User talk:Molinari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Molinari, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Looking forward to reading your contributions! --KF 12:02 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Discussion of proof of Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem 2 Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW 3 Third husband 4 HELP

[edit] Discussion of proof of Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem

Hi Molinari, In case you're not "watching", I've added to the proof of the Erdös-Ko-Rado theorem, completing the second part. See the talk page for more info. Perhaps you could check what I've done? --Dbenbenn 00:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dbenbenn.

Interesting approach. I am not yet convinced that your method is sound, but perhaps I am just missing something.

Given a and b you take arbitrary and define c_a and c_b as the intersections of c with a and b respectively. The claim is then made that c_a and c_b are disjoint. I don't see why. Indeed, if the proof is to work out we would expect both of them to contain x.

In the next step you start constructing a partial order containing c, c_a, and c_b as intervals. This can clearly be done. However I don't see how we can (necessarily) extend this order so as to contain a and b. I think we could if c_a and c_b were disjoint: we just put them at the "ends" of c in the order and tack a and b on these ends, as appropriate. We would need to count carefully to make sure there was room, but that shouldn't be hard. However, without disjointness I think we are in trouble.

Indeed, without disjointness we would have to arrange c like

where represents the bits of c not in c_a or c_b. Now we cannot add a and b onto the ends.

I will give this some more thought after work this evening. It is entirely possible that your method works with a small adjustment.

Cheers! Molinari 01:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the flaw in what I added! It was blatent nonsense; I've taken it out. See Talk:Erdös-Ko-Rado theorem. --Dbenbenn 03:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I (finally!) responded to your question on Talk:Erdös-Ko-Rado theorem. Dbenbenn 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just sent you the papers by email. Drop me a line if they didn't come through right. dbenbenn | talk 16:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW

Hey there, I noticed that you had expressed interest in the article on the Potomac River on its talk page. Another contributor nominated the river for the US Collaboration of the Week and I would appreciate it if you would give the nomination your support. I feel with minimal effort, the article will reach featured status with the assistance of a team of editors. --Caponer 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third husband

I'm afraid you're wrong in your "correction" of the grammar on Bothwell's page. It was quite correct to place, after a comma, her third husband. At least it is correct in Britain and in countless genealogical books.David Lauder 09:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? It sounds wrong to my Australian English. You can change it back if you like. Molinari 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

If there is a liberal party user please come to Nicola Roxon. We need an unbiased opinion as the labour members are constantly reverting her Jewish religion. They are stacking the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim to want "unbiased" opinion, and then ask for a member of the "liberal party [sic]". What you should have asked for is a disinterested user. My guess is that you don't actually want an unbiased opinion, but rather the support of someone else with the same biases as you. Molinari (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)