User talk:Meni Rosenfeld

This user left Wikipedia. Meni Rosenfeld has not edited Wikipedia since July 27, 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Write a new message. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply on this page, under your post.

Hello Meni Rosenfeld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Thank you for making an account.

I replied on my talk page about the square root. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newcomer to the Wiki-world too. Thanks for the correction! MathStatWoman 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of suspected you might have wanted to prepare a general intro page (which is why I warned you). I don't know how old you are, but I get the strong feeling that the "Boomer" and following generations, for the most part, prefer "trial & error"— not something that would appeal to a mathematician— but something strongly appealing to the "Adventure Game" set. (I, myself, am a recently retired Computer Scientist— and I date from the early '50s and analog and hybrid computers.)

I am now testing the intro page. I realize the spirit of Wikipedia is more in the nature of communal activities. But I feel some obligation not to provide non-working or otherwise defective references for the newbies.

But, hey, I placed a copy on a page called User:Meni Rosenfeld/Toolset It's all yours to do with as you please! But keep track of any changes you make to the generic (true content) stuff; you may want to change the Generic Page when I make it public. (At the end of the week; I promise.)

I suggest you bookmark that page and put a reference to all your other pages in the "My Shortcuts" section.

Thanks :-)

Apparently you are doing a better work than I could have done, so I'll wait until the "official release" and then see if I have any useful suggestions. Currently what I can say is that organizing the list of articles in the form of a hierarchical list would probably be desirable.

In the meantime I will use the current version for my own quest for knowledge. :) --Meni Rosenfeld 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the comments. I responded on the shatter page. MathStatWoman 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long holiday (8 days of candles and oily food), and did not have time for Wikipedia. I must be getting old and not getting enough sleep!!! YES, I meant unit circle! sigh...thanks...and thanks for being polite...some folks on Wikipedia are uncivil! I shall answer your other q's on the shatter page after I get some sleep -- too tired now. MathStatWoman 13:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you are a jew, like myself. That's nice. Where are you from? --Meni Rosenfeld 14:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jitse, I have noticed that you have a tool for a Random article in mathematics. That is of great interest to me (please see my discussion of the issue). Do you have any remarks on what is said in that discussion? Do you know a way to make such a tool more built-into Wikipedia? --Meni Rosenfeld 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm impressed that you found that. I don't have much to add to the discussion. The problem is that it is not easy to generate a list of all articles in Category:Mathematics or one of its subcategories. In my case, I basically copy the list from Oleg and I use it to generate Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity (which includes the total number of maths articles, by the way); since I have the list anyway it is quite easy to pick a random article. However, the list is updated only once a day to be easy on the servers. Due to the way the database containing Wikipedia is implemented, generating a list of all articles in some category or one of its subcategories will always take a lot of time (I think, but Magnus Manske seems to think that this is quite feasible [1] [2]). I think that it will be pretty hard to generate a random article without having this list.

I'm glad to answer any other questions; I happen to know a bit about the technical side since I'm interested in getting Wikipedia support MathML. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the list is not mine, is the list of mathematics articles. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I have an opportunity to make you glad :)

1. Do I understand correctly that there are (at the time of writing this message) 12151 math articles and 3208 stubs?
2. Is it possible to make your tool work within WP, without going through an external link, which seems to make the process slower?
3. Is it likely that the way categories work will change, so it becomes possible to conduct category-specific queries (num. of articles, random entry, statistics, etc.) without ad-hoc manual tools?
4. Does your tool work like the one suggested in the aforementioned discussion, making different articles appear at different probabilities, or does it employ an other method?
5. How do articles make their way in\out of the list of mathematics articles?

--Meni Rosenfeld 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed 12151 math articles, but around 700 of them are redirects (that problem needs to be dealt with eventually). To answer your last question, articles come in either by hand, or lately, via User:mathbot (see first section). They come out via User:mathbot/Blacklist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are 12151 maths articles according to the definition at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. This is different from the number of articles in Category:Mathematics or one of its subcategories. For instance, Ketchup is in Category:Soft matter is in Category:Entropy is in Category:Dynamical systems is in Category:Mathematics, but Ketchup is in list of mathematics articles because Category:Entropy is blacklisted in List of mathematics categories. I think that there are a lot of articles having little to do with mathematics that are indirectly in Category:Mathematics.

2. It is theoretically possible to rewrite my tool in PHP and get it included in MediaWiki (the software that runs this website) but I think it won't be easy to convince the developers that this is a good idea. Another possibility is to put the tool on the m:Toolserver so that it can talk to the database server directly.

3. My guess is: not in the short term (say within one year), but quite possible within say five years.

4. No. It picks a number n between 1 and 12151 and then it returns the nth article, so every article should have the same probability (assuming that the random number generator in PHP is truely random).

Oleg, I thought that your bot didn't list redirects? Admittedly, my knowledge comes from an unreliable source :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, See discussion on shattering for my answer to one of your q's. More when I have time.

Cheers.MathStatWoman 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A page by the above name has been created to assist newbies. It is an eclectic index into Wikipedia. Here's hoping it will arouse some interest in improving upon it. —>normxxx_talk—> email 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --Meni Rosenfeld 13:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weekend has ended, Shabbat and the day after to recover from Shabbat, and time again for work, school, and Wikiworld. So here we are.

Back to your q's:

1. About subsets, we probabilists do indeed use the notation that I used, but if it bothers set theorists, and I change it, then the notation will annoy the probabilists. Sigh... we cannot satisfy everyone... I really want to leave it as it is, but if Wikipedia demands otherwise, let me know, and we'll discuss it further.

2. We settled that, right?

3. More to come on empirical process article as I get time between work, research, school. Thanks to everyone who entitled that article well and re-directed it properly.

4. About discussing distribution functions (df's): [incidentally, probabilists, when doing serious research, do not use the teminology "cumulative" df's(cdf's), but just df (see all the peer-reviewed papers in Ann.Prob,. J.Appl Prob, and texts such as Loeve's on the grad level); cdf is used for undergrads, though.] Anyway, in the article on shattering, we re-cast df's in terms of collections of sets because this is a very important example: we want to study sets on the real line of the form { v : v ≤ x }, that is, sets of values that are less than or equal to x. Let C be the collection of all such sets on the real line, that is, of the form , { v : v ≤ x } for all real numbers x. This is not done in the article on df's because it does not belong there; it belongs in the article on shattering. It really is vital to discuss it in the article shattering. It is an example that appears in many peer-reviewed articles on shattering.

