please consider that 20 titles are enough. Please stop putting any more books or authors' exemples, because I will subsequently delete them. Please be so kind and do not this anymore. 20 books and authors, are completely enough for such an article. Thank you for your attention: Painbearer 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales

Would you be interested in joining my proposed WikiProject, WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales? —Keenan Pepper 18:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laplace transform

Hi. An edit of yours to Laplace transform from February has been questioned on the talk page, at Talk:Laplace transform#Alternative Definition. Could you possible clarify or give a reference? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modulatory space

Do you want to fix Modulation (music) since modulatory space has its own article? I'll get around to it eventually if you don't. Hyacinth 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what I meant by the above. Hyacinth 09:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged Modulatory space with an original research tag and am writing to give you a heads up. See Talk:Modulatory space#Original research. Hyacinth 08:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant Pitch class space and have moved the tag there. I apologize for any and all trouble. Hyacinth 09:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comma

Do you have a source for the etymology (or even existence) of the Holdrian comma/Arabian comma which you recently modified? That article has been in dispute and narrowly avoided AFD recently. The principal source cited in the article has had its credibility shredded. No source that I've found online links Holder to the comma described in the article. Do you have a copy of Holder's treatise? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Pereq.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pereq.ogg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The same applies to Image:Permean.ogg and Image:Perwolf.ogg. Cheers --Pak21 13:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tchaikovsky

Re. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Biography. I'm ok with the suicide theory being relegated to Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Rumors concerning his death; however, I'm wondering what your source is. I used Robert Greenberg, who teaches the suicide as fact. Other Wikipedians brought up Poznansky. Why are you so convinced he died of cholera? <>< tbc 05:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematician template for babel boxes

I noticed your name in Category:Mathematician Wikipedians. I thought I would let you know - I constructed a userbox (view at Template:User mathematician), if you use them......seems we're the only two mathematicians on wikipedia!DonaNobisPacem 08:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 19 equal temperament, Costeley

I can certainly look to see. As far as I know Costeley only wrote one or two pieces using microtones, when he was in contact with Sandrin who kept in touch with Vicentino. (I've heard some music by Easley Blackwood Jr. in that temperament, from 1980-1983) Good work on tuning/temperaments by the way! Antandrus (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the paper abstract (which you may already have found) [5]. Too bad I missed this conference; it looks interesting. While I don't have the paper, you could certainly cite the abstract. I'd like to know how Lorenz interpreted Costeley's notation to get 19tET out of it. Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cycle/cyclic graph

Hello Gene - I think your terminology for these is correct and have stated so in Talk:Cyclic_graph and on User talk:zero0000. Let's try to get this whole terminology straightened out. Debivort 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Science

Gene, please consider joining the History of Science WikiProject.--ragesoss 15:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Please "Separate discussion topics: Put each new conversation topic or major thread under a different section header (== Subject ==)." as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. (re: Talk:Pitch space) Thanks. Hyacinth 10:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted media

Hi. I understand that you had permission to upload those files, but in order for Wikipedia to be sure of its legal status, you also need to make this clear on the "image" page itself, which unfortunately you didn't do for those files. As such, they were tagged as being "images lacking copyright information", which means they are liable for speedy deletion after 7 days. I tagged the files on 19 December, and then left this note telling you about it and giving you the information you need to fix the problem. I admit this isn't quite an e-mail, but the assumption is that Wikipedia editors will be reading their talk pages; if you're not, things will pass you by. I hope this explains both the reasons for what I did, and my apparent lack of communication about it.

As for what can be done about it now, the unfortunate answer is "not very much". The images were deleted by an administrator on 28 December; unlike articles, no backup copy is kept on the Wikipedia servers, so unless you (or possibly another user) has a copy, they cannot be restored.

If you have any further questions, please feel very free to reply, either here on or my talk page. Cheers --Pak21 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Which pages they were deleted from again isn't something I can help with, I'm afraid. Looking at my contributions around the time the media were deleted, I don't seem to have actually removed them from any pages, so I suspect these actions were undertaken by a different editor. (The other possibility is that the pages the media were on have themselves been deleted, in which case the media themselves are rather of secondary importance). Cheers --Pak21 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hi Gene. Just a request. I wonder if you would consider using an edit summary, at least for major edits. Helps people on whose watchlist you happen to pop up. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] p-adic numbers

Gene - nice re-write on P-adic number - I liked most of your updates. However, I am not sure about your new "backwards arithmetic" section. I have always seen p-adic numbers written down as strings extended to the left. I believe that writing them as strings extended to the right is non-standard - is this your own notation ? And you have your "decimal" point in a strange place. Take -1/5 as a 5-adic number, for example - I would write it ...444.45 - how would you write it ? Personally, I thought the first part of the old "Motivation" section was a clearer introduction - introducing 10-adic expansions first at least has the advantage that newcomers are working in a base that they are familiar with.Gandalf61 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing strings to the left is what Koblitz did. I find it hard to read, and don't like it. I don't know of anyone who does it to the right, but there's nothing wrong with it and the section is on trying to make the p-adics intuitive. I am quite sure they are intutitive this way, because I discovered the 10-adics when I was 16 and sitting bored in an algebra class. When the teacher said carry to the left, I asked myself why not to the right? I proved to my satisfaction that this was a ring, and spent more than a week trying to show it was a field, until I discovered that in fact it wasn't, and that it depended on the base. So, I find this a very intuitive approach. I recommend it.

As for the 10-adics, I think it isn't such a good idea to fixate on them, since they aren't important. Gene Ward Smith 22:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shohé Tanaka

Hi Gene. I deleted this earlier today because it just read, "Shohé Tanaka is an important Japanese physicist and music theorist." In my mind, this wasn't enough for notability. There are a lot of physicists and music theorists who aren't notable. However, with the article's current content, he's certainly notable. Let me know if you have any more questions. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 17:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your communication. In the future, perhaps you'd like to create your article in a user subpage. That way you can save it in any form without worrying about it getting deleted. When you're ready, you can transfer it to article space. Please understand that admins delete a lot of non-notable stuff every day. If it's actually notable, we hope the poster will post it again or take it to deletion review, as you did. It's not a perfect system, I'll admit, but we do our best. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't my article, it was someone else's. When I went to edit it, I found it had been deleted, apparently by someone who knew nothing about the subject. This upset me, since I naturally assumed there was some content to the article, which was no longer viewable. Moreover, if I started a new article, it seemed likely that would be deleted also by someone who didn't know anything about the subject. As it is, while I can see the latest version, I don't know the history, which I think should be restored. Gene Ward Smith 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. If something like this comes up in the future, I suggest you look up the article here to determine which admin deleted it, and ask that admin about the article. S/he would be happy to help you. Or, just ask any other admin. About you creating new articles, I reiterate what I said before: create them on a subpage, and transfer them to article space when notability is clearly established. (Also, if you would like me to respond faster in the future, please leave messages on my talk page. Thanks.) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The full page history is now available. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
All content from previous versions of the article are as follows:

Shohé Tanaka is an important Japanese physicist and music theorist. He graduated Tokyo University in 1882 as a science student. He went to Germany in 1884, together with Mori Ogai.

He is known as a music theorist, but continued to study physics at the same time.

{{music-bio-stub}}

--Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the music-bio-stub used above to a link as it was causing this user page to appear in Category:Music biography stubs. Road Wizard 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia:Deletion review

You seem bent on accusing some person or persons of deliberately abusing either their authority or the Wikipedia processes. I urge you to go read (or reread) Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mistakes happen. We should all strive to do better. Your continued emotional reaction to this issue, though, is rapidly damaging your credibility. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for citation regarding contradictions between Gary Renard's view of ACIM and most commonly accepted views amongst students

Dear Gene,
A request for citation regarding one of your edits at the Gary Renard article has been placed.

-Scott P. 04:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cubic equations with three real, irrational roots

Dear Gene Ward Smith

User Jitse Nielsen told me that you would be the person to ask about this question that I posted on the Mathematics section of the Reference Desk. I would be grateful if you took the time to comment it.

Best regards, --vibo56 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Decided not to use full name on the Wikipedia, and removed it from the signature above. --vibo56 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Gene, for commenting my question. I do of course realize that sin 10º, sin 50º and −sin 70º are algebraic numbers, being solutions of the equation 8x3 − 6x + 1 = 0, but I did insist on expressing the solution with radicals. I'm grateful for the response that it cannot be done without using complex numbers. As to whether there should be a separate article on the Casus Irreducibilis, I think that would be overkill, but it wouldn't hurt if, at the end of the section on Cardano's method, you mentioned the fact that, when applied to an equation with three real, irrational roots, it will always give a solution which includes a sum of two conjugate complex numbers, such that the imaginary parts cancel out. --vibo56 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Wiles, Fermat's Last Theorem

Hi I'm still working on the pages surrounding Andrew Wiles. I do own the journal from JHUP. The proof is in the fifth chapter. I hope to write a page on just that edition of Annals of Mathematics. It would be called Fermat's Last Theorem (Annals of Mathematics). Timothy Clemans 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all the good edits. Timothy Clemans 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Gene Ward Smith, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/User VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radical integer

I have responded to your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Should Radical integer be deleted? --Trovatore 17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-periodic function

Hi Gene. You moved Quasi-periodic function to Quasiperiodic function by cut and paste, which is not the right way to do as it does not preserve the page history. I now deleted that page Quasiperiodic function which has almost no history, and moved Quasi-periodic function on top of it using the page move feature. You could not have done that as one needs administrative priveleges to delete pages.

