Hi A1E6! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).
Just a heads up, but the use of \operatorname for functions like etc. is generally inappropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is better than . As you can see, \operatorname fixes inappropriate spacing in the case of functions with fractional arguments. \sin, \cos and so on are exceptions. –A1E6
Please indent your replies and keep conversations in one location; see
Help:Talk
for more details. It's a very small difference, and fiddling with spacing should only be done when really necessary. Moreover, this will leave functions named with Latin alphabet letters inconsistent (e.g. because it's not possible to use \operatorname without making the f set in roman. Plus, doing it like this, the spacing is now wrong on the left instead. Also, testing this on a normal LaTeX distribution, using \opertorname doesn't produce the same effect. So this is just exploiting a weird quirk in the Texvc engine that Mediawiki uses in order to produce spacing that you happen to think is slightly better, but only for greek-letter function names. That's not a good enough reason to make such changes.
It does appear that the spacing is the same as the standard spacing with \cos, \log, \exp, etc. only when \operatorname{} is used. That does not surprise me. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call \cos, \log, \det, \max etc. "exceptions"; rather I would say they are already operatornames. The spacing to their left and right depends on the context, as with \operatorname{}. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for an explanation. A1E6 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Generalized continued fraction, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inverse trig functions
You reverted my change of 2020-09-03 on 2020-09-05. I believe it was valid. I now also have several other changes to the Logarithmic Forms that I believe make them valid everywhere for principal values of the functions, not just on the complement of the branch cuts. I am opening a section called Complex logarithmic forms in the Talk for the article where we can discuss all this if you are interested. Rickhev1 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
Sine, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note, see also
wp:CALC. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I consider my edit to be an improvement for Wikipedia. In my opinion, it might be helpful and interesting for many Wikipedians. But here, bringing up the "no unsourced content" rule seems a bit off, considering that there are no sources at all in the "Arc length" section, yet the stuff still stays there (most importantly the expression of the arc length in terms of the gamma function) and considering that the proof I provided can be easily followed—the proof is in the spirit of many other Wikipedia proofs which are unsourced and stay on Wikipedia.
Unsourced content is not an invitation for more unsourced content, but I do not find strictly obeying the "no unsourced content" rule to be beneficial for anyone in the case of my edit. One could say that unsourced content has still its place on Wikipedia because of how old the edits are and because the community consensus is that they are fine.
In my view, the "no unsourced content" rule is less relevant for mathematics than for any other field of study which has its community on Wikipedia (given that proofs of the theorems are provided). Maybe, if you gave my edit some time, it would still be there, just as the expression in terms of the gamma function mentioned above. Would this make my edit "accepted by community", among dozens of other accepted unsourced contributions?
Imagine how poor would **mathematics** on Wikipedia be if everyone was constantly reverting every contribution that involves no source. Where would such Wikipedia be today?
Also, I do not want to be rude, but if I am not mistaken, in your edit summary, you called the needed citation "inlikely" (I think you meant unlikely), but at the same time, you want me to "take this opportunity to add references to the article"—this is rather contradictory and if anyone is possibly willing to add the references in the future, calling them "unlikely" hardly motivates the editors to do so.
However, if you just don't like my edit or edits of similar nature, I respect that. A1E6 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of liking. Wikipedia needs sources (1) for verifiabiliy, and (2) to make sure that added content is worthwile to be included. If we discover new mathematical truths and the world doesn' care, then Wikipedia cannot take it on board. After all, by design, it's an encyclopedia,
not a textbook. My apologies for the addition of "unlikely", and for the typo . - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
"If we discover new mathematical truths and the world doesn't care..."
I think that "If we discover new mathematical truths and the world doesn't **know**..." suits your thought much better. The words have very different meanings, otherwise I wouldn't be pointing this out.
For the sake of clarity, my edit didn't resemble a textbook at all. There were no instructions, no leading questions and no systematic problem solutions. The way the information was presented had a 100 % "state-the-facts" tone. So I quite don't understand why you're referring me to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
My aim was just to expand the poor and unsourced "Arc length" section. In general, adding unsourced content is not always a good idea, but given the circumstances in the "Arc length" section, I used the WP:IAR as I thought that the edit was definitively improving the section (and I still do, but if you're against it, I am not able to do anything with it unless I have the citations).
I do not want to encourage you to delete anything, but from my view, your actions would be understandable if they included the deletion of the whole unsourced "Arc length" section, otherwise not. Yes, I know, "community consensus", but nothing was preventing you from waiting and possibly seeing how my edit becomes a part of unsourced Wikipedia which is accepted by the whole community and makes the mathematics part of Wikipedia a better place.