Cheers, MathStatWoman 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

It is in general better to discuss matters relevant to a specific article in that particular article's talk page, especially when the original discussion took place there. You don't have to worry about me noticing it since it is in my watchlist (as are all other pages I've edited). If in doubt, you can always refer me to it in my talk page. I will reply now at Talk:Shattering. --Meni Rosenfeld 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've noticed that you don't use edit summaries (the remark that appears near your edit in the page history) very often. It is considered bad practice to edit an article without an edit summary, because this way people have a hard time telling what you did and why you did it. Using edit summaries in talk pages is also desirable but not as critical as in articles. Besides, there is a nasty robot that can calculate the edit summary usage of the innocent and squeal to its evil master, the big man. And you don't want to upset him :-) Seriously though, if you ever try to become an administrator, mathbot will calculate your edit summary usage, and having too low a rating will make Oleg (and possibly others, though he is the most obssesed about it) vote against you. --Meni Rosenfeld 20:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful advice. All that info is good to know. How did you learn so much, so fast? MathStatWoman 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have more time to spend in WP. --Meni Rosenfeld 07:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser :- CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for help about 'decipher a ciphertext by a simple Caesar sipher.'

No problem. Just remember to post factual questions (as opposed to questions about using wikipedia) at the reference desk.-- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear Meni: I am not clear about your answer, I just want to know how to decrypt the message zycu. "given f(x)=23x+10 (mod 26) is a bijection(one to one and onto) that it can be used as a subtitution cipher, then decrypt the message ZYCU was enctypted by using the function."

                                                 thank you 

Those will be very useful! Thanks for the information. I especially like that they can be specialized for each section of the Reference Desk. Thanks again. -- Natalya 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! That makes it so much easier to direct them to a specific article. Thanks for letting me know. -- Natalya 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I agree completely and appreciate the constructive tone. Cheers, rodii.

Thanks. How come you are only active in the english wikipedia? Omer Enbar 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, seeing all sorts of WP technical terms translated to hebrew, such as "User talk namespace" appearing as "מרחב שם שיחת משתמש", gives me the creeps. Second, with no offense, I get the impression that the hebrew WP tends to attract those that are not very fluent in English writing for those that are even less fluent, and such people tend to be less knowledgeable - affecting the quality of their work. Third, one of the forces driving WP is sheer quantity of contributors - The more users are active in a project, the greater the probability that a given topic will be covered accurately - And this is true not only for articles, but also of the project process. Since the number of people active in the Hebrew WP is negligible compared to the English one, I am not likely to find useful information there, or to believe that contributing there is worth the effort.

I hope you do not find these explanations too snobbish. Ultimately, it all comes down to cost-effectiveness: Since I have no problem understanding English, it is just more worthwhile for me to be active in the English WP. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, every person is free to do as he is pleased. There are many wikipedians among the heWP that are fluent English speakers such as myself (many are mathematicians). About your third point, it is true, there are not enough people currently writing in the Hebrew wikipedia, and that is why it is in need of more writers. The only "positive" side is that current contributors influence WP much more. I have read your contributions here, and I hope I'll see you in the heWP sometime in the future.

Best regards. Omer Enbar 18:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Tomorrow never knows. Could take several years though. And even if I do, I don't know if we'll meet - I'm more the Durak type than Yaniv :-). Best wishes. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Though more commonly I play skat. Omer Enbar 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in answerimg my question about "including my article in a broader search." (Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute) When you get a chance, could you let me know how to add redirects to my article? Also, is there any way to make my article come up as an option when someone searches for something more vague, such as "bioethics"? Thanks so much! Kathychen 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your article probably doesn't appear in search just because it's new. When the database gets updated, it should also appear in vague searches. But the point is that the default for the search box is "Go" and not "search" - So if you enter "Bioethics" and just click enter (which is what most people will do), you will go directly to the Bioethics article and not to a search. Only when an article with this name does not exist, pressing enter will do a search.

Now, to create a redirect, first create an article for the alternative name - For our example we'll use "Berman Bioethics Institute". One way to do it is enter this name in the search box and clicking "Go" (and not pressing enter, which will do a search). Then click on the red link "create this article". Now add to the new article this text:

#Redirect [[Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute]] 

Write an edit summary like "Creating a redirect to Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute", click "save page", and you're done. Repeat for every name you wish to redirect, but avoid redirecting from names for which it can be argued that they shouldn't redirect to your article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kathychen 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that helpful? I could have sworn I had a differential equations textbook which explained how to calculate asymptotic expansions for solutions, but I can't find it. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! It will probably take me a while to work out all the details, but I guess I'm on the right track. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed at the help desk that you seem to think that a newly created article needs "a few weeks" before it can be searched for. This is not the case, a newly created page will be able to be searched for immediately or if thing are running slowly then in a few minutes. Please contact me on my talk page if you need any further help or discussion about this. hydnjo talk 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that new articles don't appear in a search. Of course if you type precisely the name of an article or a redirect, you will get to the article. But if you make a search, you will find all articles containing a phrase, but only those that have been around long enough. If you don't believe me, try my examples: searching for "Lenohard" will give you all articles including the phrase "Leonhard", but searching for "Fedigan" will not yet lead you to anything. This is a known fact. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Does that mean you agree? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how long it takes as I hardly ever use WP's Search function. WP search has so many weaknesses such as case sensitivity and spelling rigidity that I quit using it. Instead I use Google's WP specific search engine which is much more tolerant of my mistakes. hydnjo talk 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I also have no idea how long it takes for Google's crawler to update. hydnjo talk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have been victims of chronology. Am I correct in now realizing you've posted in my talk page before reading my clarification at the help desk? In that case, thanks for your desire to help. At first I thought you posted it afterwards, so it irritated me quite a bit.

Regarding your new post: I use Wikipedia's search every now and then, but have learnt that its database isn't updated frequently mostly by answering to people asking why the article they have created doesn't appear in the search. (btw if you want to reply, you can do so here). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're just too fast for our own good! Sorry about the mixup as my brain's frame of reference is the Go rather than the Search button. hydnjo talk 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the point is that I guess most users, myself included, just press "enter", which acts like "go" when there is an article with the exact name, and like "search" otherwise. This, and the delayed update thing, confuses many people. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant "enter" for "Go". Now that you've piqued my interest, I'm goin to keep watch for the Linda Marie Fedigan article to show with Google's and WP's search engines just to see how long it does take for the annotated versions to appear. hydnjo talk 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Don't hold your breath, though; I've seen articles a month old not appearing in search. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This method doesn't seem to be averting all the Ref Desk questions. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be caused by 1 of 2 things:

1. If the instructions are too long and complex, people just skip them.
2. People don't like to be told what they can't do.

Therefore, I was trying to minimize the instructions and keep them positive. I'll give it another shot. --Go for it! 19:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, understanding humans is hard :) I guess your hypotheses are true, but still, if you don't tell people what they shouldn't do, you don't get any chance to convince them not to do it. As long as the instructions are clear, concise and polite, I don't think people will have trouble following them. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the template advice (on the helpdesk page). I've begun reading the talk pages and will soon do some testing. They are a bit esoteric, but fortunately invoking them seems reasonably easy. Thanks! MattHucke^(t) 16:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Hello there. Yes we have met before, and its why i've come here. I need your advice or help on how to insert image screenshots. I have all the questions posted On March 11 in the Help Desk. You can go there if you really want to know why i need help with the screenshot! So what do you say?

Thanks! Wiki-star 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your question at the help desk. Note the usage of indenting: If you start a thread, it's best to do it without indenting, and continue to use no indenting throughout.

If you reply to a post, remember to indent whenever you start a new line (click "Edit" on this section to see how I indented).

Also, when linking to a page inside wikipedia, it is better to make an internal link using double brackets: [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] will become Wikipedia:Help desk. See also my link above for some additional tricks, and don't forget to read How to edit a page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say thank you for your assistance on the formula, I have verified it- privately, of course- and discovered the errors you have mentioned, correcting wherever I could. I AM sorry that the wrong information has stayed on Wikipedia for so long, and grateful that you came to assist me. The question is that my education in mathematics is somewhat strangely developed- my interest for it has developed to fanaticism, and in many respects I have educated myself or tried to prove things out, just to satisfy my interest and curiosity. We have not yet done trignometry at school, and my knowledge of it was mainly self- taught, and thus sometimes defective. I am afraid I do not know the identity you have mentioned, but shall doubtless find out more about it myself. My ability is also very strangely developed- I am afraid I have not done dimensional analysis at all, but I have taught myself relativistic mathematics, and differential calculus. Luthinya 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do, sir. It's yet another note from me and once again it is to thank you on the marvellous help you have provided for me, relating to the formula. Seeing these advice also reminded me of another thing I adored about mathematics- it allows you to express very complex ideas so succintly, yet never once looses the initial beauty of the idea.

As far as mathematics itself is concerned, I tend to view it in a similar model to Pygmalion's ivory virgin, an art at once so cold and precise, like the beauty of sculpture, yet endowed with a grace so celestial and unearthly, as of a most wondrous maiden, waiting only to be roused by the breath of a spring wind. To see her figure is to be ecstatically tantalized, yet one is also filled with a curious regret, upon touching her sides, to know that she is unfortunately not of the flesh. In any case, the beauty of nature is explicit through geometry, especially fractal geometry. Yet one must not confuse between the symbol of nature and nature itself, the latter being more wondrous than we will ever make of it.

I hope these opinions have somehow been amusing for you to read and not wasted your userspace. Delete them if you like. Luthinya 12:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, my talk page has plenty of space, and I wouldn't delete anything posted in it. However, I can't really say I'm art-inclined enough to fully appreciate your description - But what's important is your admiration for mathematics, which I, of course, share. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

em actually i have been told on sevral occasions by engineers (my my maths teacher's brother and engineers who visited the school) by the way did you thing i just made that up? never mind

Thanks! I've put it in my userpage. Don't forget, though, that others are\were also involved in this thing, like Schwarzm, Ilmari Karonen, Jnothman, Go for it! et al. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it! It would not be good to forget the other contributers - thanks! -- Natalya 19:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. If I find an article and nkow that it needs to be improved, What tag shoud I stick on that article? Is there such a tag? What will this tag to to the article? Will it make it more visible to other editors(will it put it into a special list of articles that need to be improved)?--BorisFromStockdale 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for some tags you can use. Among other thıngs, thıs wıll put the artıcle ın a category, where people lookıng for somethıng to do can notıce ıt. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the original template? The old one worked. In this new one, the "click here"-link doesn't work properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here, I'll show you:
  • Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). For your convenience, here's the link: Reference Desk (when you get there, just select the relevant section, and ask away). I hope this helps.
  • Have you tried the Science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there. For your convenience, here's the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.
  • You might find what you are looking for in the article about Sun. If you cannot find the answer there, click here to post your question at that article's talk page. If that doesn't solve your problem, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They'll be glad to answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps.

-- Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that's solved. Wonder what was wrong. Would still like to know what made you decide to split it up, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current {{RD2}} and {{RD3}} only work when substed. This is actually a plus, since it will make sure everyone will subst them. The problem with the old template is that when substed it put this in the code:

{{qif|test=|then=You might find what you are looking for in the article about [[]]. If you cannot find the answer there, [{{fullurl:Talk:|action=edit&section=new}} click here] to post your question at [[Talk:|that article's talk page]]. If that doesn't solve your problem, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference Desk]]. They'll be glad to answer questions about anything in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps.|else={{qif|test=|then=Have you tried the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/| section]] of Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference Desk]]? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there. For your convenience, here's the link to post a question there: [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Reference desk/|action=edit&section=new&editintro=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask}} click here]. I hope this helps.|else=Have you tried Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference Desk]]? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). For your convenience, here's the link: [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference Desk]] (when you get there, just select the relevant topic, and ask away. I hope this helps.}}}}

This is both a lot of cumbersome junk, and also transcludes the qif template - so the whole point of substing the template is defeated. The new templates are much cleaner. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have been blocked but don't understand why. Yesterday I asked a perfectly innocent question and received a very terse answer from Erik to which I edited a thankyou note with a supplementary question, and then having saved it I noticed I had misspelt Erik as Eric so I tried to correct it but was told I had been blocked. Surely that cannot be fair? Please advise and unblock me if you agree. Thanks. Jamesatnumber8@aol.com 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response advising I had not been blocked - but - I just tried to re-edit the mistake I discussed earlier and got the message that either my name or my I.P. had been blocked and when I checked the blocked list, my I.P. was there for the 16th April.White Squirrel 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Meni, for your appearance on User talk:Sean Black regarding his capricious block of my account. He's popped up briefly, but without diffs to support his claim that I'd violated WP:3RR, which I am quite certain do not exist - I assume he's realized that by now. We'll see what happens.Timothy Usher 06:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will have to remark, though, that my concern was less with your case (the specifics of which I am not familiar with), and more with Sean's recent apparent tendency to disregard comments left in his Talk page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. --Alf 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meni. I was reading our article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, which says that "The Hebrew Wikipedia is renowned for its high standards of mathematical articles". I have to say, this comment makes me a bit jealous, as I consider our math coverage at en.wikipedia to be quite good (compared to other online sources). I noticed on your userpage that you are a Hebrew speaker, and of course I've known you for a while around here as a mathematically minded editor. I was just wondering, are you also familiar with the Hebrew wikipedia? Are you familiar with its math coverage? Would you be able to make some anecdotal comments about how good their math coverage is (especially as it compares to ours)? I just wonder how seriously I should take their claim of expert math coverage. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not really familiar with the Hebrew Wikipedia. But from what I've seen, it doesn't cover nearly as many topics as enWP (my guess is, around 500 mathematical articles), and these tend to be shorter. The content that does exist seem to be of decent quality, but IMO not as good as what we have here. So the math coverage on heWP is certainly worse than on enWP. That doesn't necessarily mean the statement you quote is incorrect, if you take all the relative factors into consideration (enWP in general vs. heWP in general, math in heWP vs. other subjects in heWP, math in heWP vs. other math sources in Hebrew). In any case, if there's anything specific you want me to compare, I'd be more than happy to. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math is better covered in other wikipedias? Now that's surprising. Mathbot 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I had a suspicion that it might be the case that that statement was only meant to be relative. No, I don't want any specific comparison, just some informal observations from a Hebrew speaker, which you've given me. Thank you. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Meni Rosenfeld, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Steveo2 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. I wish you a very happy birthday, one day late - yesterday I was away and so I missed the party. I learnt of the same from Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year. --Bhadani 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you as well! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meni for your reply.

I will keep my nose out of Marco Polo discussion from now on. I hope they just delete the vandal posts and stop putting my ip number up. If they do i will keep deleting them. This Eugameo and his many alias names keeps calling me a vadal just because i posted some facts and evidence that Marco Polo is not Italian. A document written by an Italian in those days clearly says Marco Polo is Dalmatian and originated from Dalmatia. Countless other sources written by Italians and other non Croatians support this view. If he was born on Korcula and most agree the chances of him being Croatian are very high. Korcula was mostly populated by Croatians in those times. Many documents of those times also show that Polo and De Polo last name was Italianised under Venice rule of Dalmatia, so all these Polos and De POlos from Venice and Korcula were in fact Croats. Last but not least Iam Montenegrin so I think i would be unbias in my view of the matter.

I have nothing agianst the Italian people just Euganeo who so contradicting. He said Croat names were Italianised but Marco Polo did not...how silly when proof suggests he did.

Peace

Evergreen Montenegro

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Antireligion Nandi bull Tom Kane The Kids Will Have Their Say Aap Venturi effect Nirguna Brahman Duration Calculus The Powerpuff Girls Movie Tim Priest Bhairava Isosceles trapezoid Purusha Conservative force Selector calculus Mirabai 4Him The Martins WCWM

Cleanup Ishvara Criticism of Hinduism Rudra Merge Differintegral One instruction set computer Leibniz integral rule Add Sources Puranas Performance problem The Second Messiah Wikify Mechanical Engineering Technology Lotar Draupadi Expand Attention span Treta Yuga History of Hinduism

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for renaming and straghtening out these two articles. I knew nothing at all about these terms before I started copy-editing them (which they badly needed).

Now that I see the two articles in their context, have looked at the few articles that link to them, I know something about them and I believe they should be merged. There could be one short article on Average and Over, with explanations of the two varieties. I can write the copy, but I don't know how to merge the articles, or propose the merger, or whatever is done. They are pretty obscure articles, so if there's a quick way to merge them, IMHO that is what should be done.

Either do what you know how to do, or leave word on my Talk page, or both. Thank you. Lou Sander 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages has some guidelines regarding mergers. I think these articles aren't important enough to make a big deal out of the merger (proposing the merger, discussing it, building consensus, etc.), but rather it can be done immediately. The best course of action would be: Write the new article at Average and over (note that "over" shouldn't be capitalized); then blanking the two sub-articles and replacing them with a redirect to Average and over, with an edit summary explaining that the articles have been merged. The page Average and Over, since it already exists, can also be made into a redirect to Average and over. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I tried to take care of all the permutations and combinations of capitalization, terms in parentheses, etc., but dealing with all these near-identical articles may have fouled me up. One thing I didn't do -- the former articles, now redirects, had brief discussions; I didn't delete them, because I wasn't sure it's proper to do so. Lou Sander 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) PS - My family is on Israel's side in wars and other conflicts. Be safe.[reply]

Also, the article still doesn't quite ring true (the originals were very badly written). I've ordered the reference book from my public library, just to check it out. Lou Sander 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great! As for the talk pages, what I would normally do is move them to the talk page of the new article; however, becuase the page already exists, doing this seamlessly will require administrator intervention - which is not such big a deal, but still, this is hardly worth the trouble. No harm will be done by leaving those pages where they are. Checking the validity of the article in the reference will also be great. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help in all this. The final chapter will be written when the library book comes in. Lou Sander 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!! The article Average and over (hands lost) seems to have come back alive. It may have something to do with conflicting or simultaneous edits by you and by me. As far as I'm concerned, all articles on the baseball term "average and over," including versions with the modifiers "(runs)" or "(hands lost)," regardless of capitalization, can and should now be properly redirected to Average and over, which, though brief, covers it all. Am I wrong, did I kill it improperly or fail to kill it, is there a better way to do this, etc.???? Lou Sander 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were some problems with Wikipedia's database around the time we were editing these articles. I don't know any details, but this probably has something to do with it. I've reinstated the redirect - hopefully this time it will stay. I have also put a link to Talk:Average and over (hands lost) in Talk:Average and over, in case anyone is interested in those comments - not really the right way to do things, but probably the best we can do without unnecessary effort. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Lou Sander 13:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference book came in, and I've corrected the Average and over article. Earlier versions were puzzling because they didn't mention the vitally important fact that this statistic was presented as the result of an integer division (the average) plus the remainder (the over). I knew there was something fishy about it! Lou Sander 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad you were able to sort this out. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the question. It is for a math competition.

Given that ${\displaystyle f(n)=\int _{0}^{floor(n)}\lfloor x\rfloor dx}$

(For some reason it wouldn't let me write ${\displaystyle \lfloor n\rfloor }$ as the upper bound of the integral, so I improvised)

Evaluate ${\displaystyle \int _{4}^{5.5}f(n)dn}$

--Codeblue87 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok, but if it's a competition, I'd be extra careful. We don't want to discriminate against examinees which may have learned stricter definitions - this issue might confuse them. Will it be multiple choice or open? In either case, a good idea would be to give an example for f after the definition, so it's something like this:

Given that ${\displaystyle f(n)=\int _{0}^{\lfloor n\rfloor }\lfloor x\rfloor dx}$ (for example, ${\displaystyle f(3.2)=\int _{0}^{3}\lfloor x\rfloor dx=3}$) Evaluate ${\displaystyle \int _{4}^{5.5}f(n)dn}$. 

-- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll include an example. Just out of curiosity, what did you get as the answer? --Codeblue87 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, it's f(4) + 0.5f(5) = 6 + 0.5*10 = 11. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks again for all your input! --Codeblue87 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was looking for someone who is He-n to help with a very quick translation related to a disambiguation project that I am on. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at Talk:Rimmon and either comment there or edit the artcicle accordingly? Thanks in advance. --Brian G 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in Talk:Rimmon. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Brian G 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. The process is quite daunting. I am trying to put a biography on my company into the database because we have recently been the focus of a lot of media attention due to our projects in the Hurricane Katrina area. We are not trying to advertise, but trying to get factual information out because some of the articles printed recently have contained a lot of rumors.

My posting has been tagged as advertising even though I tried to make it very neutral. Is there a place or person whom I might consult for specific recommendations on my posting to prevent it from being thrown off the site? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angikay2 (talk • contribs)

Writing an article about oneself or one's company is always a problem, and is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Even if you do try to make it neutral, you can never be truly objective (see WP:AUTO). Also, Wikipedia has certain notability standards (see also WP:CORP), and the assumption is that if no one has written an article about your company so far, it is probably not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Also, the reason you describe for writing the article isn't entirely valid. My suggestion is, first of all, to check out Talk:Paradise Properties Group - Mattisse has mentioned there several things you should be aware of. You can explain there why you think this article belongs on Wikipedia or any other questionable issues. Also, don't forget signing with the ~~~~ thing. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful answer to my question on the help page! Ccrrccrr 13:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you but if you could elaborate more i will be grateful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaily iitian (talk • contribs) .

Continued at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've put it in my userpage. Of course, you are doing a lot of hard work at the help desk yourself :-) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think I should do it? I found the time stamp to fill up more space than helpful to me. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Thank you for answering my question at the Helpdesk. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My kingdom for an in-place, WYSIWYG, wikitext math and table editor. Heck, an OpenOffice plug-in to use a wiki as a back-end would be pretty darned handy! Know of anything in this approximate constellation of tools? -- Fuzzyeric 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. But then again, I don't know much. You may be able to find something in Wikipedia:Tools and especially Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools. If not, there are some highly informed people hanging around at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, where you can ask. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Auroranorth 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mark! Wwhere exactly and how exactly would I change the wikicode on the page? Would I add something like "Pricing details for NZ added" where I made the change, and then put this also in the edit summary? Regards, Drahmad 05:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Meni. I've replied at the help desk. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRRR! Sorry I got the name wrong Meni!! Thanks again and feel free to delete this section as you see fit :) Drahmad 05:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Don't worry, my talk page has plenty of space. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you saw my (multiple) edits to the Wii page, is it considered poor form/bad etiquette to perform "multiple" edits to reach the end goal? The main reason I had those "micro-edits" was that I was afraid I might destroy the whole page by making some formatting mistake, so did things one at a time to ensure that I didn't stuff it up. It helps now knowing that I can "revert" a page, and I will also copy and paste the code somewhere until I'm satisified I can put it back together again if needed. Drahmad 07:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strive for balance. Don't make dozens of micro-edits, but don't make a single huge edit either. Other than that, do whatever's comfortable for you - You'll get a sense of what's optimal as you gain experience. And don't forget, the "show preview" button is your friend when trying to avoid messing things up. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I compleatly forgot that Wikipedia is pretty much global, and on another note that was a fas reply! Have a nice day---Seadog.M.S 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the comment you removed not belong there? The range of the tangent and cotangent functions should be viewed as the real projective line with only one point at infinity. Michael Hardy 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've continued this at Talk:Division by zero#Trigonometry in the real projective line. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my asking, what's your f(), or at least what values do you have already? It might be possible to coerce your definition of f() into a form amenable to inverse z-transformation. -- Fuzzyeric 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking never hurts, of course. I am both interested in a general method for dealing with such cases, and also my eyes are currently set on the harmonic numbers, with:

${\displaystyle f(n)=\sum _{k=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{k}}-\ln {n}-\gamma }$

Though there certainly are analytic ways to deal with it, I am currently interested in the possibility of exploring it numerically. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might be interested in Brent-McMillan and references for fast evaluation of rational series and the Euler-Mascheroni constant. The harmonic numbers can also be evaluated using the digamma function since ^ref

${\displaystyle f(n)=\gamma +\psi _{0}(n+1)\ }$

and the digamma function has several analytic expressions. ^ref -- Fuzzyeric 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might do the following for your fitting...

• Instead of starting the harmonic (partial) sum up for each input to your algorithm, continue it from where you left off.
• Store the value of the Euler-Mascheroni constant. To vastly more precision that you're going to get with this slowly convergent series: 0.57721566490153286060651209008240243104215933593994.
• Only take logs when you're going to output a sample to be consumed by your fitting algorithm.
• The Euler-Mascheroni constant part of the interpolation isn't the interesting bit; it's a constant.
• f() has an essentialy singularity at zero (due to the logarithm). So it's not precisely straightforward to attack analytically. However, taking the usual dodge, expanding around 1, gives coefficients that are values of the Riemann zeta function evaluated at successive integers. E.g.,

${\displaystyle f(x)=(1-\gamma )+(-2+{\frac {\pi ^{2}}{6}})(x-1)+({\frac {3}{2}}-\zeta (3))(x-1)^{2}+(-{\frac {4}{3}}+{\frac {\pi ^{4}}{90}})(x-1)^{3}+...}$

and so these coefficients converge very slowly to zero, like 1/ln(n). Conveniently, they alternate, or the sum wouldn't converge.

• However, expanding f() around larger values, say 10, gives coefficients that decrease like 10^-n. This suggests that there are absurdly rapid numerical evaluation methods for large values of n. Which is surprising because f(n) converges to zero only like 1/P(n) where P is a function that grows slower than any polynomial.

Good luck. -- Fuzzyeric 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for everything. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling mildly embarassed for not remembering why it's called the Euler-Mascheroni constant... See Euler-Maclaurin summation formula. Applied to the partial sums of the harmonic series, this gives...

${\displaystyle f(n)=\ln {n}+\gamma +{\frac {1}{2n}}-\sum _{k=1}^{m}{\frac {B_{2k}}{2kn^{2k}}}+\theta _{m,n}{\frac {B_{2m+2}}{(2m+2)n^{2m+2}}}\ ,\ 0\leq \theta _{m,n}\leq 1}$.

This is a much faster way to evaluate f(n), but is only asymptotic; the Bernoulli numbers grow fast enough to exceed the denominator in the sum. The smallest term in the sum seems to occur around k = n/3. So this answers two questions (one of which you asked). First, the Euler-Maclaurin formula provides a method to attack sums of inverse powers. Second, this asymptotic formula should provide a very rapid way to numerically evaluate your sum to excessive precision. -- Fuzzyeric 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry about the correction I made, I didn't understand it, I realised right after that I had made a mistake. And I don't know how to revert articles, so I left it.

what I was trying to say in my comment, is, that a trapezium is a shape with at least 2 sides parallel... I no longer have my Australian Math text book, but it explains it completely, with the diagram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rkeysone (talk • contribs) ..

To revert an article, go to the article's history, click on the date of the version to which you wish to revert, then click "edit this page", then "Save page" (don't forget the edit summary!). Of course, you could also manually edit the article to remove what you inserted.

About the "normal" trapezoid, some authors write that it has at least a pair of parallel sides (which makes the most sense), but some authors (and I believe most) write that it must have exactly one pair. There isn't a universally accepted definition.

Don't forget to sign with ~~~~! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that some elements of our discussion on the math reference desk would be useful if added to the probability section of Dice. Would you mind if I copied the math markup you wrote for that second formula (specifically,

<math>f(n,s,k) = \sum_{i=0}^{\left \lfloor \frac{k-n}{s} \right \rfloor} (-1)^i {n \choose i} {k-1-si \choose n-1}</math>)

for use in the article? —Saric (Talk) 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wouldn't mind. In fact, I don't even have the right to mind, since the formula isn't mine (I've only written the markup for it, which is all in a day's work), and even if it was, everything I write here is under the GFDL. I think it will be a nice addition to the article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting to an unclean version on square root. I think I thought "von eduard" was the name of the function. Excuse my ignorance. Itsmejudith 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It just looked weird to me to revert one of that user's edits and not the other. Also, this kind of revert can be dangerous, since people are less likely to check the recent history if they see the last edit was a revert by an established user, and thus the poor edit might stay for a long time (I saw a case recently where an obvious vandalism stayed for 10 days because it was overlooked among other edits made at that time). But no harm done. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the info! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about Mr Troll, I will ignore him from now on. Your work on the 0.999... discussion is great and very helpful. I'm sorry if I've been annoying ranting about how we should give more emphasis to number systems that make use of infinitesimals. It's mainly just that I remember years ago, when they taught me this at school how it annoyed me, so perhaps I feel too sorry for people in a similar position. Besides, I feel like the intuition is very interesting and has some relevance and a kind of correctness in other areas. Anyway, thanks for your patience.

(copied to User talk:157.161.173.24) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for all your efforts on 0.999... and the discussions thereof. I wanted to ask you, is there anything we can do to get this troll blocked from the Arguments page? He really is disrupting the discussion to a serious degree, and I'm losing interest in helping with it because of him. It is sad to think of people leaving the article knowing less than they could, because of all his crap. What can we do about it? Maelin 13:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not too sure about the possibilities, or about whether trolling is sufficent grounds for blocking (and it will be hard to convince anyone that he is trolling, since you really have to understand what is going to realize it). In any case, you should probably bring this up at WP:ANI where someone will probably be able to help. I'm unfortunately rather busy right now, but in the weekend I'll try to do some damage control. Good luck until then. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maelin, Meni. I wanted to block the troll, but s/he was already blocked due to vandalism of acid rain. Unfortunately, blocking an IP address often has no effect, but let's hope that it helps. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There most certainly is a "mathematics of the real numbers", in the same way that there is a "mathematics of the hyperreal numbers" or a "mathematics of the transfinite cardinals". The fact that 0.999... = 1 is a direct consequence of the structure of the real numbers, and does not necessarily hold for the similarly-named objects in other axiomatic systems. The properties of sums of infinite series, and the absence of infinitesimals from the standard reals, are not intuitively obvious; hence all the controversy about this small, but crucial result. -- The Anome 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Talk:0.999... -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in the discussion at talk:division by zero about the chart being sold by an (allegedly) educational publisher that says that 1/0 = 0, 2/0 = 0, etc., perhaps it will interest you to know that at this web site where the chart is sold, the publisher now solicits opinions of the product. You can go there and tell them what you think. Michael Hardy 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, will do. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meni - did you ever submit a comment on this chart? I just looked at it and there were no comments shown (so I added one). I guess they still have a lot of stock to get rid of.... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall trying to and getting to some sort of error page. I figured back then that someone has beat me to it and they have already discontinued its sale, thus its comment page being unavailable. That was wishful thinking, apparently. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked there and couldn't see your comment, so I tried my luck as well. I see now they are claiming to publish it within 2 business days - we'll just have to wait and see. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Great post there on Talk:0.999.../Arguments#Let's end this madness ("John: Okay, I'll try this one more time.")! --Kprateek88(Talk | Contribs) 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried to make it one :-) Unfortunately, I have made some posts in the past which I think were rather good, but seemed to have little effect :( -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meni -

First, I want to thank you for the obvious time and effort you spent editing/maintaining this subject.

Second: I wanted to express my concern over your decision to remove other methods of calculating an initial estimate (ref 10:55, 8 September 2006). (I am sorry I have not replied sooner - I made some edit back in May 2006 and stored a copy of the page for my reference and had not returned to this WP page until now.) I have long developed software for embedded applications with both processor and real-time limitations. The type of estimation that was described was very useful as an initial seed for a Newton's method iteration on an reciprocal square root algorithm (which, as the page correctly states, can require a fairly accurate seed value to converge). The only (rough) estimation technique currently left on the page is, by comparison, grossly inaccurate, as it omits the correction factor. Also, the one you deleted is valuable for processors and applications where divisions are too costly to consider.

A third note: Rather than merely being a means of finding a square root, the reciprocal square root is extremely important for direct use in very fast normalization/rescaling of L2 vectors (by a single multiply). For this very common use, it is vastly superior to directly finding and using the square root, especially in cases where there is no hardware support for division.

And lastly: As for the basis upon which I tweaked the adjustment factors (my edits of May 2006), I explicitly wrote how I derived the adjustment factors: "where the derivation of the adjustment is the average of the square root of first digit and the square root of the first digit incremented by one, all divided by √10." Put another way, the adjustments were spaced to minimize the maximum errors generated on each interval --- for a leading digit of 1 on the interval of [1,2) I used the midpoint of the function's interval of [1/SQR(10), SQR(2)/SQR(10)). I believe I had made a study of this technique at the time, and found the theoretical values I had provided in WP were correct & superior to the original values when supported by a large sample set of calculations. For my use I needed to fully comprehend the underlying concept, as I was hoping to characterize/implement it for a moderately larger binary sized table, not one with just 9 (decimal) entries. Plus I needed to adapt it to RECIPROCAL square root estimation. Once I analyzed what was being shown, I recognized it as a simple table based technique I had commonly implemented in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.173.64 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I understand you mean this. My reason for this edit was very specific, as I expllained in the edit summary - it is identical to taking one step of the Babylonian method, which is already described in the article. ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {N^{2}+d}}\approx N+{\frac {d}{2N}}}$ when ${\displaystyle d\approx 0}$ is just another way of writing ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {S}}={\frac {1}{2}}(x+{\frac {S}{x}})}$ when ${\displaystyle x\approx {\sqrt {S}}}$. As for the importance of making such a step before starting to use reciprocal root methods, I have added a note to that effect to the reciprocal methods section. I hope you will be satisfied with the current version. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Meni, 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 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Meni Rosenfeld, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Politics rule 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Two days ahead of schedule, but I guess that works too :-) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Meni Rosenfeld, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

GrooveDog 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Whatever you wish for on your special day,

May each of your wishes come true.

Cheers, PeaceNT 15:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise for the impoliteness, I just hadn't checked my refference question for a while, and I guess I just let them pile up. Sorry! I'll be more carefull in the futer! Gbgg89 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so, but I just love that name, "Caratheodory" .... ;-) iames 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Myself, I am only familiar with Carathéodory's theorem (convex hull), though I now see there are plenty Carathéodory's theorems. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We always look forward to your clever posts and this is an excellent example. ;-) - hydnjo talk 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clever posts? Me? Nah, I just keep the OP busy until someone like KSmrq or Lambiam provides a real answer :) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your opinion that only half of the square roots in the world matter, the “most texts” you refer to are undoubtedly written for those who understand very little about the consequences of having multiple roots to an equation. One example, from an engineering standpoint, is that some machines operate differently in the forward direction than the reverse. For instance, the shock absorbers on a car are angled to the front of the vehicle. As non-symmetrical elements, they operate differently when expanding than contracting, and are positioned to provide a critically damped experience when the car moves in the forward direction. If one drives in reverse over a speed bump, the impact is significantly more forceful. Try it!

Your point that “most texts refer to...” is actually the one that isn’t meaningful. Your point refers to your personal philosophy that only principle square roots are meaningful. The mathematical actuality is that both roots matter, and this equation is a perfect example of why. It will very much be to your benefit in your continuing education if you realize that math works, not just your perception of what is an appropriate convention.

Best, Dr. Gnow. Dr gnow 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read my comment (or the article square root, for that matter) carefully enough. I have not implied that only one square root matters, but rather that only one is denoted ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {x}}}$ (with the other, equally important root, being denoted ${\displaystyle -{\sqrt {x}}}$). You only have any sort of guarantee that "math works" if you are careful with your notation, otherwise you can quickly end up with absurdities. Writing "${\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}=\pm 1}$" is not meaningful since ${\displaystyle \pm 1}$ is a shorthand for something else, not an object in itself; "${\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}=1}$ and ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}=-1}$" is absurd, since equality is transitive and ${\displaystyle 1\neq -1}$. This doesn't mean that you must accept the ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}=1}$ convention, but you must accept some convention if you want anything you do to be meaningful. One alternative is ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {1}}=\{1,-1\}}$, which is consistent but of dubious utility.

I have no idea whatever gave you the impression that I have a "personal philosophy that only principle square roots are meaningful" or that I "understand very little about the consequences of having multiple roots to an equation" (yes, I have taken this out of context but I have no doubt this is what you had in mind). Frankly, I am offended by these conclusions. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The “dubious utility” from your previous post is the reason that the original equation in question is internally consistent. It is the convention of considering only primary root of 1 that leads to what appears an inconsistent equation. You are correct that equalities are transitive, then you go on to make the same mistake I previously pointed out by using only one root on each side of the equation.

Claiming that I did not read the article or your post reflects your perception that as we disagree, your opinion is somehow more valid than mine. It is you who completely missed the point of my original post.

Also, if you choose to be offended so easily, perhaps you should not refer to the contribution of others as “not really meaningful.”

Dr gnow 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is clearly not taking us anywhere. Have a good day. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Meni. If you feel like you hadn't been stomped to the appropriate level, the square root page has been updated to reflect my point. Its almost like you need to read the page again, not me. How weird is that? Its almost like, I don't know, you are stuck in your mind frame and don't appreciate new information? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr gnow (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just, wow. You have huge, gigantic balls. I can't believe that you have actually tried to make an argument with such circular logic and such an authoritative voice, then you play the "I can't see you" card by claiming our discussion is going nowhere. How arrogant of you.

If you're really that unable to follow through with a discussion, please remove your comment from my post on the square root page. Also, I think it would benefit you to put quite a bit more thought into what you put on Wikipedia, it's fairly permanent way to document your work. I don't particularly like or respect you, but I'd still hate to see your quest for self importance injure your career later in life.

Best. Oh, and why don't you write "convention" one more time? Again, your "convention" clearly doesn't apply here, but you seem to enjoy writing the word.

Dr gnow 05:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Meni,

   Thank you for defending the REAL WORLD from the witchcraft of the AMERICAN SCIENTIST.  How dare he claim that there are two answers to a factual question?   The Lord advises us on difficult questions, and I'm glad he's spoken to you and shown you THE WAY in this matter.  Its best that you ignore that rapscallion, Jesus wouldn't respect you if you entertained his nonsense.  I don't think you're arrogant, I think you walk in the path of the Lord, even if, as a Jew,  you don't yet appreciate the grace of Jesus.  Nobody should hold that against you in the context of math and science. 

JesusLuver247 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC) JesusLuver247, You're way off the mark. I hope that even someone like Meni can put you back on track, and I really hope that your zeal and self conviction in a field you don't understand invites Meni to reconsider his self-biased conclusions. Just like Meni, you need a wider perspective before you comment on these issues.[reply]

Best, Dr gnow 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate it. The soon to be registered unanonymous user ;) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.125.254 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-). It is also worth noting that registering is easy, it really shouldn't take more than half a minute... -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I deserve that, as I haven't been really active in the help desk lately... But thanks, I've put it in my user page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I've spent some time editing on my page and have included (though not yet complete) one of my more significant/useful works relating to polynomials. Feel free to check it out. A math-wiki 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the info. Looking at it suggests that your overall goal is "Given a polynomial ${\displaystyle p(x)}$, find those values of ${\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {C} }$ for which ${\displaystyle p(x)\in \mathbb {R} }$, and the behavior of the polynomial at those points". However, I feel that such an objective sort of defeats its own purpose, since if we are interested in complex inputs, we should be interested in complex outputs as well. Also, for quadratics the behavior displayed is fairly trivial, and for higher degrees it seems too difficult to pinpoint any specific behavior. I don't deny that there is an elegant symmetry in the quadratic case, but nothing too deep, really.

If you do wish to investigate this further, though, what you probably need is a good CAS. The only one I have real experience with is the proprietary Mathematica, which is powerful but expensive, but there are some free ones as well (see, for example, Comparison of computer algebra systems). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was only really interested in looking at the graphincal behavior of complex solutions for different polynomials, so restricting the output to real values is of no real consequence. A math-wiki 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I got a little over my knowledge level their on the paths question in the refence desk. I think I have the algorithm he's looking for now. A math-wiki 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem really. I am only keeping in mind the observation that sometimes, a misleading answer can be worse than no answer as all. Obviously I make mistakes myself, but I try to keep those at a minimum. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with the block matrices. I am still not absolutely sure about the proof yet. Since the page has been archived I was wondering whether you could take a look at the proof that I have written here and help me finish it. Again thanks--Shahab 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested semi-protection for Division by zero and Theory of everything. — Loadmaster 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think blocking the IP range 129.138.20.01111xxx would have been more effective, but that should work, too. Thanks for the info. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in couple instinces that our answers for some of the questions asked on the reference desk have been at odds. I want to preempt any bad blood. I find it occasionally worrysome that you sometimes give answers that are quiet possibly well beyond the understanding of the OP. Such answers aren't wrong, but are generally not that helpful nor are they what the OP is really looking for. If want to point out that their question relates to somethings they as yet may not understand that's ok but try if at all possible to answer there question at the same level as it was asked. I took me several years before I learned how not confuse people I tried to help in math class. Keeping your explanations on par with someone's understanding is not always that easy! It usually translates to giving through explanations for anything that is even slightly beyond their appearant understanding it is necessary to give a clear answer to their question. A math-wiki 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do make a conscious effort to keep my replies at a level the OP can understand (do not confuse this with occasions when I am responding to a different issue raised in the discussion, and not directing my comments at the OP). If you have any specific example where you think my effort has failed, please mention it so I can take it into the consideration.

As long as we are giving gentle criticism on each other's contributions, I would like to mention a worrysome trend in your contributions as well. All too often you make comments about topics which are, as it seems, beyond your understanding. What's worse, you often use a tone which is too authoritative, hiding the fact that you are basically speculating. This can be misleading to the OP and other readers, and annoying to more knowledgeable people whose answers you contradict. I suggest the following: Before you post a reply, take a look at Wikipedia articles about related topics, and see if they match what you have thought. Then, think really hard if you are truly confident about your response, and if it really provides new insight. Only then write your comment in a tone which reflects your evaluation of your own understanding of the subject. If you are not sure, write your thoughts as a question which others can answer. Doing so can guarantee a long and successful career as a RefDesk regular, sharpening your knowledge and understanding in the process; If you fail to do so, do not be surprised if people bash your contributions. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind, I suppose a good example would be mention in the imaginary number question about i and -i, yes you are right that the distinction is arbitrary but mentioning field theory to someone who is probably a high school Junior or Senior is basically a waste of text, even if it might be useful to some of the others who are answering. If you feel it is still necessary to reference something like that well beyond the OP's understanding try adding an explanation of at least the ideas behind it. I should also mention that people like our OP here sometimes are not very proficient with mathematical terminology and might miss interpret from your tone that arbitrary meant that it was impossible to distinguish between i and -i, implying it does matter if you write i or -i and that they are freely interchangable, which I am pretty sure is not correct. I should also note when I feel that a correction to someones answer in order I usually try to kritique the person's answer, being extremely specific as to what is completely correct and what is misleading or not correct. A math-wiki 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have never mentioned fields in that response (are you perhaps mistaking me for Gandalf?), though they were to some degree implied. Note also that none of my posts in that thread where directed at the OP - the first was addressing what I saw as an error in Salix's reply, the second was a direct answer to Salix's question, and the rest were addressed to you. Correspondingly, in all cases, I did not try to write in a way the OP should understand - but I still think in retrospect that the OP should be able to at least get the general idea (even though we know very little about him - he only posted one, rather cryptic, question). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being able to calmly say what I was getting too upset to say! I have been hugely heartened by the response of so many Wikipedians to the difficulties recently, it really means a lot to me. Thanks again, and best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, I'm glad to have been able to lift your spirits a little bit. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me in the Help:Reference Mathematics section. My math teacher isn't so good, and just gives our class worksheets to do on ourown without explaining how to do them. Then they turn to me to tutor them and teach them how to do it. It's so much easier when someone older explains it out and gives assistance, instead of everyone just expecting me to know what's going on. Thanks again, S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)}

No problem. Remember, the best way to fully understand anything is to teach it to others, so you should be glad whenever someone asks you for guidance and gives you such an opportunity. I'm sure your teacher would also be glad to answer any questions you might have (he\she can't be that bad, right?). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? He doesn't answer questions, just points to a Dictionary! A Dictionary! That's why everyone asks me because I get it faster. If I learn one strategy, I learn it and manipulate it (Correctly) to work for all of the stuff. Because I'm smarter, the teacher piles on extra homework at a higher grade level and says: "Do it. It's due tomorrow." That's the stuff that I need help with. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Good luck, then. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I see you have many similar headings on your talk page)

but anyway, you mentioned something about uses for the division by zero.

What could they possibly be, we're not even talking about something in the real number line?

and thanks for the correction about the math book thing. Freenaulij (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be able to explain them too well. I can suggest taking a look at Riemann sphere, though it is slightly advanced. Another example is in making theorems like the root test for power series more elegant - If we agree that 1/0 = ∞ and 1/∞ = 0, we can formulate it as saying that the radius of convergence of ${\displaystyle \sum a_{n}z^{n}}$ is ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\lim \sup {\sqrt[{n}]{|a_{n}|}}}}}$ without any additional words. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your answer. Yes, I meant that (with the absolute value), forgot to type it, but it still doesn't work, why? --Taraborn (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just felt like dropping some aditional lines to my apologies at the RD. You are right in that my posting there today was appalling. But I give you my word that no offense was intented. I'll try next time to be more precise and cautious before giving an answer. Regards, Pallida  Mors 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I wasn't that offended at the personal level, and I don't think anyone else was - I just felt your hastiness wasn't very proper, and is something to be mentioned and kept in mind in the future. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info for my inquiry on wanting a domain name and email without needing hosting. I looked more at your list of 10 and you are right there are better options. I set up a Bluwiki to help with my decision making here: http://www.bluwiki.com/go/Domain_and_email. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Note that register.com offers domain registration for 35$/yr, and Go Daddy offers domain registration for 3$-10$/yr, depending on TLD. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I noticed that you were perhaps on the receiving end of some possibly negative comments from some anonymo