User talk:Tkuvho

Welcome!

Hello, Tkuvho, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi! Remember to add references to your page or the content in question may be deleted. Good luck and happy editing--Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We usually permit people to remove comments they have made from talk pages, as long as nobody else has responded to the comment. Of course the edits are still in the page history either way. There's not any overriding need to prevent people from retracting a statement that they later feel was ill considered. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan to add material and re-organize that page. Not very soon, though. Currently I am visiting a different university and am busy with other things. Cheers. Kope (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can Google hit counts ever be cited as a reliable source? there is a reasonable discussion about these sorts of sources. These are excluded from articles on the basis of SYNTH and OR. You can, of course, use the information to support a discussion about notability on the article talk page. In the case of Steve Shnider it may be better to find international awards for his work or independent reviews of his books as sources to add. Cheers—Ash (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be insufficiently familiar with notability criteria for scientific articles. The criteria explicitly state that both math reviews and google SCHOLAR provide valid indications of notability. You seem further to confuse google and google scholar, a very different engine. Tkuvho (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Noticeboard discussion specifically discussed the case for Google Scholar. If you doubt this example discussion (just the first one I picked out) you can try searching RS/N for yourself. Notability of the article is not at issue, just the inclusion of this transient original research. As you do not seem to give much weight to my experience and have reversed my edit (again), I'll ask for an independent third opinion which may help explain the matter. I shall copy this discussion onto the article talk page for the convenience of an opinion.—Ash (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic behind your agreeing that "notability is not an issue" and at the same time insisting on placing the "notability" tag on the article. Informal discussions at the noticeboard are one thing, but guidelines to the effect that specifically in mathematics it is appropriate to use google scholar, another. Tkuvho (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let's step back from all of this and try to find a mutually satisfactory solution at Dirac delta function. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All feet are fine. I understand that you find the new material startling (I must say it was to me as well). Nonetheless, the current version of the page does not correspond to our historical knowledge. Tkuvho (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph needs expansion and improvement; we can discuss it there. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you changed Luxemburg from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have noticed that nearly 200 other Wikipedia articles contain links to "Luxemburg". When you change the page that an existing title links to, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have added to the section on post WW2 - would you have a look? Thanks From the other side (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that your comment is written from an "inside" viewpoint of a mathematical logician, rather than the way it looks to a broader mathematical observer. I am perfectly happy with "history of logic" being written from such an "inside" viewpoint, but my own opinion is that Robinson's contribution, in the eyes of a broader public, does not appear more minor than any of the other items currently mentioned. Tkuvho (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't see how to respond before. I have that book on request. I relied on a claim elsewhere that this is how he does it and the small amount I could see on Amazon.com I think that the 1947 "Theory of Functions" by Joseph Fell Ritt does this also (and more throughly) and am waiting to check. I finally tracked down a reference to the authoritative article Eléments d'analyse de Karl Weierstrass by Piere Dugac in the Archive for History of Exact Sciences Volume 10, Numbers 1-2 / January, 1973 Pages 41-174. Fortunately for me not all 134 pages are in French. Unfortunately those that aren't are notes in German and I don't really read either language (but the article no doubt covers much more than irrationals.) From what I have seen elsewhere he used aggregates of units and unit fractions noting that e is {1 1, 1/2,1/6,1/24,...} and {1/15, 1/15} (being 0.23333) is the same as {1/10,1/10,1/100,1/100,1/100,1/1000,...} Given one aggregate on can break a part 1/a into n parts 1/na like 1/3 into 1/12,1/12,1/12,1/12 then you have to explain operations, negatives and when x<y (when any finite subset of x can be dominated by a finite subset of y.) Now if all of his examples stick to aggregates using 1/10s, 1/00s , 1/100s etc. one has a case for decimal fractions. His students tended to describe his things as sums (additive aggregates) but he himself was careful to take them as whole infinite sets. --65.12.202.14 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are "gentlemath"? It would be interesting to sort this out. It is hard to believe that nobody in the English language was ever curious to find out whether Weierstrass did the reals by decimal expansions, or not. Dugac could not have been the only one to write about this. As far as the distinction between what weierstrass did and what his students did, this may be difficult to argue, since as far as I know Weierstass himself never wrote anything down in the form of either article or book. Tkuvho (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we continue the discussion at the talk page of construction of the real numbers other people would be able to contribute as well. Tkuvho (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkuvho, please use edit summaries (see Help:Edit summary). Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkuvho, This [1] looks like a good-faith edit with an edit-summary, and so deserves an edit-summary if it is to be reverted (e.g. rv: makes article inconsistent if not applied throughout). Thanks, --catslash (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Six cross-ratios has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary content fork of Cross-ratio#Symmetry. Unlikely to be a search term so redirect isn't appropriate.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RDBury (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "six cross-ratios" can be a useful item in a list of articles in the category "projective geometry". It allows the reader to find the material he is looking for quicker. Some of the items that would be appropriate on this page would be too esoteric for inclusion at the main page cross-ratio, for instance a more detailed explanation why the sixth root of unity gives an orbit with only two elements. Giving a convincing explanation of the role of the Klein 4-group would also be too detailed for the main page, which is too long already. The topic of the present page is of independent interest, which should qualify it for a separate page. The corresponding section at cross-ratio should be shortened to include only the essentials. Tkuvho (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In projective geometry, there is a number of definitions of the cross-ratio. However, they all differ from each other by a suitable permutation of the coordinates. In general, there are six possible different values the cross-ratio ${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{2};z_{3},z_{4})}$ can take depending on the order in which the points z_i are given.