Would this be more helpful and more useful for the community than me waiting for someone to publish the result in a journal or some book? I think it would. In case of any doubts (this probably wouldn't have happened, the result is easily verifiable, by the way, but that's not important here), any problems could have been resolved in the article's Talk page.
That is just my opinion, though. A1E6 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the whole unsourced "Arc length" section should be deleted, then, given the fact that it has been sitting there for quite some time, the place to discuss this is the article talk page. Perhaps it is sourced, but not "inline". Perhaps there is no source, but there was some de-facto consensus to keep it anyway. For new content, there is the
For the record, I don't want the section to be deleted. I thought that you could have deleted it a long time ago though, before it even "reached" consensus.
I don't know why you're referring me to WP:PROVEIT when I actually provided a proof. After I provided it, the verifiability was not likely to be challenged. And I'm sorry but, except for the case of creating whole new articles, I can't seem to find the "content must be **worth** mentioning" rule (which you discussed on your talk page with someone) anywhere on Wikipedia policy pages – could you please refer me there, if possible?
Nevertheless, I think that a compromise would be more useful than deleting it all for everyone viewing the article. The readers could make use of the facts presented in my edit, while being alerted by the "Citation needed" tag, as in the case of Anita5192's edit.
With the "Citation needed" tag, it was possible that some editor would actually find the citation and add it there, but now that you've deleted it all, it's not possible for them (unless they're browsing diffs, which is much less probable than just viewing the article). A1E6 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See
wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
464646446446 + 323232323233 is a routine calculation (WP:CALC) and hence is not comparable to my edit. I just want to say that, if anything, leaving the "Citation needed" tag would be more appropriate than deleting it all (see also the above message). A1E6 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I can prove that We take it?
In my experience a
{{cn}} tag for the kind of content that you added would be sitting there for years. - DVdm (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
Dimension maximizing the volume of a fixed-radius ball
Thank you. For many years I've been thinking that I am (almost) alone.
Almost always. Guswen (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. A1E6 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple algebraic expression
Dear A1E6,
I have been attempting to introduce a simple and straightforward simplification of the black hole surface gravity.
Schwarzschild radius is . Hence . Thus a black hole surface gravity is .
This form is simpler as it depends only on D, but the "resistance of the matter" is similar to that that we experienced in our struggle to maintain the unit n-ball picture in the Volume of an n-ball last November [1]. I am not an experienced Wikipedian, so I simply don't know what should I do.
I will appreciate, and in advance I thank you for an advice.
Guswen (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guswen,
The "resistance of the matter" is quite different from the unit n-ball – since the unit n-ball stuff can be backed by sources (but I'm not sure if your derivation can). For what it's worth, I think that your derivation is too simple to be considered "research" (or original research, for that matter), given that you combined two known facts. However, it's understandable that someone, perhaps in the field of physics, can have a different opinion. There can also be notability issues, meaning that even if the derivation is straightforward, it has to be in some reputable sources.
Tarl N. was not satisfied with your contribution, referring to
WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH, in particular: SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. Maybe there's a good chance that someone came up with the same thing as you did – in that case, my advice would be to search for sources. A1E6 (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
For what it's worth, see discussions on article talk page and user talk page. My main objection at this point is mainly "what's the point?". It's not something that has been found meaningful elsewhere (at least not enough to publish), and it's not relevant to the subject of the article, Surface gravity in general. It's something specific to black holes, and an obscure factoid which doesn't seem to have any particular relevance.
I have a lot of objections with how my interaction with Guswen has gone, among other things that they like to forum shop. I've informed the editor what the dispute resolution mechanisms are, and they have either been roundly ignored or misused - they tried 3O and neglected to notify the other parties in the dispute. Didn't matter, the matter was rapidly rejected from consideration. This last instance where they decided that three months after a discussion ended, to simply re-introduce the changes with a comment to the effect of you didn't win, I'm doing it anyway, I found particularly irritating. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lemniscate constant formula
Hi, you have improved the Lemniscate elliptic functions page a whole lot and you have my gratitude for it, I don't understand much but there is aformula that catched my attention which you added in February later you cited a reference which contains the first equality but I think it doesn't contains the second so I would like to ask you how is done (or a reference), thanks in advance and best regards Dabed (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. From Ramanujan's Notebooks Part V by Bruce C. Berndt (p. 326) we have
This is equivalent to the desired result since . A similar result appears in The Lemniscate Constants by John Todd (p. 18, Theorem 18). A1E6 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the second reference but not the first one nevertheless as it is the relevant one added it in the article, hope to get the chance to eventually came across the Ramanujan notebooks. Thanks a lot and best regards. Dabed (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My recurrence relation without was eventually published[1], so I have added it for this article. Maybe some other researcher discovers, on this basis, fractional forms of this sequence, for example (?). However, my edit was again reverted by User:David_Eppstein as "Undo the return of the ridiculous negative-dimensional crankery". Why? Guswen (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein uses the word "crankery" quite frequently. But you still can't add the article yourself (this applies to your associates as well), as self-promotion is prohibited on Wikipedia. A1E6 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't know about this policy. So I will wait until someone else adds it. Guswen (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But MDPI Mathematics is not considered predatory by the National Publication Committee of Norway, for example. Furthermore, this recurrence relation is easily confirmableed by anyone armed with a pencil and a sheet of paper.Guswen (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I provided even many essay sources that contain the hyperbolic lemniscate cotangent. I know the page Bring radical#The Hermite–Kronecker–Brioschi characterization already and I researched all the formulas I entered into the nome article very accurate. I even derived and established these formulas very detailled. Therefore I hope that you will not erase these very important formulas ever again. These formulas are exactly correct and they indeed belong to the nome article. So leave these formulas inside this Wikipedia article! The sources support the formulas. And please do me even a further favour! Please read the German Wikipedia article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringsches_Radikal very carefully! In this article the Bring radical is defined with a positive first derivative and therefore negative to the definition some other sources make. But all these formulas in that article according to the definition made in this article are correct. And this German article with the name "Bringsches Radikal" describes everything even extremely accurate. There are also all these essays that bring forth all these formulas that are standing in this German Wikipedia article. Especially the essay of Charles Hermite and the essays of the mathematicians Young and Runge and all these authors of mathematical essays explain the thing with the modulus and the fifth root radical combinations of the elliptic key and the transformation to the Rogers-Ramanujan continued fractions and everything else very extensively. And all of these definitions of the hyperbolic lemniscate functions I gave in the nome article can also be found in many sources. For this purpose please read the German Wikipedia article Hyperbolisch lemniskatischer Sinus on that page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolisch_lemniskatischer_Sinus I wish you the best understanding and have a nice time!
Lion Emil Jann Fiedler also known as "Reformbenediktiner" Reformbenediktiner (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other four roots, the imaginary roots in this case, can be constructed by putting the imaginary fifth roots of one as a factor before the fifth root of the nome value. Then it looks like this:
But this should not be entered into this formula alone unless the Rogers-Ramanujan R and S continued fractions are replaced by these theta function therms appearing in the definition formulas for R and S:
Then this should give the imaginary four solutions of this Bring-Jerrard quintic equation. This must be the way to produce the other solutions of this quintic equation. Hopefully you can understand this explanation. And I really hope, that I could help you with that information. I see one thing that makes me a bit unsecure. Originally the tangent of the half of the arc cotangent as it is shown in the R and S definition formulas could lead to two different values for imaginary abscissa values because it contains a square root. Unfortunately I am not such a big expert in imaginary mathematics. But I nevertheless hope that my entry at your page was at least a bit helpful. But I swear to you, that I know exactly that the formula I have entered in the nome article is definitely totally correct. And yes, I worked these formulas out by using exactly these essay sourced I have listed at the end of the nome article. And I even made many experiments by myself with this formula and this formula always works for the real solutions. What w value ever I put in, the formula always gives the right solution. I gave the example for w = 3 in the nome article and the formula really produces this value 1.132997565885... of the solution. But I did what I could do and I really gave my very best. I put a lot of effort into the enlargement of this elliptic nome Wikipedia article. So I really hope that no formula of this article will be erased. I hope that every single formula will stay inside very well preserved. My work was not just a theory finding, it really was thorough research in the literature and I only used what was well documented. Hopefully nobody will delete my formulas. I researched all the formulas about the elliptic nome extremely thoroughly and very accurately. I checked the values in the value list of the nome accurately and carefully for correctness. And then I entered all these formulas. And the many infinite sum and product identities I could find out by making a lot of calculations, computations and experiments. I also wrote down the nome formulas on many of my papers and calculated also on these papers. And so I found everything out. And I have this big wish, that every single mathematically interested reader of the elliptic Wikipedia articles is informed in a very brillant way. The readers shall get the best formula knowledge they can ever get. This is really my great wish I totally want to fulfill. Now I want to ask you one thing. Is my behaviour acceptable? Or did I go to far? Am I allowed to behave that way and to enter one formula after the other one into all these mathematical Wikipedia articles? I really want to share my knowledge with the other mathematically interested humans in the world. I never did study mathematics. But it is my big hobby. And I love mathematics very much. Mathematics is my favourite subject since I was a child. And I also dream a lot of mathematics. The same thing I made in my childhood. I am even interested a little bit more in scientific subjects than in humans. This has something to do with the fact, that I have Asperger's syndrome in myself. Asperger's syndrome is a special kind of autism and I really have it. I belong to the one percent of humanity that has this mental aptitude. But I am proud of it. And hopefully you will perceive my interventions in the pages of Wikipedia with positive feelings. I see in writing these Wikipedia articles a great commission or a great task, which was entrusted to me by the almighty creator of the world. And I want to fulfill this big plan. For me, writing the Wikipedia articles is sometimes even like a great passion or maybe even a vehement drug that I can not resist. But it is always a big joy for me and it makes me lucky. Now I explained you very much and gave you a big amount of information. I wish you a very good time and a lot of success. Yours faithfully and sincerely! Lion Fiedler also known as Reformbenediktiner Reformbenediktiner (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:CALC. I'm not going to remove your contribution again, but note that anyone willing to remove it in the future has the right to do so. A1E6 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright! I will be much more careful from now on. And I watched out, that I do not enter results of original research. I really watched out, so that I do not produce any complications. I made some entries into the article Jacobi elliptic functions. This time I behaved the right way. I did not make original research but I really used the Literature. The sequence and its correlations were found out already by many mathematicians I quotated and citated in the Literature list at the end of this article and I was careful. And the fraction formulas for K were also found out by mathematicians. This time I only formulated the formulas more accurate. Hopefully I did everything right this time. I do not want to provocate and I do not want to cause trouble. I just want to help and to inform the mathematically interested readers. But I want to get one special answer on one important question. How exactly can I notice if I did everything correct? How can I get secure, that I did not make an original research by entering formulas in Wikipedia articles? Making this difference is sometimes a bit difficult for me. Maybe I should wait an intermediate time until I produce the next formulas in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps I should wait until the other Wikipedia users will read my formulas accurately and controlled everything and checked if everything is acceptable. Yes, I think that the next time I will enter formulas in Wikipedia articles will be in a few months. But then I definitely start to add good formulas into the Wikipedia articles again. I feel sorry, that I confused you and other Wikipedia users. I just wanted to give my best. I will promise that I avoid this mistake named original research and I focus a lot more on the correctness of the literature. Maybe I should really wait for a longer time with all my productions in the English Wikipedia articles. The users on the German Wikipedia articles could get along with my formulas in an intermediate way. Maybe I should tell you, that my Wikipedia account with the name Reformbenediktiner indeed belongs to the German Wikipedia. I have been working for the German Wikipedia pages for many months and even years. I dealt with many topics in the Wikipedia articles already. But my focus is located on the mathematical Wikipedia articles. Have a nice time!
@Reformbenediktiner: I've already noticed that a large part of your contributions to German Wikipedia is original research. However, English Wikipedia is more popular and there are much more people guarding the articles. So you should be very careful on English Wikipedia. When you're adding something to English Wikipedia from a source, try to minimize "modifications" to the equations, otherwise it can be labeled as original research and removed. You shouldn't "wait" with your contributions to English Wikipedia – it's not a place for original research; instead you should make an English mathematical blog (or write a book) where you can add as much original research as you want – I admire your work. A1E6 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today I have learned that the subject of my PhD thesis, Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric has been proposed for deletion ([[2]]), as this is allegedly a misconception. Since the publication of this concept by Springer-Verlag in 2004 it has been applied in 132 studies, according to [3]. Thus the argument that it "has been cited a couple of times" is void. In [4] it has been classified as an example of a "diffuse metric".
May I ask you to contribute to the discussion? Guswen (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guswen: You should mention this on the AfD. A1E6 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will. I'm gathering arguments at the moment. Guswen (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
On the section 'Zeros, poles and symmetries' in the lemniscatic elliptic functions
I was wondering if there were more resources regarding the functions M(z) and N(z) -- particularly their infinite product form, defining differential equations and power series. I am still learning this subject and this seems very important.
I'm having some difficulty looking up Gauss's original work as well. And I will likely have to translate it.
I also did not see a source for the differential equation statement, so I thought to ask.
Thank you very much for your work. I've seen various edits to that page lately and I always excitedly look to see what's new. It's like a mathematical Christmas everyday. 15:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the power series (and the differential equation) appear only in Gauss' original work. It's freely available here: [5] (power series; there's an error on the page – the coefficient of should be , not ), [6] (differential equation). A1E6 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! 23:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)