If you want to move pages in the future for which the target exists, you can request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can reply here if you have any comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus as source of ACIM deletion proposal

Thanks for the work on the article. You have really improved. With regard to the deletion proposal, it is obvious that you are opposed to the deletion of the artice. I was wondering if you would mind if I placed the word "Keep" in front of your comments on the deletion proposal page. Without that word there, your comments may not be taken as a vote of support for the page. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: The Disappearance of the Universe & Gary Renard

Hi! I found some of your comments in discussion on a page I intend to merge today. You were interested in the citations and this is something that I agree needs to support any claims made in an article, as well as providing an objective reputible source rather than self-published advertising. I don't believe that this particular book/author actually meets WP:BIO nor that the sources meet WP:VER using WP:RS guidelines. Nevertheless, after discussion among other editors for Articles for Deletion it was agreed that a merge and cleanup should be done. If you have any free time over the next few days, I would appreciate your comments in Discussion areas in that regard. Thanks! Ste4k 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Course in Miracles (book)

I just saw your comment about working on this article. Please feel free to point out the discrepencies. It took me about four or five hours of going through all three of the legal transcripts to piece together the timeline according to the "Fact" sections of the case. A new section was added today by another editor, and notes referring to the reason weren't mentioned. I'll ask that they be referenced somehow so we aren't overcome by superfluous material from articles which will probably be merged. I appreciate your help on this article. Thanks. Ste4k 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Authorship_of_A_Course_in_Miracles#Importance

I've added the following comments to discussion on this matter:

Thanks Gene, I have also seen now (since my earlier statement) at least two other versions of this book online. I am wondering what authenticates and/or distinguishes for example the version sold by Amazon now, and the versions which came from earlier manuscripts. Editorial comments, pov statements, etc., are bound to have been introduced by various parties. The case in question was dismissed, and was in regards to Penguin books et. al. suing another party for copyright violation. The court case shows that the decision blames the loss of copyright on the mishandling of early distribution by the FIP. The question I have now is whether one form of the book should be stated by the encyclopedia as having any more credence than another. In this particular instance, for WP to make that assertion, appears to be more disputable than a NPOV statement of fact. Following the guidance of Jimbo, I think it would be best to avoid including misleading or false information, and provide zero information instead. Ste4k 12:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion please

Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Course in Miracles (book). Thanks. Ste4k 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical examples on temperament pages

Recently all of the external links to musical examples on temperament pages have been removed. I believe there is a question as to their source and copyright which just can't be answered by a link directly to the media. Links to HTML pages that contain these pieces of music are apparently acceptable, or an even better solution would be to upload as many of these as we can (copyright permitting) to the wikimedia commons, and then have a link directly from the article. I thought since you found a lot of these links in the first place, you'd be able to find source pages/information better than I could. I'd really hate to see these things just disappear from the articles. - Rainwarrior 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Transferred from User:Rainwarrior: (edit summary read: "I'm thinking of reverting")
On what basis were the music links removed? I'm inclined to simply revert. What's wrong with links to outside Wikipedia sources? Gene Ward Smith 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I wouldn't stop you if you wanted to revert it. I thought these links were one of the best things going in these articles. That's what I did initially, and then recieved some harsh words from User:Gmaxwell. There was a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales#External links to music where you can see most of this.
After discussion, I did see some reason for the "policy" (It's not written policy, but some admins, like Gmaxwell insist that it is) of disallowing external links directly to media. There's just not any information about the source (e.g. copyright) when you have just an external link to the media files. If you instead link to a page that describes them, more information can be learned about the media. There's also a question about formats like RA which are proprietary versus something like OGG which isn't.
Anyhow, you're the person with the most information on these links, so I think you're the best person to find their source information and adjust links to fit "policy". If you disagree with it, revert it, or take this up with User:Gmaxwell. Read the discussion at at WP:TT&S#EL.
Out of curiosity, why did you put the message on my User page and not my Talk page? - Rainwarrior 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Martingale paradox

Your recent edit to Martingale paradox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martingale paradox

Hi Gene. I fixed the prod tag that you left on the page; with that tag you are supposed to do something like {{subst:prod|reason}}. Anyway, I was surprised to see you tried making it a redirect initially as I don't believe the term "Martingale paradox" is very common, so a deletion is the appropriate move here. I expect AntiochCollege (Corey?) will challenge the prod though, so I personally would have gone straight for AFD. Well, there's no harm in trying to save everyone a bit of trouble, I guess. --C S (Talk) 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. VandalBots won't let you do what I tried, I notice. I don't know how to go to AFD--as usual, the Wikipedia proceedures are incredibly obtuse. If you can explain how to request that something be deleted, I would be interested. Gene Ward Smith 23:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I know what happened with the vandal bot. You forgot the pound sign: #REDIRECT [[cool page]]. So the bot probably thought you just blanked the page and added a one-liner...which is of course what the most obvious vandalism often looks like! It would be pretty silly to have a vandal bot revert redirects.
    • As for AFD, I recently did one after a long break from doing them, and found it kind of tricky (especially when it is a second nomination). Actually, for a while I relied on Korath's AFD script, which unfortunately broke (and he is no longer editing Wikipedia). So right now I went looking for a replacement script and found Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/AutoAFD.js. Put that in your monobook.js and AFD noms should be smooth sailing! It adds an AFD tab when you click edit. The edit window will have the deletion tag inserted and when you click the AFD tab it will bring up two more windows with some stuff typed in. One window has the AFD daily log which you don't have to do anything with except click save. The other will require typing in the reason for nom and click save. Finally you need to click save on the original edit window with the article. You need to modify these instructions a bit for a second nomination, but I can explain that to you sometime. --C S (Talk) 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea of what a monobook.js is, or how to put something there. Gene Ward Smith 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you need to create this page in your userpage: User:Gene_Ward_Smith/monobook.js. Only you can edit this, as putting various javascripts in there will affect how your interface with Wikipedia functions. For example, see mine: User:C S/monobook.js. Besides the AutoAFD script I added just today, I have several I found useful: watchlist function that shows only differences since last load of watchlist, vandal reporting script, rollback function (to automatically revert edits by vandals). Note this is only if you use the default Wikipedia skin, monobook style, other skins will have different ".js" pages you need to modify and for some of these scripts you will need to modify them accordingly. Also, some browsers like IE or Safari may have problem with some scripts. Let me know if you need me to clarify any of this. --C S (Talk) 07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formally real fields

Hi, you wrote in Formally real field that a field is formally real iff there is an element which is not a sum of squares. Do you have a reference or proof for that?

As a potential counterexample, consider the field \mathbb Z_2(x) -- i.e., adjoin a transcendental element to the 2-element field. This field is not formally real, but it seems to me that x is not a sum of squares.

Aleph4 12:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A belated welcome note.

Would I be accurate in saying that you are the same Gene Ward Smith who was active in the pre-Eternal-September age of Usenet? If so, I heartily if belatedly wellcome you to wikipedia. In fact, if you are the same person, I would encourage you to participate in editing the articles about Usenet history, in addition to your already remarkable additions to mathematical coverage on wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dittersdorf

Looks like you are not as familiar with his work as with peculiar temperaments. CDvD's great c-minor Requiem is recommended for your edification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:VandalProof icon.jpg

Hello, Gene Ward Smith. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:VandalProof icon.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Gene Ward Smith. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scala (program)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Scala (program), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispering 12:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SUMOTorrent

Article restored. Please show why this torrent website is notable. In your statement, please show that this site passes WP:WEB and contains reliable sources, among other things. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk:SUMOTorrent

I commented here. Sorry for the delayed response. I did not see your message until just now. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purity of the equal divisions of the octave

Dear Gene!

Please take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Equal_temperament#Measure_of_Purity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rainwarrior#Measure_of_the_purity

Your competent opinion is needed here.

With respect,

Droog Andrey (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riemann Hypothesis and Landau's function

I have a question about your contribution on RH. You mentioned there is a connection between RH and Lf.Where did you get that from? Katsushi (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orwellian harmony

As the editor who added mentions of the Orwell comma and the Orwell tetrad to 31 equal temperament and 22 equal temperament, could you explain what those are? I can't find anything about them. Not only do the articles need citations, but I'm really curious! — Gwalla | Talk 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for the gamelan residue too. That name has been challenged on the miracle temperament article. — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)