Since there are 24 possible permutations of the four coordinates, some permutations must leave the cross-ratio unaltered. In fact, exchanging any two pairs of coordinates preserves the cross-ratio:

${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{2};z_{3},z_{4})=(z_{2},z_{1};z_{4},z_{3})=(z_{3},z_{4};z_{1},z_{2})=(z_{4},z_{3};z_{2},z_{1}).\,}$

Using these symmetries, there can then be 6 possible values of the cross-ratio, depending on the order in which the points are given. These are:

${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{2};z_{3},z_{4})=\lambda \,}$		${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{2};z_{4},z_{3})={1 \over \lambda }}$
${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{3};z_{4},z_{2})={1 \over {1-\lambda }}}$		${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{3};z_{2},z_{4})=1-\lambda \,}$
${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{4};z_{3},z_{2})={\lambda \over {\lambda -1}}}$		${\displaystyle (z_{1},z_{4};z_{2},z_{3})={{\lambda -1} \over \lambda }}$

Viewed as Möbius transformations, the six cross-ratios listed above represent torsion elements of PGL(2,Z). Namely, ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\lambda }}}$, ${\displaystyle \;1-\lambda \,}$, and ${\displaystyle {\frac {\lambda }{\lambda -1}}}$ are of order 2 in PGL(2,Z), with fixed points, respectively, -1, 1/2, and 2 (namely, the orbit of the harmonic cross-ratio). Meanwhile, elements ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{1-\lambda }}}$ and ${\displaystyle {\frac {\lambda -1}{\lambda }}}$ are of order 3 in PGL(2,Z). Each of them fixes both values ${\displaystyle e^{\pm i\pi /3}}$ of the "most symmetric" cross-ratio.

In the language of group theory, the symmetric group S₄ acts on the cross-ratio by permuting coordinates. The kernel of this action is isomorphic to the Klein four-group K. This group consists of 2-cycle permutations of type ${\displaystyle (ab)(cd)}$ (in addition to the identity), which preserve the cross-ratio. The effective symmetry group is then the quotient group ${\displaystyle S_{4}/K}$, which is isomorphic to S₃.

For certain values of λ there will be an enhanced symmetry and therefore fewer than six possible values for the cross-ratio. These values of λ correspond to fixed points of the action of S₃ on the Riemann sphere (given by the above six functions); or, equivalently, those points with a non-trivial stabilizer in this permutation group.

The first set of fixed points is {0, 1, ∞}. However, the cross-ratio can never take on these values if the points {z_i} are all distinct. These values are limit values as one pair of coordinates approach each other:

${\displaystyle (z,z_{2};z,z_{4})=(z_{1},z;z_{3},z)=0\,}$

${\displaystyle (z,z;z_{3},z_{4})=(z_{1},z_{2};z,z)=1\,}$

${\displaystyle (z,z_{2};z_{3},z)=(z_{1},z;z,z_{4})=\infty .}$

The second set of fixed points is {−1, 1/2, 2}. This situation is what is classically called the harmonic cross-ratio, and arises in projective harmonic conjugates. In the real case, there are no other exceptional orbits.

The most symmetric cross-ratio occurs when ${\displaystyle \lambda =e^{\pm i\pi /3}}$. These are then the only two possible values of the cross-ratio.

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have to jump in here. No, in fact that is not possible. Any two "reasonable" models of set theory must agree on the truth value of CH. Conditions for the models to be "reasonable" in this sense: First, both should be wellfounded models (that is, not just neither thinks there is an infinite descending epsilon chain, but there really isn't an infinite descending epsilon chain in either model). Second, both models, after taking their Mostowski collapses (so that they have the true natural numbers), should contain all sets of natural numbers, and all sets of sets of natural numbers.

If you have two models like that, they agree on the truth value of CH, and the value they agree on is the correct truth value. --Trovatore (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that in a "reasonable" model, CH is necessarily true? Tkuvho (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I'm saying that all such models agree on the truth value of CH. Which way they agree, we don't know at the current time. --Trovatore (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very intriguing. Is this your own work? How does one prove this sort of result? Tkuvho (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually trivial. CH is equivalent to a sentence of third-order arithmetic (${\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}^{2}}$ in fact: "there exists a linear order on P(ω) whose every proper initial segment is countable"), and Trovatore's condition says exactly that the parts of the two models corresponding to third-order arithmetic are the same. What I don't understand is why on earth should this condition be considered "reasonable".—Emil J. 11:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm really getting at is that there's a certain rather ill-conceived point of view that attempts to maintain a version of realism (there is a model of this or that) while maintaining that propositions like CH are not determinate. If there are models, then we should be able to ask questions of them like "does such and such a model have all subsets of its naturals?". And you don't even have to go all the way to P(P(omega)) to see that CH must be determinate; all you need to do is interrogate wellfounded models that contain all of P(omega). If all such models agree on the truth value of CH, then they are correct. On the other hand, if there are two such models that disagree, then CH is true. --Trovatore (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Trovatore's argument is reasonable and compatible with a certain realist interpretation of set theory. That argument comes down to arguing that there is one "Standard Universe" of set theory that encompasses "all sets". It's an important argument to understand, because it's very common, and other viewpoints are often explained by contrasting them with it.

In general, asking whether a model M has all subsets of its naturals seems to require one of:

1. A well-defined notion of "all subsets" that can be used to test M without reference to an external model. To support Trovatore's argument here, you need to argue that "all subsets" is already well-defined independent of any model of set theory. One counterargument is that our experience with forcing makes the existence of such a well-defined notion suspect. That is, the extremely concrete way in which we can turn CH on and off by forcing suggests that there is no natural definition of the meaning of "all sets" that can decide CH.
2. An external "reference" model E, which can be used to test M. But then we can ask about testing E, which leads to an infinite regress. This is one motivation for the "multiverse" argument, which I'll mention in a moment. Of course, if the "Standard Universe" exists then we can use that for E, but claiming that the Standard Universe is well defined is essentially equivalent to (1).

Here are slides from a talk that Joel David Hamkins gave earlier this year about what he calls the "multiverse view" of set theory. I didn't see the talk, and slides always have to be taken with a grain of salt; Hamkins has announced papers that will have more details and proofs.

The multiverse viewpoint is a realist view of set theory that argues there is no single intended model of set theory, but instead a whole lot of models. At any moment we work within one of them. Gitman and Hamkins have proved [2] that if ZFC is consistent then there is a nonempty collection of models of ZFC ("universes") satisfying the following "multiverse axioms":

• If V is a universe and W is a definable class model of ZFC within V then W is a universe.
• For any universe V and any forcing notion P, there is a generic extension V[G] which is a universe.
• Every universe is an initial segment of the cumulative hierarchy of some other universe.
• Every universe is countable within some other universe.
• Every universe is ill-founded within some other universe.

The multiverse viewpoint would say that instead of a single Standard Universe there is instead a multiverse of universes. From this viewpoint, the concept of "a universe" is well defined, but Trovatore's argument does not go through, because neither requirement (1) or (2) is available.

Now the entire "multiverse" argument is relatively young, and I expect to see arguments against it published over time. So my opinion is that it should be viewed as a proposal at this point. One key advantage it has is that it's more compatible with actual practice, where set theorists routinely do forcing arguments over V that would not make sense from the perspective of the Standard Universe theory. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tkuvho. The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education is ranked by Journal Rankings as by far the most cited journal in mathematics education. In fact, it is 4th among all educational research journals of ANY topic. On the other hand, Wikipedia has tagged the ESM article as "may not meet the general notability guideline". Not being familiar with ESM, I can't really judge, though I have to admit that any journal established by Freudenthal is surely significant. I don't really think the order is that important, so I won't quibble over this, but I really don't think the most cited journal should be placed seventh. It's not a prestige thing -- I just want the Wikipedia article to be helpful to those who might not know where to turn. The most important journals should be placed near the top of the list. I'll put JRME second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seberle (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just objecting to a subjective reordering of the sort that can only lead to an edit war. Which "Journal Rankings" is this, by the way? Is it ISI Thompson impact factor type of thing? Tkuvho (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an edit war over something as subjective as "preeminence" would be silly. I was using Journal-Rankings.com, which is the only site I am familiar with, though I know there are others. If you know another good site that ranks journals, I would be interested to hear it. The Journal-Rankings.com website seems to be malfunctioning today.

Now that I look at my EndNote records, I see that I have quite a number of articles from ESM (almost as many as JRME). I never really noticed before! I think that template on the ESM Wikipedia article should be removed, but I'm not sure if something more is involved in a "notability" tag than simply removing the template? --seberle (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify the point about the simultaneous truth or falsity of CH in certain class of models? This might interest more readers than one, and could be a useful addition at continuum hypothesis or a related page. Tkuvho (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So yesterday when someone asked on the refdesk about the number of ultrafilters, I went Googling and happened upon an old sci.math post of my own that someone had archived. In the same archive there was a post by me on the subject you're asking about. See http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/00_incoming/undecideable and scroll down to the last post. --Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could elaborate on that material, I would appreciate it. It might also be of interest to a reader of a page such as continuum hypothesis. Tkuvho (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you know about descriptive set theory? The arithmetical hierarchy (first-order arithmetic) and analytical hierarchy (second-order arithmetic) can be naturally generalized to third-order arithmetic: here you have formulas with three types of variables and quantifiers: one type for natural numbers, one type for sets of natural numbers (which are identified with real numbers, as usual in set theory), and one type for sets of sets of natural numbers (= sets of reals). The formulas, normalized to prenex normal form where all third-order quantifiers are in front, are stratified into a hierarchy where you count the number of blocks of existential or universal third-order quantifiers, in particular, ${\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}^{2}}$ which I mentioned there denotes formulas consisting of a block of third-order existential quantifiers followed by a formula with only first-order and second-order quantifiers. The claim is that CH is equivalent in ZFC to a ${\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}^{2}}$-formula.

First, CH is equivalent to the statement (*) "there exists a linear order on R whose every proper initial segment is countable": on the one hand, CH implies the existence of a well-order of R of type ω₁. On the other hand, assume that < is any linear order on R whose every proper initial segment is countable. As with every linear order, R contains a cofinal well-ordered subset X under <. The condition on initial segments ensures that X has type at most ω₁, and since R is the union of initial segments (which are all countable) bounded by elements of X, it has cardinality at most ${\displaystyle \aleph _{1}}$.

What remains is to write (*) as a ${\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}^{2}}$ formula. Since all three types have definable pairing functions, we can use quantifiers for binary, ternary, etc., relations instead of just subsets. Thus we can start with an existential third-order quantifier for a binary relation < on R. We can say that < is a linear order with a bunch of quantifiers over R (i.e., second-order in our setting) just by stating the usual axioms. Then we state that "for every a in R, the initial segment {x in R|x < a} is countable". The last part is slightly tricky and I'm not going to write it down explicitly, but the point is that we can encode a function N → R (= P(N)) by a subset of N × N (and therefore by a real).—Emil J. 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the section on "truth" from the incompleteness theorems talk page to the arguments page. Your original question was directly about the article, but the section is drifting away from the article, and several people have asked if we can keep the talk page very on-topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion in more depth in the new location, although I think you will get a broader set of opinions from the reference desk. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where the plane is, so long as it is parallel to the tangent plane at the point of projection. Given two planes, one tangent at the antipode and one (parallel to it) passing through the center, the only difference between the resulting maps is the scale. I'll look for a place in the article to make this point. —Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's already there. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tkuvho! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Victor Bangert - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkuvho.

Can I ask you to respond to some comments I've put on the talk page of Square root of 2 regarding the 'constructive' proof? Principally I note the classic proof is regarded as constructive anyway (it being an error to suppose constructive proofs never use contradiction), that the section needs to be rewritten more transparently and that it's really not notable in this context and should be deleted or merged with Constructive proof. I've also added some remarks about the proof by infinite descent (wrong-headed) and proof by unique factorisation (laboured and including a non-sequitor) which I propose eventually to edit if not addressed soon. Rinpoche (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I had to write you here, because what you said in the article talk page to me is very confusing...(and seems the opposite of what is actually true.)

I don't see how what I tried to put in the article "contradicts" anything in the lead, as right in the very paragraph already, where I (attempted to) put the point, it said ALREADY previously these exact words "it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers." What I tried to put in fit RIGHT ALONG with that. If it didn't, can't you maybe explain just how not? And where exactly would there have been any actual "contradiction"? The article itself says fairly clearly that "infinity" is "not a real number."

Also too, in the very first paragraph, it says that infinity is a "concept" that is "without end." What I tried to put was "a quality of endlessness." Or concept of endlessness.... exactly what was said in the lead itself. So I'm a little confused by what you just said.... Can you please clarify? Thanks...ResearchRave (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remind me what comment you wanted to add exactly? Tkuvho (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to clarify the comment about Goodstein's theorem at non-standard model of arithmetic without knowing exactly what you find confusing. If I went into detail about everything I mentioned it would fill up several pages. Do you have specific questions? Luqui (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move to talk:non-standard model of arithmetic. Tkuvho (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your question and it really deserved a better, detailed answer.--Radh (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me know. Tkuvho (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I undid your recent edit to curvature. I see that perhaps what I had written was a bit unclear. Components of the principal axes might refer to the coordinates of the axes themselves, whereas what I meant was the coefficients that arise in the diagonalization of the quadratic form. I wasn't sure what the standard term for these were. "Lengths of the principal axes" is nearly right, but that is only correct in the positive curvature case. Any thoughts on what the right way to phrase this is? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The right way is to call them the eigenvalues of the shape operator which is selfadjoint and therefore has real eigenvalues. Tkuvho (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably noticed, I already mentioned the shape operator up front. However, I feel it is significant to mention the second fundamental form as well, since I think this is more familiar to people with little background in differential geometry (not to mention that the section is titled "Second fundamental form"). Classically, the principal curvatures are gotten by orthogonally diagonalizing the second fundamental form. One way to say this is that they are the eigenvalues of the matrix representing the second fundamental form in an orthonormal basis—although you could argue that there is no real content to this statement since it's trivially equivalent to being an eigenvalue of the shape operator. Anyway, I've tried now to include both points of view in a manner satisfying your objections. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are working with an extrinsic point of view, not an intrinsic point of view. Therefore it is not clear whether you are referring to an orthonormal basis of the ambient space or for the tangent plane of the surface. If this is to be done properly it should be done at the second fundamental form page, after setting up the proper notation, but not here. Tkuvho (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I have tried to rewrite the section to describe the second fundamental form in words first, then symbols, and then note the relationship with the principal curvatures. I've tried not to be too technical (indeed, it isn't my goal to "do it properly" here, but rather to observe appropriate summary style). The connection with the shape operator now comes later. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than improvising I think one should choose a respected textbook and follow its presentation. I personally have a strong aversion to adopting the "long way" to principal curvature, which masks their inherent simplicity and basis-independence, namely as eigenvalues of the shape operator which can be defined without choosing a basis on the surface (let alone an orthonormal basis which can only exist at a point, etc), but I admit not all textbooks adopt this approach. Tkuvho (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already defines the principal curvatures. The goal at present is to discuss the second fundamental form in a satisfactory way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article First-order logic you claim that quantification is not allowed over sets. That is incorrect. If it were so, for example, many of the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory would be of higher order. Still, it is commonly held that axioms in ZFC are in the domain of the First-order logic. Therefore it would be better to keep to the common distinction between the first and higher order logics, like that in Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics, second edition, (Symbolic Logic, 411K) "... ordinary predicate logic is called first-order predicate logic while predicate logic dealing with quantifiers [for all P] and [there is P] for predicate variable P is called second-order predicate logic." Lauri.pirttiaho (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the axiom asserting the existence of a least upper bound for a bounded set in R fit into this, in your opinion? Tkuvho (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special examples of axioms expressible in the first-order logic do not affect the way it is defined. The definition is based on a convention which is that in the first order logic the variables can represent also sets. (See the article on Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory for examples).Lauri.pirttiaho (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your assertion that I was making "a lame excuse for indulging Bourbakism" really hurt my feelings. For one thing, it was not my intention to do anything of the sort. I was merely trying to make some personal observations from a sociological point of view that might help explain why our treatment of many mathematical topics is not accessible to laymen. However, you seem to have not read my post for what it was. My intention was to make some candid observations about my own behavior on Wikipedia, and I found your aggressive response totally inappropriate. I would like you to know that I have found this entire episode to be so stressful and aggravating that I am considering leaving the project for good. Best wishes, Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you decide to stay. Your contribution here is appreciated. Sorry my criticism of Bourbakism aggravated you. Really it is a criticism of a certain style of writing whose merits we seem to evaluate differently. I don't see why disagreement should lead to personal confrontations. We collaborated constructively at such pages as Dirac delta and I hope this continues. Tkuvho (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I just need to keep away for awhile. I'm very sorry about the personal confrontation. I enjoy working constructively with you as well, and regret that our recent disagreement has become such a nuisance to both of us. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what a relief. Tkuvho (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being mean to you on the talk pages. I thought you were a troll, now I regret that I have rushed to that conclusion as I see that your desire to improve Wikipedia is sincere and that you are a good mathematician, much better than I am. I hope I'll be able to productively collaborate with you in future. — Kallikanzarid^talk 19:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tkuvho (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of my element at Non-Legendrian geometry. Hilbert's thesis is a bit vague, and my German isn't good enough to make much out of Dehn's article. I would appreciate it if you could have a look. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to your judgment in all things here. When I asked your assistance, I was in the untenable position of trying to edit the article based solely on the translation of Hilbert's thesis, which made both vague and apparently contradictory assertions. Your suggestion of a merger seems like a good one, if you can manage to decipher something reasonably accurate. I'd be happy to facilitate this, if you could just tell me what to do. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what Dehn's other example is that would contradict Legendre's theorem. At any rate, it has nothing to do with the construction presented here, as the Zentralblatt review illlustrates. Tkuvho (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You have reverted Non-Legendrian geometry back to The Dehn plane which was discussed and had no consesnsus, in fact consensus was against the name "Dehn plane".

Page titles do not have "the" in them.

What are you doing putting it back without consulting anyone or gaining consensus for that change?

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Does the example discussed in this page have anything to do with non-legendrian geometry? Tkuvho (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference, the point is that titles do not have "The" in them and you moved it against the consensus which agreed to not use Dehn plane in the page title. If Non-Legendrian is incorrect then the page title should not have been moved to a title with "Dehn plane" in it. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkuvho! Please feel free to engage on the talk page where a discussion is going on. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gather it takes two to engage. Tkuvho (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are the same editor as Ki imanu kel, which is implied in your signature on the talk page, please take the following steps. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning to use the other account; I originally created it because Immanuel is outside my main wiki interests. Tkuvho (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TKUVKO

I did many changes were made on the Hebrew site on the Emanuel page under "education"

They were wiped out within a couple of hours with no explanantion

Hebrew is not my first language. Can you look on the page and the histories under Becky613? I regret that I did not save a full page to forward to you. I am sure I complied with Wiki policies. Many thanks

see עמנואל Wiki page

Becky613 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tkuvko,

are you still available to evaluate the Wiki page on Immanuel Beis Yaakov? I did not enable my email as I did not want my address all over wiki...would be willing to write in private.

Becky613 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Becky613 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please be aware that the page move has caused many problems with redirects which the bots are still trying to resolve. (such as [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8])

Can you please take a look at any others and try and fix them. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A. H. Lightstone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. H. Lightstone until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your thanks are appreciated, and you're welcome; oddly, it was the listing in AfD that caught my eye, and I would initially have written it off as likely to just flip to a math article, as I stated in the discussion, but I believe it now stands on its own. By the time I was ready to save, a lot had been added, which took longer to go through and match formatting, although it has mostly been reformatted since. The lifespan was a very minor item in dozens of pages I'd gone through, but helps explain the poor review of his posthumously published work. I'm still unable to source exact dates & place of birth & death, his cause of death at 49(50?) and obituary, wife's name, and even 'Canadian', which I expect someone else actually knows even if they haven't sourced it, either. It makes me wish I had more training in math, which I've always found interesting. I can only hope that someone actually writes a book on the man someday. Cheers, and thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. There is already a related book on Robinson, by Joseph Dauben, which might interest you. Lightstone may have some relatives in Canada who may be able to provide more precise biographic information. Tkuvho (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Goldblatt has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're at creating biographies of logicians, I realized that the editor-in-chief of Studia Logica doesn't have one. He is well known for books and articles on multi-valued logic. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Assisitance from Tkuvko

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_in_Israel Please note the history of the line "June 17: Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy." My revisions have been undone within a very short amount of time. Any suggestions? Thank you 77Line (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest signaling your change at the talk page to see what other editors think about such an addition. Also please enable your wiki email so people can send you messages (without necessarily having access to your email address). Tkuvho (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TKUVKO

I did many changes were made on the Hebrew site on the Emanuel page under "education". They were wiped out within a couple of hours with no explanantion. I am sure I complied with Wiki policies. Many thanks

see עמנואל Wiki page. I did not enable my email as I did not want my address all over wiki. Would be willing to write in private.

Becky613 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gmail now. How do I get it to you? I need your advice about the Wiki Hebrew page. Thanks

Becky613 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivar Ekeland, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I nominated Ivar Ekeland along with Robert Phelps. However, in a fivefold expansion of the article beginning on April 8th and finishing an hour ago, I added a new hook on Ekeland and Jurassic Park, which has an image of the Lorentz Attractor. The new hook and the image should attract more readers, so I de-nominated your original article (beginning 3 April, I believe). I'll alert you when the article appears, and of course you can increment your DYK counter when the new one appears. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

On 21 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivar Ekeland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The article should appear on 21 April.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore WP:COPYVIO as you did at Adequality William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What violation? Tkuvho (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page. Pretending you haven't seen the discussion won't make it go away William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have restored an off-topic discussion to 0.999...'s talk page three times. I've removed it again, according to the guidelines in Wikipedia:TALK and Talk:0.999...'s FAQ. If you feel that the discussion still belongs there, let's talk it out here and reach an agreement. Otherwise, we can go through dispute resolution.

To make things easy, let me start by suggesting that you move the discussion to either the arguments page or this less-regulated page, both of which were created for the specific purpose of discussions like yours. Gustave the Steel (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Carl persuaded me to leave the discussion where it is. The first two messages were definitely off-topic and should have been removed; however, your comment beginning with "The article could devote more attention.." was definitely topical, and I was wrong to remove it or any of its replies. Let me propose something: since your second reply begins a new discussion that doesn't relate very much to the initial post, can we move it under a new section and delete the anonymous comment and your first reply (both of which are indisputably off-topic)? This would allow us to remove the non-mathematical arguments and leave a purely on-topic discussion about improving the article. I'll await your reply before taking action. Gustave the Steel (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for the constructive tone of your remarks. We could follow the course you suggest; on the other hand, I think the IP's comments are relevant to the suggestion to include a mention of adequality in the lede; namely, his comments substantiate R. Ely's contention that these are persistent nonstandard (and not erroneous) intuitions. We get one every few weeks at Talk:0.999.... Again, student intuitions are not "hyperreal"; it would be absurd to claim that. Rather, they are infinitesimal intuitions, in a respectable tradition of the Law of Continuity, for example. Tkuvho (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new article that you created at Generality of algebra seems to be very poor quality at the moment. It doesn't say what the "generality of algebra" principle actually is, there are no examples showing how it can be applied, and there are no references to sources that show where and how this phrase is actually used. Unless you can expand the article and add sources, I will be inclined to propose deletion or initiate an AfD discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. The generality of algebra is a well-known principle that's mentioned by every serious historian of the period. I certainly hope to provide some references soon. You can do that, too! Tkuvho (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage you to beef up the article a bit. There seems to be an inordinate amount of hostility towards this simple stub. I would do it myself, but I think your ability to contextualize the relevant sources properly exceeds my own. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Generality of algebra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, or indeed even of existence

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid's method was taken as the model of reasoning for more than 2000 years, inspiring similar attempts by Spinoza, etc. (Lakatos refers to the "Euclidean spirit", perhaps in a Hegelian sense, if my memory is correct.)

Other axiom systems appeared. As you know, Peirce was more important than Peano in the rise of mathematical logic, particularly with the Dedekind-Peirce development of natural numbers, etc.

I dislike the prominence given to Popper in WP, which seems to reflect a vogue among social scientists around the 1950s-1970s (connected to Kuhn's ascent). I've only heard philosophers joke about Popper (and nobody takes Kuhn seriously), but still WP articles seem obsessed with Popper-centric intellectual history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. Peirce can certainly be added to the list of Hilbert and Peano, even though his contribution was much less influential. Tkuvho (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reconsider your claim that nobody takes Kuhn seriously if your edits are to be taken seriously. Tkuvho (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos took Kuhn seriously as a popular writer who made very interesting observations, but whose attempts at philosophy were flawed; MacIntyre made interesting comments on Kuhn/Polanyi. I am unaware of any philosopher who thinks that Kuhn represents a significant advance in the philosophy of science. Honestly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Monty Hall problem the information from Schuyler W. Huck, Statistical Misconceptions that confirms that this is a common misconception? A direct quotation would be very helpful. Most of us don't have access to that source. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from a google scholar link provided by Bialy at that very talkpage! It should be accessible to everybody. I will try to provide an electronic link. Tkuvho (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can see it. Many thanks. Just so you'll know, I may challenge that this is a common misconception after I have more time to read the source. That's not a challenge of your good faith edits, of course, and I won't remove the item unless there is a consensus. My personal opinion is that "famous example of a cognitive illusion" means that it is common among those who think about cognitive illusions (i.e., mathematicians, psychologists, etc.), but not a common misconception among the general population. But that's just my opinion. Anyway, thanks for the link. Cresix (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not clear about why I reverted your section heading change at Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics, here is an explanation. The text in that section at present talks about the transmission of knowledge "to Europe through the trade route from Kerala". You may well believe that the Kerala school inherited earlier knowledge from Greece or elsewhere, and you are welcome to put this idea into the article (as long as you also provide a reliable source for it) - but you can't do that just by changing the section heading from "Possibility of transmission of Kerala School results to Europe" to "Possibility of transmission of European results to Kerala School and back". You must update the section text as well. Otherwise we are left with a section heading that says one thing and text that says another, which is nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandalf61, That whole page bears an uncanny resemblance to the Indian section that was recently deleted altogether at history of mathematics. The authors of that page are certainly doing a disservice to the honorable tradition of mathematics in India. However, I don't think the current version can be taken seriously. The grandiose claims of european mathematicians stealing indian ideas is just the tip of the iceberg. Tkuvho (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are documents which suggests that important results in modern calculus like power series etc. were introduced by Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics. In West, these results are assumed to be discovered people like Newton or Leibniz. Since these results are important cornerstones of modern calculus they need to be acknowledged in the History of Calculus. Current article appears to take only Western view about the whole thing and presents much of the History of Calculus in terms of the grand war between its purported inventors: Newton and Leibniz. But, given the current evidence other parts of the world may disagree with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenna001 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chenna, please sign your comments using four tildas "~" at the end. I agree with the main thrust of your comment. I suggest we continue the discussion at Talk:History of calculus. Note that I re-created the subsection on Indian mathematics that was deleted by another editor. Tkuvho (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tkvho

Sure. Good to see some open-mindedness about things. Chenna001 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chenna. Material should be added to history of mathematics in small increments. The old version of the section on India was not acceptable (that's why it was deleted in the first place!). Tkuvho (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should note that not everything presented there is stated by Ian Pierce. There are other articles that are referring to things said there. So, if you delete, delete things that are directly stated by Pierce. I will find sources later. There are other sources for the same stuff which are given in the references cited by Pierce.Chenna001 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also replying to your comments on the discussion page.Chenna001 (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental change is the key to success. Tkuvho (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention to You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page, which you must have missed? If you have a good reason, please provide it, and I won't bother put the article up for AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This author meets the notability guidelines in terms of publications (including a book) as well as influence (mathscinet and google scholar). Tkuvho (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better to have put that on the article talk page. Anyway, thank you for providing your reasons, but they do not to me seem to be sufficient William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to Islam, you are more knowledgeable in that area is an unacceptable edit comment [9]. Don't do that kind of thing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I appreciate your work on ensuring objectivity in Islamic articles. As far as infinitesimal calculus is concerned, you have admitted yourself on the talkpage that you are not fully knowledgeable about the area. You should therefore stick to areas you are knowledgeable in. Tkuvho (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of lack of knowledge is the first step towards knowledge. You haven't got that far yet. Regardless: your comment remains unacceptable; don't repeat it. I have a degree in maths, which is more than sufficient expertise to edit in the area William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the comment I boldfaced is not unacceptable. Tkuvho (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are flinging around claims of lack of knowledge. You really need to stop doing that, partly because (as I've said, and others have told you too) it just isn't a good way to try to win debates, and because your own knowledge in this area appears quite weak William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William M. Connolley, My knowledge is weak. True. Let's try again. I left some comments at Talk:Ghosts of departed quantities that you have not responded to. Try to concentrate on what appears to be a content dispute, and avoid prologing personal recriminations. Tkuvho (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing I see there from you is a deliberate insult. I have deliberately avoided responding in kind. Perhaps you could do the right thing: remove that comment, and repeat whatever it is you wanted to discuss, but in polite terms William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody should try to step back from a conflict and try to resume best behavior. Tkuvho, since I have often agreed with you on various content questions, I hope you understand that I mean you well, when I state that I am concerned about your tone here. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's focus on the next section. Tkuvho (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that Tkuvho has given me similar advice at times, for which I remain grateful. :-) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Ghosts_of_departed_quantities#Content_disagreement. Tkuvho (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen Semmes has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  CrossTempleJay  talk 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible PROD. Semmes is a world leader in metric analysis and has an endowed chair, which makes him easily pass PROF.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be a terrible article, but it isn't obviously a terrible prod. The only source in the article is the chap's own homepage. If you meant to say "this chap is obviously notable" then you'll have no trouble finding sources William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True true. A few minutes on Math Reviews found a suitable statement, which is now quoted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your tone. There is no need to get hostile, it turns that I am a) published, b) done research into Bishop (both through his writings and interviewing mathematicians who knew him personally) and written about him as part of the thesis writing requirement for my university that I chose to do on constructivism. Now I'll be frank I never attempted to publish that paper, and I am pretty sure I would have little trouble now if I tried. But it is not really the point. You do not "know me from adam". You have no inkling to what I have or have not published, and you could not possibly have any justification for making such claims.

As a side note, in a case like this it might be better, if you know of a reference, to cite the contested remark rather then simply reverting. Thenub314 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thenub314, I was referring to the fact that Halmos's claim is sourced/published (see criticism of non-standard analysis), whereas yours is not. Whatever gave you the idea that I meant to assert that you did not publish anything at all? I think that was a very uncharitable interpretation of my edit summary. Obviously I was comparing "Halmos's remark" and "your remark", rather than comparing your publication records. I find it very interesting that you have written about Bishop, and I would certainly encourage you to publish your findings. At any rate, your edits at wiki indicate a broad knowledge and it would have been silly to claim that you are not a published mathematician, which was certainly not my intention. Tkuvho (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, I just need a refresher in AGF. I really was not away aware of Halmos's quote about Bishop, it will have to wait until my next trip to the library before I can read it fully. Bishop was always careful to stop his comments short from publically attacking NSA, at least not beyond his general attack on all of classical mathematics. He was primarily concerned about the pedogogical use of NSA, he may have hated the subject with a passion privately, but publically was always another matter. Unfortunately his book review seems is so venomous, it is difficult not to feel he was attacking the subject. Thenub314 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Halmos quote is at the "criticism" page as I mentioned. I would be very interested in reading your piece on Bishop. You can send it to me via email if you get a chance. Just let me know if you do, as I don't always check it regularly. Tkuvho (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that in his response Keisler attributed Bishop's reaction to a foundational bias on Bishop's part. You may not want to take Keisler's word for it, but that begs the question why you take Bishop's word for it. Tkuvho (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, Bishops attack on Keisler's book was almost surely influenced by his point of view about meaning. He was very clearly against introducing NSA into undergraduate classrooms. What I mean is he always stop short of attacking the field of research. I suspect this was because he was never bother to study it. If I recall correctly by the time Robinson's work appeared he was already writing his book. I don't think there was any sever animosity between Robinson and Bishop personally, at least not that I am aware of. I know for sure Robinson wrote a mostly favorable review of Bishop's book, only finding problems with the fact he didn't give enough credit to the constructivists before him. On the other hand Bishop nearly took a position at Yale, which means (to me) he probably couldn't have felt too negatively about Robinson or his mathematics. But that is of course, my opinion. Thenub314 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that even after examining your comments on Bishop carefully, I am utterly unconvinced by your charitable attitude, which as I already mentioned goes contrary to much sourced material: Halmos, Keisler, etc. However, I am willing to maintain an open mind on this issue (I suppose one always should). Perhaps if I could read your text with all the details I would understand more clearly where you are coming from. Tkuvho (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion should be centralised. Having the same discussion in two places is bad. Hence my collapse. Please think about this before undoing it again [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Larry Guth has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to end up with a 3RR violation, so I decided it is best to simply discuss this with you here. You had said in one of your edit summaries that it was community consensus to include these links in bibliographies. Can you please give me a link to the discussion, guideline, etc? As far as I know this is borderline OR, we are going out doing the research to find out which books are notable, and reporting our results to highlight to the readers what we think is important. But then we are the ones emphasizing these books are important.

The difficulty is that what we think is important is not supposed to be the issue. Everything has to be referenced, that was something I learned early on. Wikipedia is not meant to contain the truth, it is about verifiable information. Thankfully those two things almost always agree. And my opinion has nothing do with you personally. I spent a couple of days of my own time digging through the library to find a minimal set of books which covered all the formulas in the Fourier transform page. Even when I knew how to do the integrals involved and I could verify the results were correct, readers may not be able to verify without a reference. Thenub314 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thenub, I think I agree with the gist of what you wrote, but there is another factor here, namely that you and I both have jobs outside of wiki and don't have unlimited time to devote to this. These pages follow a natural evolution that might sometimes be in tension with some specifics of wiki regulations, but the danger of the prod is that if the page is not high up on my "watched" list, I might forget about it and it will be deleted by a mindless robot. This would result in a loss of time and effort I spent developing these pages. So if I delete the prods please don't misunderstand this as anything other than making sure I beat a mindless bot. Certainly references will have to be provided eventually. Tkuvho (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TKUVKO

I did many changes were made on the Hebrew site on the Emanuel page under "education"

They were wiped out within a couple of hours with no explanantion

Hebrew is not my first language. Can you look on the page and the histories under Becky613? I regret that I did not save a full page to forward to you. I am sure I complied with Wiki policies. Many thanks

see עמנואל Wiki page

Becky613 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tkuvko,

are you still available to evaluate the Wiki page on Immanuel Beis Yaakov? I did not enable my email as I did not want my address all over wiki...would be willing to write in private.

Becky613 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gmail now.

How can I get it to you? Thanks Becky613 (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Metric Structures for Riemannian and Non-Riemannian Spaces has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The book may or may not be notable, but this article isn't of any use, consisting of little more than chapter headings

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this ridiculous PROD.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing ridiculous about that prod. I am surprised that you are opposing it, but apparently WP:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books sets an amazingly low standard for notability of academic books. Hans Adler 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, this may be the most influential book in differential geometry and metric analysis of the 1980s-1990s. Just its chapter on the concentration of measure (from Milman and Lindenstrauss) has profoundly influenced functional analysis and probability. It's obviously notable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explain why, please use the article talk page. Otherwise I'll be AFDing it, which I'd rather not do if you've got a good reason to keep it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tkuvko

Hope all is well with you. Write back if you can, even if to say you cannot assist me right now. I have Gmail now. Will enable if you like. Thanks Becky613 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done according to your instructions Becky613 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkuvho!

Thanks for your support.

I reformatted your comment, and hope that you don't mind. Please accept my apologies if the formatting was improper.

I also noted that I had mistaken "hand palm" for an insult talk to the hand, which is why I was upset. (Black Kite graciously accepted my apology for my mistake and over-reaction.)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

• I removed Category:Calculus from Fundamental theorem of calculus because Fundamental theorem of calculus is in the category Category:Theorems in calculus.
  • Category:Calculus is a parent of Category:Theorems in calculus, so by Wikipedia:Categorization, it should be removed.
• "fundamental theorem of what exactly?" - Fundamental theorem of calculus is the article title, to which the question is answered
  • Are you suggesting a new subcategory?

thanks Brad7777 (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Intellectica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crusio (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created Category:Articles with separate introductions. You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic concepts of quantum mechanics (2nd nomination). RockMagnetist (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I hate PROD tags, but please add secondary sources before someone else tags the article.

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What kind of secondary sources do you have in mind? Tkuvho (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, I understand the problem. I had it e.g. with the article about Jean Ginibre, which was indeed tagged for deletion. There I argued that WP:PROF #2 applies (this is kind of ridiculous, since Ginibre is much more famous than the Langevin prize he received). I think you have to choose which item of WP:PROF you want to defend. If it is #1, with the book as proof, move the MR to the ref-s section (btw, there is also . Zbl 0906.55001. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)).

Sasha (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude is, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. This author is eminently notable based on mathscinet and google scholar cites. Tkuvho (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting nowhere fast. So it might be best about the reverting directly and try to come to some understanding. Since we both have the ability to undo, we could go back and forth like this endlessly. Can we please try to find some new wording that suits us both? I thought we had done that when you said it was OK to take the sentences out entirely and just say there were positive and negative reviews. But, I was most definitely frustrated when you inserted the same exact wording you were using before, and continue to do so.

On the other hand I recognize I have been just as stubborn, so an adage about glass houses and stones comes to mind. But per WP:3RR, both of are libel to get blocked at any time if we continue like this. Let's find a common ground. Perhaps we can add a section on controversy where we discuss Bishop's review and its responses in more detail? Thenub314 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Semen Samsonovich Kutateladze requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tkuvho, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Semen Samsonovich Kutateladze, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added the comment to this page that "Cauchy used infinitesimals to define basic calculus concepts". I find this rather concerning because I know form previous conversations with you that your aware this is a disputed concept.

I am aware of the fact that you think this is a disputed concept. However, I am relying on Cauchy page 34 of his Cours d'Analyse. Tkuvho (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the page should say that he did not use infinitesimals, which would also be disputed. Instead I wanted to point edits like this that add one side of POV in a debate, and neglect to mention the existence of the other POV, are not good. I can understand your objections to the sentence as it was written before, but letting the pendulum swing completely to the other side is not a good solution.

I am also a bit concerned about edits like this. Why are you taking out sourced material from a more or less standard textbook?

Because, as I explained in my edit summary, Boyer is in error here. No point compounding his error by perpetuating it. Tkuvho (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I had a question about this. I checked the book out of the library and I am reading it now (it is a lovely book btw), but as far as I can see he does disagrees with Grabiner about how rigorous Cauchy was (he points out his many mistakes), but doesn't anywhere seem to dispute that Cauchy's work was a precursor to Weierstrass's. Do you have a more specific page number or section you could point to. Thenub314 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See bottom of page 480. Schubring made his share of silly mistakes, but this point he got right. Tkuvho (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to reply to each of your comments in turn

• If it was just me then I could understand but you know for example Grabiner; Boyer, etc write that he defined the basic concepts of calculus in terms of limits and not infinitesimals. They are not the only two, so please don't make this about my opinion, which as far as I know I have never directly expressed in writing.
• Why do you say he is in error? I usually try to avoid quoting policy... but: "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." So if there is a reason to believe this is in error, we can turn to other sources, but I haven't seen any particular reason to believe that he is.
• Reading the bottom of 480, I see nothing about Grabiner or Weierstrass or anything that really supports the current wording. Perhaps we could agree to say that Schubring disagrees with Grabiner about how rigorous Cauchy's calculus was? Thenub314 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi N, You seem to have missed the point of my comment. Both of us have been around wiki long enough to know that personal opinions carry little weight here. Rather, modern historians who are up to date on the recent literature consider Boyer to be out of date, and moreover some of his errors have been documented in the literature. Tkuvho (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point about Schubring's comment is that Cauchy's approach is linked to the approach of the 18th century. I referred you to his summary at the end, but throughout the article he makes comments about Cauchy's notion of limit that justify his final conclusion. He is very sceptical about viewing Cauchy as a proto-Weierstrass. Tkuvho (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The specific claim of Boyer's that you included and I deleted was that "cauchy based infinitesimals on limits". Did you see anybody else saying this? Tkuvho (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in reverse order: As it turns out several books state Cauchy based infinitesimals on limits. For example, Schubring, V. Katz or Grabiner. I haven't tried to make an exhaustive list but it seems a pretty common statement on the subject.

Saying that he is linked to the 18th century is doesn't mean he feels that Cauchy's approach is proto-Weierstrass. He specifically seems concerned with that hero worship when it comes to Cauchy, and dismisses the idea that Cauchy's mathematics was rigorous. But he is quite clear that Cauchy based calculus in limits, included infinitesimals because he was under pressure to, and he hasn't yet made any claims that Cauchy did not view limits in terms of inequalities^*. But he points out that in various ways, such as his view of a function, he was more like the mathematicians that came before him then those that came after. But none of this says his work wasn't a precursor to that of Weierstrass. ^* At least I should say not yet, as I haven't finished reading.

You'll forgive me if I do not take your word on what modern historians believe. I can believe that there are some points in his book that are disagreed with by modern historians, and in this case they will generally write papers on the subject and those will be the type of thing we can cite. As his statements about limits in Cauchy are often repeated, it seems unlikely he is viewed as being incorrect on this subject. Thenub314 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, Schubring acknowledges that Cauchy did not base limits on real inequalities. Grabiner states precisely the opposite. This is the basis of her claim that Cauchy anticipated epsilontics. This is precisely the point Grabiner and Schubring diagree about. What does Victor Katz say exactly about basing infinitesimals on limits? Tkuvho (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you are a better mathematician than Boyer, perhaps I can convince you that if Cauchy defined both infinitesimals and limits in terms of variable quantities, it would be a non-sequitur to assume a kind of commutativity and declare that he based infinitesimals on limits. the limit of a variable quantity is zero if the variable quantity becomes an infinitesimal. This is not defining infinitesimals in terms of limits, but defining limits in terms of variable quantities. Tkuvho (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hasten to add that this is not my personal opinion but rather material that can be sourced. Tkuvho (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread what I wrote, if he does state that Cauchy did not base limits on inequalities, I haven't found it. For example, Katz says in his discussion on limits in Cauchy that he defined an infinitely small quantity in terms of limits. He further repeats it again in his discussion of Cauchy's definition of continuity. Pages 708-710 in the edition I am looking at. Finally, I suppose I should be flattered you see me as a better mathematician of than Boyer, but the real question is am I a better historian. I take it when you write "the limit of a variable quantity is zero if the variable quantity becomes an infinitesimal" your providing your translation of Cauchy? As I understand from Schubring, 0 was something of a special case, and had its own definition. Thenub314 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are past 3RR here, I plan to mention this at the appropriate noticeboard. Thenub314 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see clearly now that you are a pure rather than applied mathematician, otherwise how does one account for the fact that you can't count to 3 ;) I am not past 3RR. Tkuvho (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tkuvho, you've been reported at WP:AN3#User:Tkuvho reported by User:Thenub314 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you've violated the three-revert rule, please note that if you continue to edit war, you can still be blocked for edit warring. Several editors on the page in question appear to have disagreed with your edits. I strongly suggest that you hold off on reverting for the near future and take your disagreement to the article's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to such belligerent "warnings" issued before I had a chance to state my position. You acted upon erroneous information provided by Thenub314, as I detailed at the 3RR page. Tkuvho (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that slakr gave a pretty much pro forma response to the complaint. It's standard practice, when someone is on the edge of violating 3RR, for an admin to ask them to stop. I don't think he intended to be belligerent, and I would guess that he intended to just leave a note and hope that the situation would resolve itself without any further admin involvement. In this case I can see 3 reverts on Dec. 14, so you were indeed right on the edge of violating the 3RR rule. In general I think that admins who respond to the AN3 noticeboard are going to be somewhat legalistic, because they do not want to get into the content issues. They will just look for signs of edit warring. The viewpoint is that the editors have to work out the content issues between themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a heavy-handed comment by EdJohnston below. I would appreciate a comment. Tkuvho (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply<