User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

19:18, 10 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

Hi Olegalexandrov. I was planning on editing the page again, but wanted to consult you beforehand. I think that the apostrophe in the bottom link needs to be escaped; otherwise Wikipedia fails to recognize the enclosed text as a link. On the flip-side, thanks for cleaning up after me! I messed up on standardization of 'x' and 'n', 'x_n', and 'valid' is much better than 'correct'. I am wondering, however, about your excess of links. For the words (take 'number theory' for example) that are throughout the document, I personally think that only one reference should be linked, presumably at the top. Since that was a bulk of your edit, though, I decided to ask you beforehand; I didn't want to completely reverse your edit! ('Recursive function' is also linked more than once.) Also, I completely realize my ambiguity in the statement, "The beauty of Newton's Iteration for finding the integer square root of a number n is that it can use solely integers," and was wondering what you thought about this statement: "The beauty of Newton's Iteration as used to find the integer square root of a number n is its inherent ability to stay within the set of integers, requiring no use of floating-point arithmetic." That was definitely what I trying to get at. Thanks! --Iamunknown 08:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10:16, 11 December 2004]

Olegalexandrov

10:16, 11 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

10:21, 11 December 2004 65.4.141.207

10:23, 11 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

10:30, 11 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

16:03, 11 December 2004 Iamunknown

I did make some edits on the page Integer square root, but only very few changes! Wikipedia misteriously merged my changes with somebody else's changes! All I did was put n instead of x in some place, and x_k instead of x somewhere else. So, please feel free to revert all other changes, I have no idea who made them. --

17:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, to make it clear, I did not add those links to number theory or anything else. About the statement, "The beauty of Newton's Iteration as used to find the integer square root of a number n is its inherent ability to stay within the set of integers, requiring no use of floating-point arithmetic", do you mean that every single operation is performed in the integers? I mean, after you divide two numbers, you round the result to the nearest integer, and same after any other operation? If so, maybe this has to be mentioned. What was not clear to me is what "stau within the set of integers" means, and how to achive that. --

Olegalexandrov

17:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

18:05, 11 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

18:07, 11 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

18:29, 11 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

Thanks for the info about the excess links; I will be reverting that soon. I do mean that every operation can be performed in integers. About the statement,

The beauty of Newton's Iteration as used to find the integer square root of a number n is its inherent ability to stay within the set of integers, requiring no use of floating-point arithmetic,

I mean the function itself is wholly algebraic. It uses fractions, yes, but fractions are merely two integers placed atop and beneath one another. Keeping that into perspective, you could retain their integer identites and continue on with your calculation (still remaining in the set of integers) and when you have reached the desired accuracy, then do your final division. --Iamunknown 21:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Got it now! You meant to say that you use rational numbers, not integers. Then it all makes sense! So maybe you should write on the integer square root page that finding the square root directly gives you irrational numbers, while doing Newton's method gives you rational numbers. What do you think? --

Olegalexandrov

22:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! That is much easier to understand than what I previously had written. I'll definitely add that right now. Thanks, Olegalexandrov! --Iamunknown 22:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I moved some of our discussion on the Talk:Integer square root page, I have a remark in there. --

22:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

09:49, 12 December 2004

Olegalexandrov

Wow. I love your complete edit of the page now. It is a lot better, I must say. Where did you learn to write so expositorally like that? I feel like I'm reading a research paper; it's so well improved! Thanks! --Iamunknown 16:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am a postdoc now, had some time to practice writing. :) By the way, I really had great fun yesterday trying to prove that, for Newton's method applied to , it is enough to have | xk + 1 − xk | < 1 to guarantee that isqrt(n) equals xk + 1 rounded down to an integer. The proof is not as trivial as it looks, it might happen that and xk + 1 are very close to one another, but still have some integer in between! So you gave me a good excuse to do some very pleasant elementary mathematics yesterday. --

Olegalexandrov

16:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oleg, you said in my user talk page that you worked out a proof of the necessity for error compensation using Newton's method for finding the integer square root. I personally don't know how you would go about proving it, but if you feel that it is appropriate for the article (if it isn't too long or complex, I would assume), then feel free to put it in there. I personally would love that; I find mathematical proofs enjoyable to create! Thanks! --Iamunknown 18:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On posting the proof. I think this is one of those proofs which are important, but don't do anything to illuminate the subject matter. So, it is one of those proofs which authors usually put in the appendix, and not in the main paper. Thus, I would rather not post it. But I did enjoy proving it! --

Olegalexandrov

22:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your definition of "improper integral" as one with infinite bounds of integration is basically incorrect, for reasons that I think the article makes clear. In particular, the integral

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{dx \over x^{2}+1}\,}$

need not be interpreted as an improper integral, i.e., need not be defined as

${\displaystyle \lim _{b\to \infty }\int _{0}^{b}{dx \over x^{2}+1}\,}$

since it can be defined as a Lebesgue integral instead (although actually computing this integral is perhaps best done by finding that limit). On the integral

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{\sin x \over x}\,dx}$

cannot be construed as a Lebesgue integral because the integrals of the positive and negative parts are both infinite. Michael Hardy 03:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Considering that for any definite Riemann integral with infinite limits of integration, the limit-integral process is requisite, and that for a Lebesgue "properply improper" integral, the limit-integral process is not requisite, —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs

) .

No! It is precisely for the "properly improper" cases that that limit process is requisite! The integral

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{\sin x \over x}\,dx}$

is defined as

${\displaystyle \lim _{b\to \infty }\int _{0}^{b}{\sin x \over x}\,dx.}$

—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Michael Hardy (talk • contribs

) .

I think we should include both methods explicitly. This way we do not stifle the agents of learning for the user, but also educate them on two of the more common (am I making too broad an assumption?) integrals.
I have heard of Lebesgue integrals, but have never learned how to evaluate them (how do you?), and I know they are not taught until at least a standard Calculus III course, if even then.
Now, questions: (1) for the integral ${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{\sin x \over x}\,dx}$, is the lower limit of integration considering to be infinity? I thought it would be indeterminate. (2) How do you evaluate the aforementioned integral? (3) Is the Riemann integral really as decrepit as you make it sound?
Thanks. --Iamunknown 04:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read that someone thinks I made the Riemann integral sound decrepit. To be continued ... Michael Hardy 21:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As nifty as the Lebesgue integral is, however, you actually evaluate it, it seems like you don't need a Riemann integral. Sorry for interrupting. --Iamunknown 21:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You ask how to evaluate a Lebesgue integral. Often it's by the fundamental theorem of calculus, as with the Riemann integral. But Lebesgue's convergence theorems are also available. See dominated convergence theorem. A sequence of perfectly Riemann-integrable functions can converge to a function that is, for example, nowhere continuous, and thus not Riemann integrable. But Lebesgue's convergence theorems still apply.

I've edited the article to take your concerns into account to some extent; take a look. Michael Hardy 00:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on a revision of the Covenant Theology article. The current version is unsatisfactory. If you are interested in giving feedback and helping with the revision, see

 – 23:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the

) 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged the Moriz Rosenthal article for

17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When I originally came across the page, I felt it had a weak opening paragraph. Wikification, however, does not concern that. Now that I look at the article again, I myself wonder if there is any wikifcation to be done in the article. I was mistaken in tagging the article. Please feel free to remove the tag. --Iamunknown 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag just now, thanks for letting me know. Metros232 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew this might have happened. Allow me to explain. I searched High and Low for a decent photo of Voice Actor Eric Vale, this was the only one that I could find of him where I can clearly see his face, the photo was on a website dedicated to covering the events of A-Kon 2003. I am unsure what the qualifies of as I assume it was a photo that someone in the audience took, the author is likely going to be impossible to find. Exactly what kind of copyright would I need to cover this? —The preceding

) 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I admire that you found that photo. I too looked many places, but I found no photos of Eric Vale, not even this one. But as per

correspondence to grant use to Wikipedia, or unless the use of the photograph is released under a copyleft, then I feel that the use of the image is a violation of the copyright held by whomever shot the photograph. Please feel free to reply. --Iamunknown

03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted the author and will be waiting to hear back from he/she. If he/she allows us to use this photograph then it will be allowed for all photos from that website--Jack Cox 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure that the author understands that for the image to be able to be used by Wikipedia, he or she must either

1. release it under the
   GFDL
   or a GFDL-compatible license, in which case any user (whether Wikipedia or otherwise), could use his or her image for free or commerical use, for which he or she would be entitled no royalites or compensation; or
2. ask him or her to allow Wikipedia to use it under the GFDL or a GFDL-compatible license, in which case he or she would also be agreeing that their picture (or text) can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which he or she is not entitled to royalties or compensation.

Finally, good luck! I have never attempted to persuade a copyright holder to do either of these (similar) options. If you need any help, I know that you could read more about the law behind this at

example requests for permission

.

--Iamunknown 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You moved the

request to the list of rejected requests upon closing it. Note that closed requests should simply be removed from the examinations page instead of moving them to the list of rejected requests. --Easyas12c 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright of the picture of the Mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson I found the following disclaimer of copyright on the official Salt Lake City's web site: http://www.slcgov.com/disclaimer.htm . This would seem to indicate that there is no fair use question with this image. I am going to put it on Commons. Alex756 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The information on the moons of Saturn and Uranus is in the articles themselves. For example, Tethys: Dimensions are 1080.8×1062.2×1055 km. Because only one of the axes is signifigantly longer, what you have is a prolate sphereoid. Compare to 4 Vesta, which has dimensions of 578×560×458 km. Two of the axes are signifigantly longer than the third, so you have an oblate spereoid. Many of the moons of the gas giants are in fact prolate, because they're being stretched by tidal forces from thier primaries. There are several images of Mimas that show this clearly. shaggy 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't spam Wikipedia:Spam. I am advising you to no longer post any more messages to my user talk page, if you do I will report you to the admins. Thank you MapleTree 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop soliciting meatpuppets Please immediately stop soliciting meatpuppets. Please read the following from the

.

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia....

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

You posted the exact same message "Could use votes to save this article [List of doomsday scenarios], thanks" on the following fifty-eight pages. This is soliciting meatpuppets. Again, please stop now.

--Iamunknown 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

MapleTree 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Slp1, how do you know the IPA pronunciation? I would like to help by adding pronunciations as opposed to just adding the templates, but I don't know how to find out the pronuncations (like for 'Ewa Beach) or how to transcribe them into IPA. Thanks! --Iamunknown 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I learnt IPA during phonetics courses at university. If you want to learn IPA then a course is probably the best plan, but otherwise there are books as well as articles and exercises on the internet (including wikipedia). It is worth training yourself to really listen and feel words a bit, as it is so easy to get misled by the spelling in English. I hope this helps. --Slp1 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some references to Alix Rosenthal to help establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the Afd: I added several references to show the role this school played in developing progressive education in the U.S. Edison 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in regards to the Image:Claremont Res 91 Oak Fire.png in question. I uploaded this photo under the licensing stating that "This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots." (And there is only one in this article.) The purpose of the screenshot is that it's the only image of that event that exists from 1991, and a very low resolution on top of that. I'd be happy to clarify the fair use rationale, but seeing that I'm new to the fair use guidelines, I'm requesting assistance from you in figuring out the fair use rationale. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Gordeonbleu 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response. I appreciate it. =) Gordeonbleu 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A speedy goes on the image page, it does not go into the article the images is placed in,

23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't place a {{

no rationale}}, is exactly the appropriate thing to do. Why did you revert it? --Iamunknown

23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And would please consider un-reverting it? --Iamunknown 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did already though I am not sure why exactly you want it speedied as I understand logos are fair use,

23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it deleted. Logos are fair use, I fully understand that. But

point by tagging this image as a logo, I'm not trying to disrupt any Wikipedia processes, nothing. I am merely tagged the image because it violates the image use policy. Cheers, Iamunknown

00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and sorry for any misunderstanding,

SqueakBox

00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for assuming good faith on my part and for being kind. :) --Iamunknown 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI I replaced the logo -with a rationale and since I work for BitTorrent Inc I can with absolute certainty say that it is a fair use on pages discussing the protocol, client and company. Trapper 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the rationale - please let me know it it's not enough (it was there before but just one line) Trapper 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!! -Bilaber 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm that IP address; forgot to log in C. Nelson

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!

10:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just delete the godd*mn screenshots. I hope by now you have already done so. It seems the Bond community here at Wiki are consist of a bunch of ungrateful snobbish cretins. I would rather spend my energy trying to provide pics on non-007 related entries. Sorry I didn't sign this thing the first time around! KenL 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding 
unsigned comment was added by KenL (talk • contribs
) 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC).